Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. IV. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters.

πρόσωπα. vid. Orat. i. §54. ii. §8. Sent. D. 4. not persons, but characters; which must also be considered the meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. ii. 2. and 10; though it there approximates (even in phrase, οὐκ ἐν διαιρέσεῖ προσώπων) to its ecclesiastical use, which seems to have been later. Yet persona occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27; it may be questioned, however, whether in any genuine Greek treatise till the Apollinarians.

159:842

Heb. ii. 15.

159:843

Prov. viii. 22.

159:844

Sent. D. 9. Orat. 3, §§26–41.

159:845

[See de Incar. §54. 3, and note.]

159:846

Orat. 2, §70.

159:847

Cf. Orat. ii. 6. [See also de Incar. §17.]

Chapter 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, but are names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there is but one Son and Word, &c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him.

15. This then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the Arian heresy; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own words is irreligion brought home to them 848 . But come now and let us on our part act on the offensive, and call on them for an answer; for now is fair time, when their own ground has failed them, to question them on ours; perhaps it may abash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they have fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For the Apostle says, ‘Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God 849 ;’ and John after saying, ‘And the Word was made flesh,’ at once adds, ‘And we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth 850 ,’ so that, the Word being the Only-begotten Son, in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Fountain we have learned from 851 Baruch, by Israel’s being charged with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and may fitly be called of all men atheists 852 , and Christ’s enemies, for they have brought upon themselves these names. But if they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless 853 ; and let them in their madness 854 say, ‘There was once when He was not,’ and, ‘before His generation, Christ was not 855 ;’ and again let them declare that the Fountain begat not Wisdom from itself, but acquired it from without, till they have the daring to say, ‘The Son came of nothing;’ whence it will follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the name of Fountain 856 .

16. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt who has ever so little understanding. But since they mutter something about Word and Wisdom being only names of the Son 857 , we must ask then, If these are only names of the Son, He must be something else beside them. And if He is higher than the names, it is not lawful from the lesser to denote the higher; but if He be less than the names, yet He surely must have in Him the principle of this more honourable appellation; and this implies his advance, which is an irreligion equal to anything that has gone before. For He who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who says, ‘I and the Father are one 858 ,’ whom he that hath seen, hath seen the Father, to say that He has been exalted 859 by anything external, is the extreme of madness. However, when they are beaten hence, and like Eusebius and his fellows, are in these great straits, then they have this remaining plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia 860 , fabled, as a new difficulty: ‘Many words speaketh God; which then of these are we to call Son and Word, Only-begotten of the Father 861 ?’ Insensate, and anything but Christians 862 ! for first, on using such language about God, they conceive of Him almost as a man, speaking and reversing His first words by His second, just as if one Word from God were not sufficient for the framing of all things at the Father’s will, and for His providential care of all. For His speaking many words would argue a feebleness in them all, each needing the service of the other. But that God should have one Word, which is the true doctrine, both shews the power of God, and the perfection of the Word that is from Him, and the religious understanding of them who thus believe.

17. O that they would consent to confess the truth from this their own statement! for if they once grant that God produces words, they plainly know Him to be a Father; and acknowledging this, let them consider that, while they are loth to ascribe one Word to God, they are imagining that He is Father of many; and while they are loth to say that there is no Word of God at all, yet they do not confess that He is the Son of God,—which is ignorance of the truth, and inexperience in divine Scripture. For if God is Father of a word at all, wherefore is not He that is begotten a Son? And again, who should be Son of God, but His Word? For there are not many words, or each would be imperfect, but one is the Word, that He only may be perfect, and because, God being one, His Image too must be one, which is the Son. For the Son of God, as may be learnt from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the Word of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and the Power; for God’s offspring is one, and of the generation from the Father these titles are tokens 863 . For if you say the Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature; and if you think of the Word, you are thinking again of what is from Him, and what is inseparable; and, speaking of Wisdom, again you mean just as much, what is not from without, but from Him and in Him; and if you name the Power and the Hand, again you speak of what is proper to essence; and, speaking of the Image, you signify the Son; for what else is like God but the offspring from Him? Doubtless the things, which came to be through the Word, these are ‘founded in Wisdom’ and what are ‘founded in Wisdom,’ these are all made by the Hand, and came to be through the Son. And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures; for God Himself says by Isaiah the Prophet; ‘My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spanned the heavens 864 .’ And again, ‘And I will cover thee in the shadow of My Hand, by which I planted the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth 865 .’ And David being taught this, and knowing that the Lord’s Hand was nothing else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, ‘In wisdom hast Thou made them all; the earth is full of Thy creation 866 .’ Solomon also received the same from God, and said, ‘The Lord by wisdom founded the earth 867 ,’ and John, knowing that the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom, thus preached, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made 868 .’ And the Apostle, seeing that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing else than the Son, says, ‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages 869 .’ And again, ‘There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him 870 .’ And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, ‘Giving thanks to God and the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption, even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature; for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist 871 .’ For as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is the Image, are they also created in Him 872 . And thus anyone who directs his thoughts to the Lord, will avoid stumbling upon the stone of offence, but rather will go forward to the brightness in the light of truth; for this is really the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men burst with spite 873 , neither religious toward God, nor abashed at their confutation.

Footnotes

159:848

The main argument of the Arians was that our lord was a Son, and therefore was not eternal, but of a substance which had a beginning. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) a.] Accordingly Athanasius says, ‘Having argued with them as to the meaning of their own selected term “Son,” let us go on to others, which on the very face make for us, such as Word, Wisdom, &c.’

159:849

1 Cor. i. 24.

159:850

John i. 14.

159:851

Vid. supr. §12.

159:852

Vid. supr. §1. note 2, bis.

159:853

ἄλογος, ἄσοφος. Vid. infr., §26. This is a frequent argument in the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Son or substantial Word (λόγος), is as great a sacrilege as to deny His Reason, λόγος, from which the Son receives His name. Thus Orat. i. §14. fin. Athan. says, ‘imputing to God’s nature an absence of His Word (ἀλογίαν or irrationality), they are most irreligious.’ Vid. §19. fin. 24. Elsewhere, he says, ‘Is a man not mad himself, who even entertains the thought that God is word-less and wisdom-less? for such illustrations and such images Scripture hath proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend concerning God, we might even from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as is attainable.’ Orat. ii. 32. vid. also iii. 63. iv. 12. Serap. ii. 2.

160:854

Vid. above, §1, note 6.

160:855

These were among the original positions of the Arians; for the former, see above, note 1; the latter is one of those specified in the Nicene Anathema.

160:856

And so πηγὴ ξηρά. Serap. ii. 2. Orat. i. §14 fin. also ii. §2, where Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty God is Father, cannot really believe in Him as a Creator. If the divine substance be not fruitful (καρπογόνος), but barren, as they say, as a light which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to maintain that He possesses the creative energy?’ Vid. also πηγὴ θεότητος, Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. πηγὴ ἐκ πηγῆς, of the Son, Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And Cyril, ‘If thou take from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the generative power (καρπογόνον) of the divine nature so that It no longer is perfect. This then is a token of its perfection, and the Son who went forth from Him apart from time, is a pledge (σφραγίς) to the Father that He is perfect.’ Thesaur. p. 37.

160:857

Arius said, as the Eunomians after him, that the Son was not really, but only called, Word and Wisdom, which were simply attributes of God, and the prototypes of the Son. Vid. Socr. i. 6. Theod. H. E. i. 3, and infr. Orat. ii. 37, 38.

160:858

John x. 30.

160:859

βελτιοῦσθαι

160:860

Vid. de Syn. §15.

160:861

As the Arians took the title Son in that part of its earthly sense in which it did not apply to our Lord, so they misinterpreted the title Word also; which denoted the Son’s immateriality and indivisible presence in the Father, but did not express His perfection. Vid. Orat. ii. §34–36. contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. Æg. 16. Epiph. Hær. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p. 349. Origen (in a passage, however, of questionable doctrine), says, ‘As there are gods many, but to us one God the Father, and many lords, but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so there are many words, but we pray that in us may exist the Word that was in the beginning, with God, and was God.’ In Joan. tom. ii. 3. ‘Many things, it is acknowledged, does the Father speak to the Son,’ say the Semiarians at Ancyra, ‘but the words which God speaks to the Son, are not sons. They are not substances of God, but vocal energies; but the Son, though a Word, is not such, but, being a Son, is a substance.’ Epiph. Hær. 73. 12. The Semiarians are speaking against Sabellianism, which took the same ground here as Arianism; so did the heresy of the Samosatene, who according to Epiphanius, considered our Lord as the internal Word, or thought. Hær. 65. The term word in this inferior sense is often in Greek ῥῆμα. Epiph. supr. and Cyril, de Incarn. Unig. init. t. v. i. p. 679.

160:862

‘If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea (χαρακτῆρα) of Christianity, they would not have said that the Lord of glory was a creature.’ Ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. §2, he says, Arians are not Christians because they are Arians, for Christians are called, not from Arius, but from Christ, who is their only Master. Vid. also de Syn. §38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Afros. 4. Their cruelty and cooperation with the heathen populace was another reason. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. 12.

160:863

All the titles of the Son of God are consistent with each other, and variously represent one and the same Person. ‘Son’ and ‘Word,’ denote His derivation; ‘Word’ and ‘Image,’ His Similitude; ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ His immateriality; ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Hand,’ His coexistence. ‘If He is not Son, neither is He Image’ Orat. ii. §2. ‘How is there Word and Wisdom, unless He be a proper offspring of His substance? ii. §22. Vid. also Orat. i. §20. 21. and at great length Orat. iv. §20, &c. vid. also Naz. Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August. in Joan. xlviii. 6. and in Psalm. xliv. (xlv.) 5.

161:864

Is. xlviii. 13.

161:865

Is. li. 16.

161:866

Ps. civ. 24.

161:867

Prov. iii. 19.

161:868

John i. 1-3.

161:869

Heb. 1:1, 2.

161:870

1 Cor. viii. 6.

161:871

Col. i. 12-17

161:872

Vid. a beautiful passage, contr. Gent. 42, &c. Again, of men, de Incarn. 3. 3; also Orat. ii. 78. where he speaks of Wisdom as being infused into the world on its creation, that it might possess ‘a type and semblance of its Image.’

161:873

διαῤ& 191·αγῶσιν, and so Serap. ii. fin. διαῤ& 191·ηγνύωνται. de Syn. 34. διαῤ& 191·ηγύωσιν ἑαυτούς. Orat. ii. §23. σπαραττέτωσαν ἑαυτούς. Orat. ii. §64. τριζέτω τοὺς ὀδόντας. Sent. D. 16.

Chapter V.—Defence of the Council’s Phrases, “from the essence,” And “one in essence.” Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we ought to look at the sense more than the wording; evasion of the Arians 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 formulæ; protest against their conveying any material sense.

18. Now Eusebius and his fellows were at the former period examined at great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before; on this they subscribed; and after this change of mind they kept in quiet and retirement 874 ; but since the present party, in the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the Saint 875 by whom they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, ‘out of nothing 876 ,’ and ‘He was not before His generation,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘alterable,’ and ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘at the will;’ which are their fables in mockery of the Lord. For the blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, ‘By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that that which is seen was not made of things which do appear 877 .’ But nothing is common to the Word with the ages 878 ; for He it is who is in existence before the ages, by whom also the ages came to be. And in the Shepherd 879 it is written (since they allege this book also, though it is not of the Canon 880 ), ‘First of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into being;’ but this again does not relate to the Son, for it speaks concerning all things which came to be through Him, from whom He is distinct; for it is not possible to reckon the Framer of all with the things made by Him, unless a man is so beside himself as to say that the architect also is the same as the buildings which he rears.

Why then, when they have invented on their part unscriptural phrases, for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse those who are religious in their use of them 881 ? For irreligiousness is utterly forbidden, though it be attempted to disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms; but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though presented in strange phrases 882 , provided only they are used with a religious view, and a wish to make them the expression of religious thoughts. Now the aforesaid grovelling phrases of Christ’s enemies have been shewn in these remarks to be both formerly and now replete with irreligion; whereas the definition of the Council against them, if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth, and especially if diligent attention be paid to the occasion which gave rise to these expressions, which was reasonable, and was as follows:—

19. The Council 883 wishing to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but ‘from God,’ and is ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father, Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase ‘from God’ as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, ‘There is one God, from whom, all things 884 ;’ and again, ‘Old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God 885 .’ But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words ‘from God.’ Accordingly, they wrote ‘from the essence of God 886 ,’ in order that ‘from God’ might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in the sense in which the Son is from Him; for as to the creatures, ‘of God’ is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance 887 , according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure,—nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer,—nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is from certain Angels;—but in that (whereas God is), it was by Him that all things were brought into being, not being before, through His Word; but as to the Word, since He is not a creature, He alone is both called and is ‘from the Father;’ and it is significant of this sense to say that the Son is ‘from the essence of the Father,’ for to nothing originate does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that ‘all things are from God,’ he immediately adds, ‘and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things 888 ,’ in order to shew all men, that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through His Son); and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God 889 , and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was of the essence 890 of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the Council wrote ‘of the essence.’

20. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be described as the True Power and Image of the Father, in all things exact 891 and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in Him without division (for never was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light), Eusebius and his fellows endured indeed, as not daring to contradict, being put to shame by the arguments which were urged against them; but withal they were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that ‘like,’ and ‘always,’ and ‘power,’ and ‘in Him,’ were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As to ‘like,’ they said that it is written of us, ‘Man is the image and glory of God 892 :’ ‘always,’ that it was written, ‘For we which live are alway 893 :’ ‘in Him,’ ‘In Him we live and move and have our being 894 :’ ‘unalterable,’ that it is written, ‘Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ 895 :’ as to ‘power,’ that the caterpillar and the locust are called ‘power’ and ‘great power 896 ,’ and that it is often said of the people, for instance, ‘All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt 897 :’ and there are others also, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, ‘The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge 898 .’ Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, had said the like in writing, having learned it from them, and before him Arius 899 having learned it also, as has been said. But the Bishops discerning in this too their dissimulation, and whereas it is written, ‘Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious that imagine evil 900 ,’ were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is ‘one in essence 901 ’ with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness 902 , and of shewing that the Son’s likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern 903 ); but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote ‘one in essence,’ that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and shew that the Word was other than originated things. For, after thus writing, they at once added, ‘But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other essence, these the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes 904 .’ And by saying this, they shewed clearly that ‘of the essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ are destructive of those catchwords of irreligion, such as ‘created,’ and ‘work,’ and ‘originated,’ and ‘alterable,’ and ‘He was not before His generation.’ And he who holds these, contradicts the Council; but he who does not hold with Arius, must needs hold and intend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the illustration of the truth.

21. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the Council so wrote, and anathematize what the Council anathematized; and then if they can, let them find fault with the expressions. But I well know that, if they hold the sense of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in which it is conveyed; whereas if it be the sense which they wish to complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very complaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talking idly and disordered in mind. And let them blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for thee to consider, and for those ill-instructed men to give ear to. It has been shewn above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring 905 proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by David, ‘My heart uttered a good Word 906 ,’ and, ‘From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee 907 ;’ and the Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, ‘If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father 908 .’ And again; ‘Not that anyone has seen the Father, save He which is from God, He hath seen the Father 909 .’ And moreover, ‘I and My Father are one,’ and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me 910 ,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘I am from the Father, and inseparable from Him.’ And John in saying, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him, 911 ’ spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does ‘in the bosom’ intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father?

22. If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident 912 is in essence, or to have any external envelopement 913 , and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, ‘I am that I am,’ and ‘I am the Lord God 914 ,’ or when Scripture says, ‘God,’ we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of 915 . Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for ‘from God’ written ‘of the essence.’ For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was ‘of God’ and ‘of the essence of God,’ since the word ‘God,’ as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as ‘all things are from God,’ then neither is He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.

23. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of Him as Radiance 916 , thereby to signify His being from the essence, proper and indivisible, and His oneness with the Father. This also will secure His true unchangableness and immutability; for how can these be His, unless He be proper Offspring of the Father’s essence? for this too must be taken to confirm His identity with His own Father. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect, Christ’s enemies should not be startled at the ‘One in essence,’ either, since this term also has a sound sense and good reasons. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the essence of God (for after what has been said this must be a phrase admitted by them), what does this mean but the truth and eternity of the essence from which He is begotten? for it is not different in kind, lest it be combined with the essence of God as something foreign and unlike it. Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He seem in some respect or wholly to be other in essence, as brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign and of other nature, are separated off from each other in nature and virtues, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the pigeon born from the dove 917 ; but though they are considered like, yet they differ in essence. If then it be thus with the Son, let Him be a creature as we are, and not One in essence; but if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in essence. For unless it be proved that He is not from God, but an instrument different in nature and different in essence, surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree 918 .

24. Further, let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of son to father, and the Word’s proper relation towards God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words ‘Offspring’ and ‘Son’ bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase ‘one in essence,’ let us not fall upon human senses, and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light; for this is proper to a son as regards a father, and in this is shewn that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is in point 919 . Who will presume to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign to the sun? rather who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, and the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, ‘Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoso sees this, sees that also?’ but such a oneness and natural property, what should it be named by those who believe and see aright, but Offspring one in essence? and God’s Offspring what should we fittingly and suitably consider, but Word, and Wisdom, and Power? which it were a sin to say was foreign to the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than with Him everlastingly. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and extended His Providence unto all things; by Him He exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless indeed these perverse men make a fresh attempt, and say that the essence of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He Himself foreign in essence as being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the Church cast out, but these now are disguising; and by this they fell from the truth, and were declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in fulness the light from the Father, why is He not rather that which others partake 920 , that there be no medium introduced between Him and the Father? Otherwise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes 921 . And if this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known, and frames the world, and without whom the Father doth nothing, evidently He it is who is from the Father: for all things originated partake of Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather a proper Offspring from the Father, as the radiance from light.

Footnotes

161:874

[Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (2).]

161:875

supr. §7, note 2.

161:876

ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων.

161:877

Heb. xi. 3.

161:878

By αἴων, age, seems to be meant duration, or the measure of duration, before or independent of the existence of motion, which is in measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are creatures, so are the ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an age has a sort of positive existence, though not an οὐσία or substance, and means the same as ‘world,’ or an existing system of things viewed apart from time and motion. Vid. Theodt. in Hebr. i. 2. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages thus considered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3. and God is the King of the ages, 1 Tim. i. 17. or is before all ages, as being eternal, or προαιώνιος. However, sometimes the word is synonymous with eternity; ‘as time is to things which are under time, so ages to things which are everlasting.’ Damasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, and ‘ages of ages’ stands for eternity; and then the ‘ages’ or measures of duration may be supposed to stand for the ἴδεαι or ideas in the Divine Mind, which seems to have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses the Almighty as αἰωνότοκε, parent of the ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Clem. Alex. Hymn. Pæd. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. 5. p. 580. or again, αἰ& 240·νιος. Theodoret sums up what has been said thus: ‘Age is not any subsisting substance, but is an interval indicative of time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate with creation, now with human life.’ Hær. v. 6. If then, as Athan. says in the text, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is independent of duration altogether; He does not come to be in time, but is above and beyond it, or eternal. Elsewhere he says, ‘The words addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, ‘Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages,’ forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured by ages, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were madness to say, “There was once when the Everlasting (αἰ& 240·νιος) was not.” Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander; ‘Is it not unreasonable that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to all of which belongs ‘was not,’ should be said not to be? for, if so, that interval in which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the Father, precedes that Wisdom of God which framed all things.’ Theod. Hist. i. 4. vid. also Basil de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34.

162:879

Herm. Mand. 1. vid. ad Afr. 5.

162:880

[Letter 39, and Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.] He calls it elsewhere a most profitable book. Incarn. 3.

162:881

Athan. here retorts, as it was obvious to do, the charge brought against the Council which gave occasion for this Treatise. If the Council went beyond Scripture in the use of the word ‘essence’ (which however can hardly be granted), who made this necessary, but they who had already introduced the phrases, ‘the Son was out of nothing,’ &c., &c.? ‘Of the essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ were directly intended to contradict and supplant the Arian unscriptural innovations, as he says below, §20. fin. 21. init. vid. also ad Afros. 6. de Synod. §36, 37. He observes in like manner that the Arian ἀγένητος, though allowable as used by religious men, de Syn. §40. was unscriptural, Orat. i. §30, 34. Also Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. Incarn. 80.

162:882

Vid. §10, note 3.

162:883

vid. ad. Afr. 5.

162:884

1 Cor. viii. 6.

162:885

2 Cor. v. 17.

162:886

Hence it stands in the Creed, ‘from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father.’ vid. Eusebius’s Letter, infr. According to the received doctrine of the Church all rational beings, and in one sense all beings whatever, are ‘from God,’ over and above the fact of their creation; and of this truth the Arians made use to deny our Lord’s proper divinity. Athan. lays down elsewhere that nothing remains in consistence and life, except from a participation of the Word, which is to be considered a gift from Him, additional to that of creation, and separable in idea from it; vid. above, §17, note 5. contr. Gent. 42. de Incarn. 5. Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of God and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs so frequently in the Arian controversy, in the number, not only of the creatures, but of things generate, γεννητά. This was the sense in which the Arians said that our Lord was Son of God; whereas, as Athan. says, ‘things originate, being works, cannot be called generate, except so far as, after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also; not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit.’ Orat. i. 56. The question then was, as to the distinction of the Son’s divine generation over that of holy men; and the Catholics answered that He was ἐξ οὐσίας, from the essence of God; not by participation of grace, not by resemblance, not in a limited sense, but really and simply, and therefore by an internal divine act. vid. below, §22. and infr. §31. [The above note has been modified so as to eliminate the erroneous identification of γεννητὸς and γενητός.]

162:887

Cf. de Syn. §35.

163:888

1 Cor. viii. 6.

163:889

When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed to God, or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or the Father the only God, or God is said to be unoriginate, ἀγένητος, this is not in contrast to the Son, but to all things which are distinct from God. vid. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13. Cyril. Thesaur. p 142. ‘The words “one” and “only” ascribed to God in Scripture,’ says S. Basil, ‘are not used in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to those who are not God, and falsely called so.’ Ep. 8. n. 3. On the other hand, when the Father is mentioned, the other Divine Persons are implied in Him, ‘The Blessed and Holy Trinity,’ says S. Athan. ‘is indivisible and one in itself; and when the Father is mentioned, His Word is added, and the Spirit in the Son; and if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.’ ad Serap. i. 14.

163:890

Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, ‘“I am,” τὸ ὂν, is really proper to God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught before Him, nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be.’ Naz. Orat. 30. 18 fin. Also Cyril Dial. i. p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 9. and the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Hær. 73. 12 init. By the ‘essence,’ however, or, ‘substance’ of God, the Council did not mean any thing distinct from God, vid. note 3 infr. but God Himself viewed in His self-existing nature (vid. Tert. in Hermog, 3.), nay, it expressly meant to negative the contrary notion of the Arians, that our Lord was from something distinct from God, and in consequence of created substance. Moreover the term expresses the idea of God positively, in contradistinction to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense, eternal, &c. Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any thing distinct from God as those epithets do.

163:891

ἀπαράλλακτον

163:892

1 Cor. xi. 7.

163:893

2 Cor. iv. 11.

163:894

Acts xvii. 28.

163:895

Rom. viii. 35, who shall separate.

163:896

Joel ii. 25.

163:897

Ex. xii. 41.

163:898

Ps. xlvi. 7.

163:899

vid. supr. §8, note 3.

163:900

Prov. xii. 20.

163:901

vid. ad Afros. 5, 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, ‘If we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He is one in essence, ὁμοούσιον,’ determined the Council on the adoption of the term. de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed ‘of the essence,’ in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had disclaimed ὁμοούσιον already, Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. It was a word of old usage in the Church, as Eusebius of Cæsarea confesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13 fin. has the translation ‘unius substantiæ:’ (vid. Lucifer de non Parc. p. 218.) as he has ‘de substantia Patris,’ in Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theognostus and the two Dionysii, infr. §25, 26. And before them Clement had spoken of the ἕνωσις τῆς μοναδικῆς οὐσίας, ‘the union of the single essence,’ vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has ‘per substantiæ communionem,’ de Trinit. 31.

163:902

The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and the image of the Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original, differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed the strong word ἀπαράλλακτος unvarying [or rather exact] image, vid. beginning of §20. which had been used by the Catholics (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, or ‘according to substance.’ Even this strong phrase, however, κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν, or ἀπαραλλάκτως ὅμοιος, did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. that ‘like’ applies to qualities rather than to essence, §53. Also Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. ‘while in itself,’ says the same Father, ‘it is frequently used of faint similitudes and falling very far short of the original.’ Ep. 9. n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word ὁμοούσιον as implying, as the text expresses it, ‘the same in likeness,’ ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁμοιώσει, that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. the passage about gold and brass, §23 below, Cyril in Joan. 1. iii. c. v. p. 302. [See below de Syn. 15, note 2.]

164:903

Gen. v. 3.

164:904

vid. Euseb.’s Letter, supr.

164:905

γέννημα, offspring; this word is of very frequent occurrence in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6–8. explicitly disavows the word, as an unscriptural invention of Eunomius. ‘That the Father begat we are taught in many places: that the Son is an offspring we never heard up to this day, for Scripture says, “unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.”’ c. 7. He goes on to say that ‘it is fearful to give Him names of our own to whom God has given a name which is above every name;’ and observes that offspring is not the word which even a human father would apply to his son, as for instance we read, ‘Child, (τέκνον,) go into the vineyard,’ and ‘Who art thou, my son?’ moreover that fruits of the earth are called offspring (‘I will not drink of the offspring of this vine’), rarely animated things, except indeed in such instances as, ‘O generation (offspring) of vipers.’ Nyssen defends his brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p 105. In the Arian formula ‘an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,’ it is synonymous with ‘work’ or ‘creature.’ On the other hand Epiphanius uses it, e.g. Hær. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.

164:906

Ps. xlv. 1.

164:907

Psa. 110.3.

164:908

John viii. 42.

164:909

John 6.46.

164:910

John 10:30, John 14:10.

164:911

John 1.18.

164:912

συμβεβηκός. Cf. Orat. iv. 2. also Orat. i. 36. The text embodies the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God’s goodness as an accident, ‘as colour to the body,’ ‘as flame is ruddy and the sky blue,’ Legat. 24. This, however is but a verbal difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, τὸ ὄντως ὂν, and His unity of nature, τὸ μονοφυὲς, as in the number of ἐπισυμβεβηκότα αὐτῶ. Eusebius uses the word συμβεβηκὸς in the same way [but see Orat. iv. 2, note 8], Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections to observe, ‘There are cogent reasons for considering these things as accidents συμβεβηκότα in God, though they be not.’ Thesaur. p. 263. vid. the following note.

165:913

περιβολὴ, and so de Syn. §34. which is very much the same passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen says that ‘neither the immateriality of God nor ingenerateness, present to us His essence.’ Orat. 28. 9. And S. Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that ‘not every thing which is said to be in God is said according to essence.’ de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that there are qualities or the like belonging to Him, περὶ αὐτὸν, it is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words περὶ θεὸν occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, though it would require more words than could be given to it here. Petavius has treated the subject fully in his work de Deo. i. 7–11. and especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no difference between the divine ‘proprietates’ and essence, they speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He is; when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but view His Divine Nature as if in projection (if such a word may be used), and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be divided into genus and difference.

165:914

Exod. 3:14, 15.

165:915

In like manner de Synod. §34. Also Basil, ‘The essence is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God.’ contr. Eun. i. 10 fin. ‘The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded.’ Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. ‘When we say the power of the Father, we say nothing else than the essence of the Father.’ August. de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, ‘Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is essence and being.’ Præp. Evang. xi. 10.

165:916

Athan.’s ordinary illustration is, as here, not from ‘fire,’ but from ‘radiance,’ ἀπαύγασμα, after S. Paul [i.e. Hebrews] and the Author of the Book of Wisdom, meaning by radiance the light which a light diffuses by means of the atmosphere. On the other hand Arius in his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of Hieracas that the Son was from the Father as a light from a light or as a lamp divided into two, which after all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius refers to fire, Orat. iv. §2 and 10, but still to fire and its radiance. However we find the illustration of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Græc. 5. At this early day the illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bearing, as that of fire in Athan.’s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who considered the Son as ‘like the sun’s light in the heaven,’ which ‘when it sets, goes away with it,’ whereas it is as ‘fire kindled from fire.’ Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius, says ‘as light from fire,’ using also the word ἀπό& 207·ῥοια, effluence: vid. also Orig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull. Ap. 21. Theognostus, quoted infr. §25.

165:917

vid. de Syn. §41.

166:918

As ‘of the essence’ declared that our Lord was uncreate, so ‘one in essence’ declared that He was equal with the Father; no term derived from ‘likeness,’ even ‘like in essence’ answering for this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood of resemblance or representation. vid. §20, notes 8, 9.

166:919

Athan. has just used the illustration of radiance in reference to ‘of the essence:’ and now he says that it equally illustrates ‘one in essence;’ the light diffused from the sun being at once contemporaneous and homogeneous with its original.

166:920

Vid. §10 init. note 4.

166:921

The point in which perhaps all the ancient heresies concerning our Lord’s divine nature agreed, was in considering His different titles to be those of different beings or subjects, or not really and properly to belong to one and the same person; so that the Word was not the Son, or the Radiance not the Word, or our Lord was the Son, but only improperly the Word, not the true Word, Wisdom, or Radiance. Paul of Samosata, Sabellius [?], and Arius, agreed in considering that the Son was a creature, and that He was called, made after, or inhabited by the impersonal attribute called the Word or Wisdom. When the Word or Wisdom was held to be personal, it became the doctrine of Nestorius.

Chapter VI.—Authorities in Support of the Council. Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome; Origen.

25. This then is the sense in which they who met at Nicæa made use of these expressions. But next that they did not invent them for themselves (since this is one of their excuses), but spoke what they had received from their predecessors, proceed we to prove this also, to cut off even this excuse from them. Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ, that Theognostus 922 , a learned man, did not decline the phrase ‘of the essence,’ for in the second book of his Hypotyposes, he writes thus of the Son:—

“The essence of the Son is not one procured from without, nor accruing out of nothing 923 , but it sprang from the Father’s essence, as the radiance of light, as the vapour 924 of water; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien; but it is an effluence of the Father’s essence, which, however, suffers no partition. For as the sun remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither does the Father’s essence suffer change, though it has the Son as an Image of Itself 925 .”

Theognostus then, after previously investigating in the way of an exercise 926 , proceeds to lay down his sentiments in the foregoing words. Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, upon his writing against Sabellius and expounding at large the Saviour’s Economy according to the flesh, and thence proving against the Sabellians that not the Father but His Word became flesh, as John has said, was suspected of saying that the Son as a thing made and originated, and not one in essence with the Father; on this he writes to his namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to allege in his defence that this was a slander upon him. And he assured him that he had not called the Son made, nay, did confess Him to be even one in essence. And his words ran thus:—

“And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false charge they bring against me, that I deny that Christ was one in essence with God. For though I say that I have not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief. For I instanced human birth as being evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably parents differed from their children only in not being the same individuals, otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. And my letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances I am unable to produce; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection that I adduced parallels of things kindred with each other; for instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, yet was altogether one in nature with it 927 : and that a stream flowing from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the stream was the water from the fountain”

26. And that the Word of God is not a work or creature, but an offspring proper to the Father’s essence and indivisible, as the great Council wrote, here you may see in the words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, who, while writing against the Sabellians, thus inveighs against those who dared to say so:—

“Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy 928 , making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences 929 and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius’s opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose 930 and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad 931 be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,—a devil’s teaching, not that of Christ’s true disciples and lovers of the Saviour’s lessons. For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them; which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works 932 .’ For the sense of ‘He created,’ as ye know, is not one, for we must understand ‘He created’ in this place, as ‘He set over the works made by Him,’ that is, ‘made by the Son Himself.’ And ‘He created’ here must not be taken for ‘made,’ for creating differs from making. ‘Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee and created thee 933 ?’says Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a work, who is ‘the First-born of every creature, who is born from the womb before the morning star 934 ,’ who said, as Wisdom, ‘Before all the hills He begets me 935 ?’ And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been 936 generated, but nowhere to have 937 come into being; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord’s generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making 938 . Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of ‘work’ the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united 939 . For ‘I,’ says He, ‘and the Father are one;’ and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me.’ For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.”

27. And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father’s, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving 940 Origen also. For what he has written as if inquiring and by way of exercise, that let no one take as expressive of his own sentiments, but of parties who are contending in investigation, but what he 941 definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the labour-loving man. After his prolusions then (so to speak) against the heretics, straightway he introduces his personal belief, thus:—

“If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible Image; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was it not. For when was that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for ‘God is Light’), without a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert the Son’s origin of existence, as if before He was not? But when was not that Image of the Father’s Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He that knows the Father? for let him understand well who dares to say, ‘Once the Son was not,’ that he is saying, ‘Once Wisdom was not,’ and ‘Word was not,’ and ‘Life was not.’”

And again elsewhere he says:—

“But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because of our weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far as in us lies, of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing with Him; and the Wisdom in which He rejoiced; else He must be conceived as not always possessed of joy.”

See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone 942 ; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council 943 , for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us 944 . For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them 945 , but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies.

Footnotes

166:922

Athanasius elsewhere calls him ‘the admirable and excellent.’ ad Serap. iv. 9. He was Master of the Catechetical school of Alexandria towards the end of the third century, being a scholar, or at least a follower of Origen. His seven books of Hypotyposes treated of the Holy Trinity, of angels, and evil spirits, of the Incarnation, and the Creation. Photius, who gives this account, Cod. 106, accuses him of heterodoxy on these points; which Athanasius in a measure admits, as far as the wording of his treatise went, when he speaks of his ‘investigating by way of exercise.’ Eusebius does not mention him at all. [His remains in Routh, Rell. iii. 409–414.]

167:923

Vid. above §15. fin. ‘God was alone,’ says Tertullian, ‘because there was nothing external to Him, extrinsecus; yet not even then alone, for He had with Him, what He had in Himself, His Reason.’ in Prax. 5. Non per adoptionem spiritus filius fit extrinsecus, sed naturâ filius est. Origen. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4.

167:924

From Wisdom vii. 25. and so Origen, Periarch. i. 2. n. 5. and 9. and Athan. de Sent. Dionys. 15.

167:925

It is sometimes erroneously supposed that such illustrations as this are intended to explain how the Sacred Mystery in question is possible, whereas they are merely intended to shew that the words we use concerning it are not self-contradictory, which is the objection most commonly brought against them. To say that the doctrine of the Son’s generation does not intrench upon the Father’s perfection and immutability, or negative the Son’s eternity, seems at first sight inconsistent with what the words Father and Son mean, till another image is adduced, such as the sun and radiance, in which that alleged inconsistency is seen to exist in fact. Here one image corrects another; and the accumulation of images is not, as is often thought, the restless and fruitless effort of the mind to enter into the Mystery, but is a safeguard against any one image, nay, any collection of images being supposed sufficient. If it be said that the language used concerning the sun and its radiance is but popular not philosophical, so again the Catholic language concerning the Holy Trinity may, nay must be, economical, not adequate, conveying the truth, not in the tongues of angels, but under human modes of thought and speech.

167:926

ἐν γυμνασί& 139· ἐξέτασας. And so §27. of Origen, ξητῶν καὶ γυμνάζων. Constantine too, writing to Alexander and Arius, speaks of altercation, φυσικῆς τινος γυμνασίας ἕνεκα. Socr. i. 7. In somewhat a similar way, Athanasius speaks of Dionysius writing κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, economically, or with reference to certain persons addressed or objects contemplated, de Sent. D. 6. and 26.

167:927

The Arians at Nicæa objected to this image, Socr. i. 8. as implying that the Son was a προβολὴ, issue or development, as Valentinus taught. Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. Athanasius elsewhere uses it himself.

167:928

By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be referred in our thoughts to the First as the Fountain of Godhead, vid. §15. note 9, and §19, note 6. It is one of the especial senses in which God is said to be one. Cf. Orat. iii. §15. vid. also iv. §1. ‘The Father is union, ἕνωσις,’ says S. Greg. Naz. ‘from whom and unto whom are the others.’ Orat. 42. 15. also Orat. 20. 7. and Epiph. Hær. 57. 5. Tertullian, before Dionysius, uses the word Monarchia, which Praxeas had perverted into a kind of Unitarianism or Sabellianism, in Prax. 3. Irenæus too wrote on the Monarchy, i.e. against the doctrine that God is the author of evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20. [see S. Iren. fragment 33, Ante-Nic. Lib.] And before him was Justin’s work de Monarchia, where the word is used in opposition to Polytheism. The Marcionites, whom Dionysius presently mentions, are also specified in the above extract by Athan. vid. also Cyril. Hier. Cat. xvi. 3. Epiphanius says that their three origins were God, the Creator, and the evil spirit. Hær. 42, 3. or as Augustine says, the good, the just, and the wicked, which may be taken to mean nearly the same thing. Hær. 22. The Apostolical Canons denounce those who baptize into Three Unoriginate; vid. also Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5. Naz. Orat. 20. 6. Basil denies τρεῖς ἀρχικαὶ ὑποστάσεις, de Sp. S. 38. which is a Platonic phrase.

167:929

And so Dionysius Alex. in a fragment preserved by S. Basil, ‘If because the subsistences are three, they say that they are partitive, μεμερισμένας, still three there are, though these persons dissent, or they utterly destroy the Divine Trinity.’ de Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. expresses the same more distinctly, οὐ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις μεμερισμένας, Expos. Fid. §2. In S. Greg. Naz. we find ἀμέριστος ἐν μεμερισμένοις ἡ θεότης. Orat. 31. 14. Elsewhere for μεμ. he substitutes ἀπεῤ& 191·ηγμένας. Orat. 20. 6. ἀπεξενωμένας ἀλλήλων καὶ διεσπασμένας. Orat. 23. 6. as infr. ξένας ἀλλήλων παντάπασι κεχωρισμένας. The passage in the text comes into question in the controversy about the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας of the Nicene Creed, of which infr. on the Creed itself in Eusebius’s Letter.

167:930

ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν

167:931

The word τριὰς, usually translated Trinity, is first used by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 15. Gibbon remarks that the doctrine of ‘a numerical rather than a generical unity,’ which has been explicitly put forth by the Latin Church, is favoured by the Latin language; τριὰς seems to excite the idea of substance, trinitas of qualities.’ ch. 21. note 74. It is certain that the Latin view of the sacred truth, when perverted, becomes Sabellianism; and that the Greek, when perverted, becomes Arianism; and we find Arius arising in the East, Sabellius in the West. It is also certain that the word Trinitas is properly abstract; and expresses τριὰς or ‘a three,’ only in an ecclesiastical sense. But Gibbon does not seem to observe that Unitas is abstract as well as Trinitas; and that we might just as well say in consequence, that the Latins held an abstract unity or a unity of qualities, while the Greeks by μονὰς taught the doctrine of ‘a one’ or a numerical unity. ‘Singularitatem hanc dico (says S. Ambrose), quod Græce μονότης dicitur; singularitas ad personam pertinet, unitas ad naturam.’ de Fid. v. 1. It is important, however, to understand, that ‘Trinity’ does not mean the state or condition of being three, as humanity is the condition of being man, but is synonymous with three persons. Humanity does not exist and cannot be addressed, but the Holy Trinity is a three, or a unity which exists in three. Apparently from not considering this, Luther and Calvin objected to the word Trinity, ‘It is a common prayer,’ says Calvin: ‘Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us. It displeases me, and savours throughout of barbarism.’ Ep. ad Polon. p. 796.

168:932

Prov. viii. 22.

168:933

Deut. xxxii. 6.

168:934

Col. 1:15, Ps. 110:3Col. i. 15, and Ps. cx. 3.

168:935

Prov. viii. 25.

168:936

γεγεννῆσθαι

168:937

γεγονέναι

168:938

γεγονέναι

168:939

This extract discloses to us (in connexion with the passages from Dionysius Alex. here and in the de Sent. D.) a remarkable anticipation of the Arian controversy in the third century. 1. It appears that the very symbol of ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ‘once He was not,’ was asserted or implied; vid. also the following extract from Origen, §27. and Origen Periarchon, iv. 28. where mention is also made of the ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ‘out of nothing,’ which was the Arian symbol in opposition to ‘of the substance.’ Allusions are made besides, to ‘the Father not being always Father,’ de Sent. D. 15. and ‘the Word being brought to be by the true Word, and Wisdom by the true Wisdom;’ ibid. 25. 2. The same special text is used in defence of the heresy, and that not at first sight an obvious one, which is found among the Arians, Prov. viii. 22. 3. The same texts were used by the Catholics, which occur in the Arian controversy. e.g. Deut. 32:6, Prov. 8:22, Ps. 110:3, Prov. 8:25, John 10:30, John 14:10Deut. xxxii. 6. against Prov. viii. 22. and such as Ps. cx. 3. Prov. viii. 25. and the two John x. 30. and xiv. 10. 4. The same Catholic symbols and statements are found, e.g. ‘begotten not made,’ ‘one in essence,’ ‘Trinity,’ ἀδιαίρετον, ἄναρχον, ἀειγενες, ‘light from light,’ &c. Much might be said on this circumstance, as forming part of the proof of the very early date of the development and formation of the Catholic theology, which we are at first sight apt to ascribe to the 4th and 5th centuries. [But see Introd. to de Sent. Dion.]

168:940

φιλοπόνου, and so Serap. iv. 9. [This place is referred to by Socr. vi. 13.]

168:941

ἃ μὲν ὡς ζητῶν καὶ γυμνάζων ἔργαψε, ταῦτα μὴ ὡς αὐτοῦ φρονοῦντος δεχέσθω τις, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρὸς ἔριν φιλονεικούντων ἐν τῷ ζητεῖν, ἀδεῶς ὁρίζων ἀποφαίνεται, τοῦτο τοῦ φιλοπόνου τὸ φρόνημα ἐστι. ῾ἀλλὰ. Certe legendum ἀλλ᾽ ἃ, idque omnino exigit sensus. Montfaucon. Rather for ἀδεῶς read ἃ δὲ ὡς, and put the stop at ζητεῖν instead of δεχέσθω τις.

168:942

Supr. §5.

169:943

vid. supr. §4. Orat. i. §7. Ad Afros. 2, twice. Apol. contr. Arian. 7. ad Ep. Æg. 5. Epiph. Hær. 70. 9. Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 6. The Council was more commonly called μεγάλη, vid. supr. §26. The second General Council, a.d. 381, took the name of ecumenical. vid. Can. 6. fin. but incidentally. The Council of Ephesus so styles itself in the opening of its Synodical Letter.

169:944

The profession under which the decrees of Councils come to us is that of setting forth in writing what has ever been held orally or implicitly in the Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases as ἐγγραφῶς ἐξετέθη with reference to them. Thus Damasus, Theod. H. E. v. 10. speaks of that ‘apostolical faith, which was set forth in writing by the Fathers in Nicæa.’ On the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch speaks of the doctrine of our Lord’s perfect humanity being ‘inculcated by our Holy Fathers, but not as yet [i.e. till the Council of Chalcedon] being confirmed by the decree of an ecumenical Council.’ Phot. 229. p. 801. (ἐγγραφῶς, however, sometimes relates to the act of subscribing; Phot. ibid. or to Scripture, Clement. Strom. i. init. p. 321.) Hence Athan. says ad Afros. 1. and 2. that ‘the Word of the Lord which was given through the ecumenical Council in Nicæa remaineth for ever;’ and uses against its opposers the texts, ‘Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set’ (vid. also Dionysius in Eus. H. E. vii. 7.), and ‘He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.’ Prov. 22:28, Exod. 21:17. vid. also Athan. ad Epict. 1. And the Council of Chalcedon professes to ‘drive away the doctrines of error by a common decree, and renew the unswerving faith of the Fathers,’ Act. v. p. 452. [t. iv. 1453 ed. Col.] ‘as,’ they proceed, ‘from of old the prophets spoke of Christ, and He Himself instructed us, and the creed of the Fathers has delivered to us,’ whereas ‘other faith it is not lawful for any to bring forth, or to write, or to draw up, or to hold, or to teach.’ p. 456. [1460 ed. Col.] vid. S. Leo. supr. p. 5. note m. This, however, did not interfere with their adding without undoing. ‘For,’ says Vigilius, ‘if it were unlawful to receive aught further after the Nicene statutes, on what authority venture we to assert that the Holy Ghost is of one substance with the Father, which it is notorious was there omitted?’ contr. Eutych. v. init.; he gives other instances, some in point, others not. vid. also Eulogius, apud Phot. Cod. 23. pp. 829. 853. Yet to add to the confession of the Church is not to add to the faith, since nothing can be added to the faith. Leo, Ep. 124. p. 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the Nicene faith is sufficient to refute every heresy, ad Max. 5. fin. (also Leo. Ep. 54. p. 956. and Naz. Ep. 102. init.) excepting, however, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; which explains his meaning. The Henoticon of Zeno says the same, but with the intention of dealing a blow at the Council of Chalcedon. Evagr. iii. 14. p. 345. Aetius at Chalcedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon the Fathers did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and that Cyril and Leo did but interpret the Creed. Conc. t. 2. p. 428. [t. iv. 1430, 1431 ed. Col. See this whole subject very amply treated in Dr. Pusey’s On the Clause, And the Son, pp. 76 sqq.] Leo even says that the Apostles’ Creed is sufficient against all heresies, and that Eutyches erred on a point ‘of which our Lord wished no one of either sex in the Church to be ignorant,’ and he wishes Eutyches to take the plentitude of the Creed ‘puro et simplici corde.’ Ep. 31. p. 857, 8.

169:945

Supr. §21. init.

Chapter VII.—On the Arian Symbol “Unoriginate.” This term afterwards adopted by them; and why; three senses of it. A fourth sense. Unoriginate denotes God in contrast to His creatures, not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead; Conclusion.

28. This in fact was the reason, when the unsound nature of their phrases had been exposed at that time, and they were henceforth open to the charge of irreligion, that they proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term Unoriginate 946 , that, under shelter of it, they might reckon among the things originated and the creatures, that Word of God, by whom these very things came to be; so unblushing are they in their irreligion, so obstinate in their blasphemies against the Lord. If then this want of shame arises from ignorance of the term, they ought to have learned of those who gave it them, and who have not scrupled to say that even intellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul which proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be known, are notwithstanding unoriginated, for they understand that by so saying they do not disparage that first Origin of which the others come 947 . This being the case, let them say the like themselves, or else not speak at all of what they do not know. But if they consider they are acquainted with the subject, then they must be interrogated; for 948 the expression is not from divine Scripture 949 , but they are contentious, as elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as I have related the reason and sense, with which the Council and the Fathers before it defined and published ‘of the essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ agreeably to what Scripture says of the Saviour; so now let them, if they can, answer on their part what has led them to this unscriptural phrase, and in what sense they call God Unoriginated? In truth, I am told 950 , that the name has different senses; philosophers say that it means, first ‘what has not yet, but may, come to be;’ next, ‘what neither exists, nor can come into being;’ and thirdly, ‘what exists indeed, but was neither originated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and indestructible 951 .’ Now perhaps they will wish to pass over the first two senses, from the absurdity which follows; for according to the first, things that already have come to be, and things that are expected to come to be, are unoriginated; and the second is more absurd still; accordingly they will proceed to the third sense, and use the word in it; though here, in this sense too, their irreligion will be quite as great. For if by unoriginated they mean what has no origin of being, nor is originated or created, but eternal, and say that the Word of God is contrary to this, who comprehends not the craft of these foes of God? who but would stone 952 such madmen? for, when they are ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases which they fabled, and which were condemned, the wretches have taken another way to signify them, by means of what they call unoriginate. For if the Son be of things originate, it follows, that He too came to be from nothing; and if He has an origin of being, then He was not before His generation; and if He is not eternal, there was once when He was not 953 .

29. If these are their sentiments they ought to signify their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to hide their perverseness under the cloke of the Unoriginate. But instead of this, the evil-minded men do all things with craftiness like their father, the devil; for as he attempts to deceive in the guise of others, so these have broached the term Unoriginate, that they might pretend to speak piously of God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against the Lord, and under a veil might teach it to others. However, on the detecting of this sophism, what remains to them? ‘We have found another,’ say the evildoers; and then proceed to add to what they have said already, that Unoriginate means what has no author of being, but stands itself in this relation to things originated. Unthankful, and in truth deaf to the Scriptures! who do everything, and say everything, not to honour God, but to dishonour the Son, ignorant that he who dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father. For first, even though they denote God in this way, still the Word is not proved to be of things originated. For again, as being an offspring of the essence of the Father, He is of consequence with Him eternally. For this name of offspring does not detract from the nature of the Word, nor does Unoriginated take its sense from contrast with the Son, but with the things which come to be through the Son; and as he who addresses an architect, and calls him framer of house or city, does not under this designation allude to the son who is begotten from him, but on account of the art and science which he displays in his work, calls him artificer, signifying thereby that he is not such as the things made by him, and while he knows the nature of the builder, knows also that he whom he begets is other than his works; and in regard to his son calls him father, but in regard to his works, creator and maker; in like manner he who says in this sense that God is unoriginate, names Him from His works, signifying, not only that He is not originated, but that He is maker of things which are so; yet is aware withal that the Word is other than the things originate, and alone a proper offspring of the Father, through whom all things came to be and consist 954 .

30. In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of God as All-ruling, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were included in that All; (for they knew that the Son was other than things originated, and Sovereign over them Himself, according to His likeness to the Father); but because He is Ruler over all things which through the Son He has made, and has given the authority of all things to the Son, and having given it, is Himself once more the Lord of all things through the Word. Again, when they called God, Lord of the powers 955 , they said not this as if the Word was one of those powers, but because while He is Father of the Son, He is Lord of the powers which through the Son have come to be. For again, the Word too, as being in the Father, is Lord of them all, and Sovereign over all; for all things, whatsoever the Father hath, are the Son’s. This then being the force of such titles, in like manner let a man call God unoriginated, if it so please him; not however as if the Word were of originated things, but because, as I said before, God not only is not originated, but through His proper Word is He the maker of things which are so. For though the Father be called such, still the Word is the Father’s Image, and one in essence with Him; and being His Image, He must be distinct from things originated, and from everything; for whose Image He is, His property and likeness He hath: so that he who calls the Father unoriginated and almighty, perceives in the Unoriginated and the Almighty, His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But these wondrous men, and prompt for irreligion, hit upon the term Unoriginated, not as caring for God’s honour, but from malevolence towards the Saviour; for if they had regard to honour and reverent language, it rather had been right and good to acknowledge and to call God Father, than to give Him this name; for in calling God unoriginated, they are, as I said before, calling Him from things which came to be, and as a Maker only, that so they may imply the Word to be a work after their own pleasure; but he who calls God Father, in Him withal signifies His Son also, and cannot fail to know that, whereas there is a Son, through this Son all things that came to be were created.

31. Therefore it will be much more accurate to denote God from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him and call Him Unoriginated from His works only; for the latter term refers to the works that have come to be at the will of God through the Word, but the name of Father points out the proper offspring from His essence. And whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more also doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginated; for the latter is non-scriptural and suspicious, as it has various senses; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and alone implies the Son. And ‘Unoriginated’ is a word of the Greeks who know not the Son: but ‘Father’ has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord; for He knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me 956 ;’ and, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father;’ and, ‘I and the Father are one 957 ;’ but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginated. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, ‘When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginated,’ but rather, ‘When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven 958 .’ And it was His Will, that the Summary of our faith should have the same bearing. For He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 959 , for with such an initiation we too are made sons verily 960 , and using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own Father our Father, we must not on that account measure ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it is because of the Son that the Father is so called by us; for since the Word bore our body and came to be in us, therefore by reason of the Word in us, is God called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us names through us His own Father as ours, which is the Apostle’s meaning when he says, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father 961 .’

32. But perhaps being refuted as touching the term Unoriginate also, they will say according to their evil nature, ‘It behoved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is there written of Him, and not to introduce non-scriptural expressions.’ Yes, it behoved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources 962 ; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shewn to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shewn to be corrupt in their phrases, and evil in their dispositions. The term Unoriginate, having its own sense, and admitting of a religious use, they nevertheless, according to their own idea, and as they will, use for the dishonour of the Saviour, all for the sake of contentiously maintaining, like giants 963 , their fight with God. But as they did not escape condemnation when they adduced these former phrases, so when they misconceive of the Unoriginated which in itself admits of being used well and religiously, they were detected, being disgraced before all, and their heresy everywhere proscribed. This then, as I could, have I related, by way of explaining what was formerly done in the Council; but I know that the contentious among Christ’s foes will not be disposed to change even after hearing this, but will ever search about for other pretences, and for others again after those. For as the Prophet speaks, ‘If the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots 964 ’, then will they be willing to think religiously, who have been instructed in irreligion. Thou however, beloved, on receiving this, read it by thyself; and if thou approvest of it, read it also to the brethren who happen to be present, that they too on hearing it, may welcome the Council’s zeal for the truth, and the exactness of its sense; and may condemn that of Christ’s foes, the Arians, and the futile pretences, which for the sake of their irreligious heresy they have been at the pains to frame among themselves; because to God and the Father is due the glory, honour, and worship with His co-existent Son and Word, together with the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and unto endless ages of ages. Amen.

Footnotes

169:946

ἀγένητον. Opportunity will occur for noticing this celebrated word on Orat. i. 30–34. where the present passage is partly rewritten, partly transcribed. Mention is also made of it in the De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius would seem to have been but partially acquainted with the writings of the Anomœans, whose symbol it was, and to have argued with them from the writings of the elder Arians, who had also made use of it. [On Newman’s unfortunate confusion of ἀγένητον and ἀγέννητον, see Lightfoot, as quoted in the note on Exp. Fid. §1. Newman’s reasons are stated in note 7 to Orat. i. 56.]

169:947

Montfaucon quotes a passage from Plato’s Phædrus, in which the human soul is called ‘unoriginate and immortal [246 a.];’ but Athan. is referring to another subject, the Platonic, or rather the Eclectic [i.e. Neo-Platonic] Trinity. Thus Theodoret, ‘Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining the sense of Plato, say, that he taught Three principles beyond time and eternal, Good, Intellect, and the Soul of all,’ de Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750. And so Plotinus himself, ‘It is as if one were to place Good as the centre, Intellect like an immoveable circle round, and Soul a moveable circle, and moveable by appetite.’ 4 Ennead. iv. c. 16. vid. Porphyry in Cyril. contr. Julian. viii. t. ult. p. 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennead. v. 2 and 3. Athan.’s testimony that the Platonists considered their three ὑποστάσεις all unoriginate is perhaps a singular one. In 5 Ennead. iv. 1. Plotinus says what seems contrary to it, ἡ δὲ ἀρχὴ ἀγέννητος, speaking of his τἀγαθόν. Yet Plato, quoted by Theodoret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of εἴτε ἀρχὴν εἴτε ἀρχάς.

169:948

ἐπεὶ μάλισται, ὅτι μάλιστα, Orat. 1. §36. de Syn. §21. fin. ὅταν μάλιστα, Apol. ad Const. 23. καὶ μάλιστα, de Syn. §42, 54.

169:949

Cf. §18, n. 8.

169:950

And so de Syn. §46. ‘we have on careful inquiry ascertained, &c.’ Again, ‘I have acquainted myself on their account [the Arians’] with the meaning of ἀγένητον.’ Orat. i. §30. This is remarkable, for Athan. was a man of liberal education, as his Orat. contr. Gent. and de Incarn. shew, especially, his acquaintance with the Platonic philosophy. Sulpicius too speaks of him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. Hist. ii. 50. S. Gregory Naz. says, that he gave some attention, but not much, to the subjects of general education, τῶν ἐγκυκλίων, that he might not be altogether ignorant, of what he nevertheless despised, Orat. 21. 6. In the same way S. Basil, whose cultivation of mind none can doubt, speaks slightingly of his own philosophical knowledge. He writes of his ‘neglecting his own weakness, and being utterly unexercised in such disquisitions;’ contr. Eunom. init. And so in de Sp. §5. he says, that ‘they who have given time’ to vain philosophy, ‘divide causes into principal, cooperative,’ &c. Elsewhere he speaks of having ‘expended much time on vanity, and wasted nearly all his youth in the vain labour of pursuing the studies of that wisdom which God has made foolishness,’ Ep. 223. 2. In truth, Christianity has a philosophy of its own. Thus in the commencement of his Viæ Dux Anastasius says, ‘It is a first point to be understood, that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not proceed upon, or follow, the philosophical definitions in all respects, and especially as regards the mystery of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, but a certain rule of its own, evangelical and apostolical.’ p. 20.

170:951

Four senses of ἀγένητον are enumerated, Orat. i. §30. 1. What is not as yet, but is possible; 2. what neither has been nor can be; 3. what exists, but has not come to be from any cause; 4. what is not made, but is ever. Only two senses are specified in the de Syn. §46. and in these the question really lies; 1. what is, but without a cause; 2. uncreate.

170:952

Βαλλέσθωσαν παρὰ πάντων, Orat. ii. §28. An apparent allusion to the punishment of blasphemy and idolatry under the Jewish Law. vid. [Exod. 19:13, Exod. 21:17Ex. xix. 13. and] reference to Ex. xxi. 17, in §27, note 2. Thus, e.g. Nazianzen: ‘While I go up the mount with good heart, that I may become within the cloud, and may hold converse with God, for so God bids; if there be any Aaron, let him go up with me and stand near. And if there be any Nadab or Abihu, or of the elders, let him go up, but stand far off, according to the measure of his purification.…But if any one is an evil and savage beast, and quite incapable of science and theology; let him stand off still further, and depart from the mount: or he will be stoned and crushed; for the wicked shall be miserably destroyed. For as stones for the bestial are true words and strong. Whether he be leopard, let him die spots and all,’ &c. &c. Orat. 28. 2.

170:953

The Arians argued that the word unoriginate implied originate or creature as its correlative, and therefore indirectly signified Creator; so that the Son being not unoriginate, was not the Creator. Athan. answers, that in the use of the word, whether there be a Son does not come into the question. As the idea of Father and Son does not include creation, so that of creator and creature does not include generation; and it would be as illogical to infer that there are no creatures because there is a Son as that there is no Son because there are creatures.

170:954

The whole of this passage is repeated in Orat. i. 32. &c. vid. for this particular argument, Basil also, contr. Eunom. i. 16.

171:955

i.e. of hosts.

171:956

John 14:9, 10.

171:957

John 10.30.

171:958

Matt. vi. 9.

171:959

And so S. Basil, ‘Our faith was not in Framer and Work, but in Father and Son were we sealed through the grace in baptism.’ contr. Eunom. ii. 22. And a somewhat similar passage occurs Orat. ii. §41.

171:960

υἱοποιούμεθα ἀληθῶς. This strong term ‘truly’ or ‘verily’ seems taken from such passages as speak of the ‘grace and truth’ of the Gospel, John i. 12-17. Again S. Basil says, that we are sons, κυρίως, ‘properly,’ and πρώτως ‘primarily,’ in opposition to τροπικῶς, ‘figuratively,’ contr. Eunom. ii. 23. S. Cyril too says, that we are sons ‘naturally’ φυσικῶς as well as κατὰ χάριν, vid. Suicer Thesaur. v. υἱ& 231·ς. i. 3. Of these words, ἀληθῶς, φυσικῶς, κυρίως, and πρώτως, the first two are commonly reserved for our Lord; e.g. τὸν ἀληθῶς υἱ& 232·ν, Orat. ii. §37. ἡμεῖς υἱοὶ, οὐκ ὡς ἐκεῖνος φύσει καὶ ἀληθεία, iii. §19. Hilary seems to deny us the title of ‘proper’ sons; de Trin. xii. 15; but his ‘proprium’ is a translation of ἴδιον, not κυρίως. And when Justin says of Christ ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱ& 232·ς, Apol. ii. 6. κυρίως seems to be used in reference to the word κύριος, Lord, which he has just been using, κυριολογεῖν being sometimes used by him as others in the sense of ‘naming as Lord,’ like θεολογεῖν. vid. Tryph. 56. There is a passage in Justin’s ad Græc. 21. where he (or the writer) when speaking of ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὣν, uses the word in the same ambiguous sense; οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄνομα ἐπὶ θεοῦ κυριολογεῖσθαι δυνατὸν, 21; as if κύριος, the Lord, by which ‘I am’ is translated, were a sort of symbol of that proper name of God which cannot be given. But to return; the true doctrine then is, that, whereas there is a primary and secondary sense in which the word Son is used, primary when it has its formal meaning of continuation of nature, and secondary when it is used nominally, or for an external resemblance to the first meaning, it is applied to the regenerate, not in the secondary sense, but in the primary. S. Basil and S. Gregory Nyssen consider Son to be ‘a term of relationship according to nature’ (vid. supr. §10, note 1.), also Basil in Psalm xxviii. 1. The actual presence of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate in substance (vid. Cyril, Dial. 7. p. 638.) constitutes this relationship of nature; and hence after the words quoted from S. Cyril in the beginning of the note, in which he says, that we are sons, φυσικῶς, he proceeds, ‘naturally, because we are in Him, and in Him alone.’ vid. Athan.’s words which follow in the text at the end of §31. And hence Nyssen lays down, as a received truth, that ‘to none does the term “proper,” κυριώτατον, apply, but to one in whom the name responds with truth to the nature,’ contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. And he also implies, p. 117, the intimate association of our sonship with Christ’s, when he connects together regeneration with our Lord’s eternal generation, neither being διὰ πάθους, or, of the will of the flesh. If it be asked, what the distinctive words are which are incommunicably the Son’s, since so much is man’s, it is obvious to answer, ἴδιος υἱ& 232·ς and μονογενὴς, which are in Scripture, and the symbols ‘of the essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ of the Council; and this is the value of the Council’s phrases, that, while they guard the Son’s divinity, they allow full scope, without risk of entrenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the Christian privileges. vid. supr. §19, note.

172:961

Gal. iv. 6.

172:962

Cf. contr. Gent. init. Incarn. 57. ad Ep. Æg. 4. Vit. Ant. 16. And passim in Athan.

172:963

And so, Orat. ii. §32, κατὰ τοὺς μυθευομένους γίγαντας. And so Nazianzen, Orat. 43. 26. speaking of the disorderly Bishops during the Arian ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10. Sometimes the Scripture giants are spoken of, sometimes the mythological.

172:964

Jer. xiii. 23.

Introduction to the de Sententia Dionysii.

————————————

The following tract, like the last, is a letter to a person engaged in discussion with Arians, who were openly finding fault with the Definition of Nicæa, and especially with the word Co-essential (§19). Montfaucon suggests that both epistles were addressed to the same person, the de Decretis (§25) having as it were challenged the Arians to cite passages from Dionysius on behalf of their own doctrine, whereupon their opponent came back to Athanasius with a request for further help. But the language of the first sentence of our present tract seems to imply that Athanasius had not previously heard of the discussions in question. However, slender as such grounds are, the tract furnishes no more decisive indication of date. (On certain expressions which might seem to carry the date back to the lifetime of Arius, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §7.)

Dionysius ‘the Great,’ Bishop of Alexandria 233–265, was a pupil of Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 29), and equally distinguished as a ruler of the Church and as a theologian. In all the controversies of his age (the lapsed, rebaptism, Easter, Paul of Samosata, Sabellianism, the authorship of the Apocalypse) his influence made itself felt, and his writings were very numerous (Westcott in D. C. B. i. p. 851 sq.; a good account of Dionysius in vol. I. of this series, p. 281 note). The most celebrated controversy in which he was involved was that which, a century later, gave rise to the tract before us.

About the period when personal attacks on the Nicene leaders began to be exchanged for overt objections to the Nicene Definitions, the claim was freely made that ‘the fathers’ had been condemned by the latter: in other words, that they had held with the Arians (see below §1, ἀεὶ μὲν προφάσεις…νῦν δὲ καὶ διαβάλλειν τοὺς πατέρας τετολμήκασι). Accordingly we find Athanasius at about the same date, viz. early in the sole reign of Constantius, vindicating on the one hand the work of the Council, on the other the orthodox reputation of Dionysius. The Arians found material for their appeal to the latter in a letter addressed by him to certain bishops in Pentapolis, called Ammon and Euphranor. Whether or no Sabellius had been a native of that province, at any rate his doctrine was at that time so popular there ‘that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the Churches.’ Exercising the right of supervision over those districts which had already become vested by prescription in the Alexandrian See, Dionysius wrote to Ammon, Bishop of Berenice, (Euseb. H. E. vii. 26, who enumerates three several letters to Ammon, Telesphorus, and Euphranor, and a fourth to Ammon and Euporus: he also refers to his letters to Dionysius of Rome: Montfaucon is therefore scarcely fair in charging Eusebius with suppressing the episode ‘ne verbum quidem de hac historia fecerit!’) insisting on the distinctness of the Son from the Father. In doing so he used strong expressions akin to the language of Origen on the subordination of the Son. These expressions were at once objected to by certain orthodox churchmen (§13, it is not clear whether they belonged to Pentapolis or Alexandria), who without consulting Dionysius went to Rome (about 260), and spoke against him in the presence of his namesake, the Roman Bishop. The latter, true to the traditions of his See since the time of Callistus (see Hipp. Philos IX. vii. δίθεοι ἔστε), while steering clear of Sabellianism, was especially jealous of error in the opposite direction. Accordingly he assembled a synod (de Synod. 44), and drew up a letter to Alexandria, in which he rebuked firstly the Sabellians, but secondly and more fully those who separate the Godhead or speak of the Son as a work, including under this category certain unnamed catechists and teachers of Alexandria (De Decr. 26). At the same time he wrote personally to Dionysius, informing him that he was accused of maintaining the opinions in question. In answer to this letter, Dionysius of Alexandria drew up a treatise in four books, entitled ‘Refutation and Defence,’ and addressed to his namesake of Rome, in which he explained his language, and stated his belief in a manner which put an end to the controversy. He had been charged with maintaining that the Son was made, that He was not eternal (οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ θεὸς πατήρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ ὑιός,…οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννήθῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν κ.τ.λ. §14), that he denied the co-essentiality (ὁμοούσιον) of the Son, and separated Him from the Father (§16, 18, cf. § 4, ξένον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν κ.τ.λ). In his Refutation and Defence, Dionysius admits the use of these expressions, withdraws the first (§15, line 1) and admits the propriety of the ὁμοούσιον, although he himself prefers Scriptural language (§ 18. The section shews the unfixed use of the word. Dionysius had formerly used οὐσία in the sense of πρώτη οὐσία, nearly as equivalent to ὑπόστασις: but now he clearly takes it as δευτέρα οὐσία, indicative not of Person but of Nature). That the Son was made, he explains as an inadequate formula, the word being applicable (in one of its many senses) to the relation of son to father (§20. The defence of Athanasius, that Dionysius referred to the Human Nature of Christ, is scarcely tenable. It is not supported by what Dionysius himself says, rather the contrary: and if his language did not refer to the Trinity, where would be its relevancy against Sabellianism?). The words ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, and οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννήθῃ, he does not explain, but professes his belief in the eternal union of the Word with the Father (§§24, 25). Lastly, he repudiates the charge of dividing the Holy Trinity, or of mentioning Father and Son as though separate Beings: When I mention the Father, I have already mentioned the Son, before I pronounce His Name (§17, the closing words of the section are a complete formula of agreement with all that his Roman namesake could possibly require of him).

That Dionysius in his ‘Refutation and Defence’ merely restated, and did not (κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν) alter, his theological position is open to no doubt. Athanasius, not the Arians, had the right to claim him as his own. He is clearly speaking optima fide when he deprecates the pressing of statements in which he had given expression to one side only, and that the less essential side, of his convictions. At the same time we cannot but see that the Arians had good prima facie ground for their appeal. Here were their special formulæ, those anathematised at Nicæa, ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν and the rest, adopted, and the ὁμοούσιον implicitly rejected, by the most renowned bishop Alexandria had yet had. (Newman, in de Decr. 26, note 7, fails to appreciate the reference to the language of Dion. Alex.) Moreover it is only fair to admit that not only in language, but in thought also, Athanasius had advanced upon his predecessors of the Alexandrian School. The rude shock of Arianism had shewn him and the other Nicene leaders the necessity of greater consistency than had characterised the theology of Origen and his school, a consistency to be gained only by breaking with one side of it altogether. While on the one hand Origen held fast to the Godhead of the Logos (κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστὶ θεὸς), and to His co-eternity with the Father (ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, and see de Decr. §27); he had yet, using οὐσία in its ‘first’ sense, spoken of Him as ἕτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρός (de Orat. 15), and placed him, after the manner of Philo, as an intermediary between God and the Universe. He had spoken of the unity of the Father and the Son as moral (Cels. viii. 12, τῇ ὁμονοί& 139· καὶ τῇ συμφωνί& 139·), insisted upon the ὑπεροχὴ of the Father (i.e. ‘subordination’ of the Son), and spoken (De Orat) as though the highest worship of all were to be reserved for the Father (Jerome ascribes still stronger language to him). Yet there is no real doubt that, as regards the core of the question, Athanasius and not his opponents is the true successor of Origen. The essential difference between Athanasius and the ‘Conservatives’ of the period following the great council consisted in the fact that the former saw clearly what the latter failed to realise, namely the insufficiency of the formulæ of the third century to meet the problem of the fourth. We may then, without disparagement to Dionysius, admit that he was not absolutely consistent in his language; that he failed to distinguish the ambiguities which beset the words οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, and even ποιεῖν and γένεσθαι, and that he used language (οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννήθῃ and the like) which we, with our minds cleared by the Arian controversy, cannot reconcile with the more deliberate and guarded statements of the ‘Refutation and Defence 965 .’

The controversy of the two Dionysii has another interesting side, as bearing upon the means then employed for dealing with questions affecting the Church as a whole,—and in particular upon the position of the Roman Church as the natural referee in such questions. (Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.) This is not the place for a general discussion of the question, or for an attempt to trace its history previous to the case before us. But it should be noted, firstly, that when the Pentapolite (?) opponents of Dionysius desire a lever against him, their first resource is not a council of local bishops, but the Roman Church: secondly, that the Roman bishop takes up the case, and writes to his Alexandrian namesake for an explanation: thirdly, that the explanation asked for is promptly given. Unfortunately the fragment of the Roman letter preserved to us by Athanasius tells us nothing of the form of the intervention, whether it was the request of one co-trustee to another for an explanation of the latter’s action in a matter concerning their common trust, or whether it was coupled with any assumption of jurisdiction at all like that involved in the letter of the Bishop of Alexandria to those of Libya. At any rate, the latter alternative has no positive evidence in our documents; and the fragments of the Refutation and Defence ‘shew the most complete and resolute independence. There is nothing in the narrative of Athanasius which implies that the Alexandrine Bishop recognised or that the Roman Bishop claimed any dogmatic authority as belonging to the Imperial See.’ The letter of Dionysius of Rome is certainly highly characteristic of the indifference to theological reasoning and the close adherence to the rule of faith as the authoritative solution of all questions of doctrine which marks the genius of Rome as contrasted with that of Alexandria (see Gore, The Church and the Ministry, ch. i. sub fin., and Harnack, Dg. i. 686, who observes upon the striking family likeness between this letter and that of Leo to Flavian, and of Agatho to the Sixth Ecumenical Council). Lastly, the Roman Church, which never troubled about a precedent adverse to her imperial instinct, never forgot one which favoured it. The intervention of Dionysius was treasured up in her memory, and, when the time came, fully exploited (supr. p. 113, note 3, where the note distinguishes somewhat too carefully between the ‘Pope’ of Rome and the ‘Bishop,’ πάπας, of Alexandria).

The tract of Athanasius, with his extracts in de Decr. and de Syn., tell us all that we know of the history of this important controversy. Dionysius had previously (Eus. H. E. vii. 6) had some correspondence with Xystus, the previous Bishop of Rome, on the subject of the Sabellian teaching current in the Pentapolis. He was in fact during his episcopate in constant communication with Rome and with the other important churches of the Christian World. His letters are much used in the sixth and seventh books of the History of Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for most of our knowledge of his writings.

The general arrangement of the tract is as follows:—

§1–4 are prefatory, the fourth section broadly indicates the line of the defence. §§5–12 deal with the incriminated passages: Athan. gives the history of them, and lays stress on their incomplete presentation of the belief of Dionysius, as having been written for a special purpose,—as may also be said of much of the language of the Apostles. But even in themselves the expressions of Dionysius are orthodox, referring (as Athanasius claims) to Christ as man. In §§13–23 he turns to the Refutation and Defence, from which he makes copious extracts, bringing out the diametrical opposition between Dionysius and the Arians. In §§24, 25 the anti-Arian doctrine of Dionysius is summed up, and §26 recapitulates the main points of §§5–12. He concludes (§27) by claiming a verdict upon the evidence, and urging upon the Arians the alternative of abandoning their error, or of being left with the devil as their only partisan.

Footnotes

175:965

It may be added that the letter to Paul of Samosata quoted by Bull, Def. III. iv. 3, Petavius, Trin. I. iv. is not genuine. Posterity, which enveloped the name of Origen with storms of controversy, did not entirely spare his pupil: Basil (Ep. 41) taxes him with sowing the first seeds of the Anomœan heresy, Gennadius (Eccl. Dogm. iv.) calls him ‘Fons Arii.’

On the Opinion of Dionysius.

————————————

Letter of Athanasius concerning Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, shewing that he too was against the Arian heresy, like the Synod of Nicæa, and that the Arians in vain libel him in claiming him as on their side.

1. The Arian appeal to Dionysius a slander against him.

You have been tardy in informing me of the present argument between yourself and the enemies of Christ; for even before your courtesy wrote to me, I had made diligent enquiry, and learnt about the matter, of which I heard with pleasure. I approved of the right opinion entertained by your piety concerning our blessed fathers, while on the present occasion I once more recognise the unreasonableness of the Arian madmen. For whereas their heresy has no ground in reason, nor express proof from holy writ, they were always resorting to shameless subterfuges and plausible fallacies. But they have now also ventured to slander the fathers: and this is not inconsistent, but fully of a piece with their perversity. For what marvel is it if men who have presumed to ‘take counsel against the Lord and against His Christ,’ are also vilifying the blessed Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as a partisan and accomplice of their own? For if they are pleased to extol a man, for the support of their own heresy, even if they call him blessed, they cast upon him no slight affront, but a great one indeed; just like robbers or men of evil life who, when branded for their own practices, claim sober persons as being of their number, and thus defame their sober character.

2. The Arian position inconsistent with Holy Scripture.

If then they have confidence in their opinions and statements, let them broach their heresy nakedly, and shew from it if they think they have any religious argument whether from Scripture, or from human reason, in their defence. But if they have nothing of the kind, let them hold their peace. For they will find nothing from any quarter except the greater condemnation of themselves. Firstly from the Scriptures, in that John says, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ whereas they say, ‘he was not before he was begotten:’ while David sings, in the character of the Father, ‘my heart uttered a good Word’ (Ps. xlv. 1, LXX), whom they allege to be in thought only, and originated from nothing. Further, whereas John once more says in the Gospel (John 1.3), ‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made,’ while Paul writes, ‘there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things’ (1 Cor. viii. 6), and elsewhere, ‘all things were created in Him’ (Col. i. 16), how will they have the boldness (or rather how will they escape disgrace) to oppose the sayings of the saints, by saying that the artificer of all things is a creature, and that He is a created thing in whom all things created have come into being and subsist? Nor, secondly, is any religious argument from human reason left them in their defence. For what man, Greek or barbarian, presumes to call one, whom he confesses to be God, a created thing, or to say that he was not before he was made? or what man, when he has heard Him whom he believes to be God alone say, ‘This is My beloved Son’ (Mat. iii. 17), and ‘my heart uttered a good Word,’ will venture even to say that the Word out of the heart of God has come to being out of nothing? or that the Son is a created thing and not the very offspring of Him that speaks? or again, who that hears Him whom he believes to be Lord and Saviour say, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me,’ and ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 14:10, John 10:30), will presume to put asunder what He has made one and maintained indivisible?

3. The Arians appeal to Dionysius as the Jews did to Abraham: but with equally little reason.

Seeing this themselves, accordingly, and having no confidence in their own position, they utter falsehoods against religious men. But it would be better for them, when isolated, and perceiving that under examination they were at a loss and put to silence on all sides, rather to have turned back from the way of error and not to claim men whom they do not know, lest being confuted by them also they should carry off all the more disgrace. But perhaps they do not wish ever to depart from this wickedness of theirs; for they emulate this characteristic of Caiaphas and his party, just as they have learned from them to deny Christ. For they too, when the Lord had done so so many works, by which He shewed Himself to be the Christ the Son of the Living God, and being convicted by him, from thenceforth in all things thinking and speaking against the Scripture, and unable for a moment to face the proofs against themselves, betook themselves to the patriarch with the words, ‘We have Abraham to our father’ (Matt. iii. 9), thus thinking to cloke their own unreasonableness. But neither did they gain anything by these words, nor will these men, by speaking of Dionysius, be able to escape the guilt of the others. For the Lord convicted the latter of their wicked deeds by the words, ‘This did not Abraham’ (John viii. 40), while the same truth again shall convict these men of their impiety and falsehood. For the Bishop Dionysius did not hold with Arius, nor was he ignorant of the truth. On the contrary, both the Jews of that day, and the new Jews of the present day inherited their mad enmity against Christ from their father the devil. Well then, a strong proof that here once more these men are saying what is not true, but are maligning the man, is the fact that neither was he condemned and expelled from the church for impiety by other bishops, as these men have been from the clergy, nor did he of his own accord leave the church as the partisan of a heresy, but died honourably within it, and his memory is retained and registered along with the fathers to the present day. For if he had held with these men, or not vindicated what he had written, without doubt he too would have been treated as these men have been.

4. The Arian appeal to Dionysius based upon an isolated fragment of his teaching to the neglect of the rest.

And indeed this would suffice for the entire refutation of the new Jews, who both deny the Lord and slander the fathers and attempt to deceive all Christians. But since they think they have, in certain parts of the bishop’s letter, pretexts for their slander of him, come let us look at these also, so that even from them the futility of the reasoning may be exposed, and they may at length cease from their blasphemy against the Lord, and at any rate with the soldiers (Mat. xxvii. 54), when they see creation witnessing, confess that truly He is the Son of God, and not one of created things. They say then that in a letter the blessed Dionysius has said, ‘that the Son of God is a creature and made, and not His own by nature, but in essence alien from the Father, just as the husbandman is from the vine, or the ship-builder from the boat, for that being a creature He was not before He came to be.’ Yes, he wrote it, and we too admit that his letter runs thus. But just as he wrote this, he also wrote very many other letters, and they ought to consult those also; in order that the faith of the man may be made clear from them all, and not from this alone. For the art of a ship-builder who has constructed many triremes is judged of not from one, but from all. If therefore he simply wrote this letter of which they speak as an exposition of his faith, or if this was his only letter, let them accuse him to their hearts’ content,—for this suggestion really amounts to an accusation,—but if he was led to write as he did by the occasion and the person 966 concerned, while he also wrote other letters, defending himself where he had been suspected, in that case they ought not to have neglected the reasons, and hastily cast a slur upon the man, lest they should appear to be hunting merely stray expressions, while passing over the truth to be found in his other letters. For a husbandman also treats trees of the same sort now in one way now in another, according to the character of the soil he has to do with: nor would any one blame him because he cuts one, grafts another, plants another, and another again takes up. On the contrary, upon learning the reason, he all the more admires the versatility of his skill. Well then, unless they have consulted the writing superficially let them state the main subject of the letter; for so the malignity and unscrupulous character of their design will come out. But since they do not know, or are ashamed to state it, we must state it ourselves.

5. The occasion of Dionysius’ writing against the Sabellians.

At that date certain of the Bishops in Pentapolis, Upper Libya, held with Sabellius. And they were so successful with their opinions that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the churches. Dionysius having heard of this, as he had the charge 967 of those churches, sends men to counsel the guilty ones to cease from their error, but as they did not cease, but waxed more shameless in their impiety, he was compelled to meet their shameless conduct by writing the said letter, and to expound from the Gospels the human nature of the Saviour, in order that since those men waxed bolder in denying the Son, and in ascribing His human actions to the Father, he accordingly by demonstrating that it was the Son and not the Father that was made man for us, might persuade the ignorant persons that the Father is not a Son, and so by degrees lead them up to the true Godhead of the Son and the knowledge of the Father. This is the main subject of the letter, and this is the reason why he wrote it, by reason of those who so shamelessly had chosen to alter the true faith.

6. Dionysius did not express his full opinion in the passages alleged.

Well then, what is there in common between the heresy of Arius and the opinion of Dionysius: or why is Dionysius to be called like Arius, when they differ widely? For the one is a teacher of the Catholic Church, while the other has been the inventor of a new heresy. And while Arius to expound his own error wrote a Thaleia in an effeminate and ridiculous style like Sotades the Egyptian, Dionysius not only wrote other letters also, but composed a defence of himself upon the suspicious points, and came out clearly as of right opinions. If then his writings are inconsistent, let them not draw him to their side, for on this assumption he is not worthy of credit. But if, when he had written his letter to Ammonius, and fallen under suspicion, he made his defence so as to better 968 what he had previously said, but did so without changing, it must be evident that he wrote the suspected passages in a qualified sense 969 . But what is written or done in such a sense men have no business to construe maliciously, or wrest each one to a meaning of his own. For even a physician frequently in accordance with his knowledge applies to the wounds he has to deal with, remedies which to some seem unsuitable with a view to nothing but health. In like manner it is the practice of a wise teacher to arrange and deliver his lessons with reference to the characters of his pupils, until he has brought them over to the way of perfection.

7. The language of the Apostles needs similar caution in particular passages.

But if they accuse the blessed man (for the arguments of the Arians about him are in fact accusations against him) simply for writing thus, what will they do when they hear even the great and blessed Apostles in the Acts, firstly Peter saying (Acts ii. 22), ‘Ye men of Israel hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto us by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know: Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay;’ and again (ib. Acts 4.10), ‘In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even in Him doth this man stand here before you whole;’ and Paul, relating (ib. Acts 13.22) in Antioch of Pisidia how God, ‘when He had removed Saul, raised up David to be king; to whom also He bare witness and said, I have found David the Son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do My will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus;’ and again at Athens (ib. Acts 17.30), ‘The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now He commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: inasmuch as He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by means of the man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead;’ or Stephen, the great martyr, when he says, ‘Behold I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.’ Why, it is high time for them to brazen it out (for there is nothing too daring for them) and claim that the very apostles held with Arius: for they declare Christ to have been a man from Nazareth, and passible.

8. The Apostles spoke of Christ as man, but also as God.

Well then, such being the imaginations of these men, did the Apostles, since they used the above language, regard Christ as only a man and nothing more? God forbid. The very idea is out of the question. But here too they have acted as wise master-builders and stewards of the mysteries of God. And they have good reason for it. For inasmuch as the Jews of that day, in error themselves and misleading the Gentiles, thought that the Christ was coming as a mere man of the seed of David, after the likeness of the rest of the children of David’s descent, and would neither believe that He was God nor that the Word was made flesh; for this reason it was with much wisdom that the blessed Apostles began by proclaiming to the Jews the human characteristics of the Saviour, in order that by fully persuading them from visible facts, and from miracles which were done, that the Christ was come, they might go on to lead them up to faith in His Godhead, by shewing that the works He had done were not those of a man but of God. Why, Peter, who calls Christ a man capable of suffering, at once went on (Acts iii. 15) to add, ‘He is Prince of Life,’ while in the Gospel he confesses, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ But in his Epistle he calls Him Bishop of souls and Lord both of himself and of angels and Powers. Paul, again, who calls Christ a man of the seed of David, wrote thus to the Hebrews (Heb. 1.3), ‘Who being the brightness of His glory and the very image of His subsistence,’ and to the Philippians (Philipp. 2.6), ‘Who being in the form of God counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.’ But what can it mean to call him Prince of Life, Son of God, brightness, express image, on an equality with God, Lord, and Bishop of souls, if not that in the body He was Word of God, by whom all things were made and is as indivisible from the Father as is the brightness from the light?

9. Dionysius must be interpreted like the Apostles.

And Dionysius accordingly acted as he learned from the Apostles. For as the heresy of Sabellius was creeping on, he was compelled, as I said before, to write the aforesaid letter, and to hurl at them what is said of the Saviour in reference to His manhood and His humiliation, so as to bar them by reason of His human attributes from saying that the Father was a son, and so render easier for them the teaching concerning the Godhead of the Son, when in his other letters he calls Him from the Scriptures the word, wisdom, power, breath (Wisd. vii. 25), and brightness of the Father. For example, in the letters written in his defence, speaking as I have described, he waxes bold in the faith, and in piety towards Christ. As then the Apostles are not to be accused by reason of their human language about the Lord,—because the Lord has been made man,—but are all the more worthy of admiration for their wise reserve and seasonable teaching, so Dionysius is no Arian on account of his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against Sabellius. For even if he did use humble phrases and examples, yet they too are from the Gospels, and his justification for them is the Saviour’s coming in the flesh, on account of which not only these things, but others like them are written. For just as He is Word of God, so afterwards ‘the Word was made flesh;’ and while ‘in the beginning was the Word; the Virgin at the consummation of the ages conceived, and the Lord has become man. And He who is indicated by both statements is one Person, for ‘the Word was made flesh.’ But the expressions used about His Godhead, and His becoming man, are to be interpreted with discrimination and suitably to the particular context. And he that writes of the human attributes of the Word knows also what concerns His Godhead: and he who expounds concerning His Godhead is not ignorant of what belongs to His coming in the flesh: but discerning each as a skilled and ‘approved money-changer 970 ,’ he will walk in the straight way of piety; when therefore he speaks of His weeping, he knows that the Lord, having become man, while he exhibits his human character in weeping, as God raises up Lazarus; and He knows that He used to hunger and thirst physically, while divinely He fed five thousand persons from five loaves; and knows that while a human body lay in the tomb, it was raised as God’s body by the Word Himself.

10. The expressions of Dionysius claimed by the Arians refer to Christ as Man.

Dionysius, teaching exactly thus, in his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius wrote in view of Sabellius concerning the human predicates of the Saviour. For to the latter class belong the sayings, ‘I am the Vine and My Father the Husbandman’ (Joh. xv. 1), and ‘faithful to Him that made Him’ (Heb. iii. 2), and ‘He created me’ (Prov. viii. 22), and ‘made so much better than the angels’ (Heb. i. 4). But He was not ignorant of the passages, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me’ (Joh. xiv. 10), and ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ For we know that he mentioned them in his other Epistles. For while mentioning them there, he made mention also of the human attributes of the Lord. For just as ‘being in the form of God He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave’ (Phil. ii. 6), and ‘though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor,’ so while there are high and rich descriptions of His Deity, there are also those which relate to His coming in the flesh, humble expressions and poor. But that these are used of the Saviour as man is apparent on the following grounds. The husbandman is different in essence from the vine, while the branches are of one essence and akin to it, and are in fact undivided from the vine, it and they having one and the same origin. But, as the Lord said, He is the vine, we are the branches. If then the Son is of one essence with ourselves, and has the same origin as we, let us grant that in this respect the Son is diverse in essence from the Father, like as the vine is from the husbandman. But if the Son is different from what we are, and He is the Word of the Father while we are made of earth, and are descendants of Adam, then the above expression ought not to be referred to the deity of the Word, but to His human coming. Since thus also has the Saviour said: ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches, My Father is the husbandman.’ For we are akin to the Lord according to the body, and for that reason he said (Heb. 2:12, Ps. 22:22), ‘I will declare thy name unto my brethren.’ And just as the branches are of one essence with the vine, and are from it, so we also having our bodies homogeneous with the Lord’s body, receive of His fulness (Joh. i. 16), and have that body as our root 971 for our resurrection and our salvation. But the Father is called the husbandman, for He it was who by His Word cultivated the Vine, namely the manhood of the Saviour, and who by His own Word prepared for us a way to a kingdom; and none cometh to the Lord except the Father draw him to Him (Joh. vi. 44).

11. The same is true of the analogous language of the Apostles.

This then being the sense of the expression, it follows that it is of the vine, so understood, that it is written: ‘Who was faithful to Him that had created Him’ (Heb. iii. 2), and ‘made so much better than the angels’ (ib. Heb. 1.4), and ‘He created me’ (Prov. viii. 22). For when He had taken that which He had to offer on our behalf, namely His body of the Virgin Mary, then it is written of Him that He had been created, and formed, and made: for such phrases are applicable to men. Moreover not after (His taking) the body has He been made better than the angels, lest He should appear to have been previously less than or equal to them. But writing to Jews, and comparing the human ministry of the Lord to Moses, he said, ‘having been made so much better than the angels,’ for by means of angels the law was spoken, because ‘the law was given by Moses, but grace came by Jesus Christ’ (Joh. i. 17), and the gift of the Spirit. And whereas in those days the law was preached from Dan to Beersheba, now ‘their sound is gone out into all lands’ (Rom. 10:18, Ps. 19:3), and the Gentiles worship Christ, and through Him know the Father. The above things then are written of the Saviour as man, and not otherwise.

12. The passages alleged from Dionysius are, when rightly understood, strictly orthodox.

Well then, did Dionysius, as the adversaries of Christ reiterate, when writing of the human characteristics of the Son, and so calling Him a creature, mean that he was one man among others? Or when he said that the Word was not proper to the essence of the Father, did he hold that He was of one essence with us men? Certainly he did not write thus in his other epistles. but in them not only manifests a correct opinion, but as good as cries out by them against these people, saying as it were: I am not of the same opinion as you, you adversaries of God, nor did my writings furnish Arius with a pretext for impiety. But writing to Ammon and Euphranor on account of the Sabellianisers, I made mention of the vine and the husbandman and used other like expressions, in order that, by pointing out the human characteristics of the Lord, I might persuade those men not to say that it is the Father who was made man. For like as the husbandman is not the vine, so He that came in the body was not the Father but the Word; and the Word having come to be in the Vine was called the Vine, because of His bodily kinship with the branches, namely ourselves. In this sense, then, I wrote as I did to Euphranor and Ammonius, but your shamelessness I confront with the other letters written by me, so that men of sound mind may know the defence they contain, and my right mind in the faith of Christ. The Arians then ought, if their intelligence were sound, thus to have thought and held concerning the Bishop: ‘for all things are manifest to them that understand, and right to them that find knowledge’ (Prov. viii. 9). But since, not having understood the faith of the Catholic Church, they have fallen into impiety, and consequently, maimed in their intelligence, think that even straight things are crooked and call light darkness, while they think that darkness is light, it is necessary to quote also from the other letters of Dionysius, and state why they were written, to the greater condemnation of the heretic. For it was from them that we ourselves have learned to think and write as we are doing about the man.

13. But other writings of Dionysius have to be considered also. Their history.

The following is the occasion of his writing the other letters. The Bishop Dionysius having heard of the affairs in Pentapolis and having written, in zeal for religion, as I said above, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging to the Church, of right opinions, but without asking him, so as to learn from himself how he had written, went up to Rome; and they spoke against him in the presence of his namesake Dionysius the Bishop of Rome. And he, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the partisans of Sabellius and against those who held the very opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out of the Church; calling it an equal and opposite impiety to hold with Sabellius, or with those who say that the Word of God is a thing made and formed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius to inform him of what they had said about him. And the latter straightway wrote back, and inscribed his books ‘a Refutation and a Defence.’ Here mark the detestable gang of the adversaries of Christ, and how they themselves have stirred up their disgrace against themselves. For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all.

14. Object and general method of Dionysius in his ‘Refutation and Defence.’

And the mere fact of Dionysius having made his defence about the matters on which these people harp suffices completely to condemn the Arians, and to demonstrate their malignity. For he wrote, not in angry controversy, but to defend himself on the points where he was under suspicion. But in defending himself against charges, what does he do if not, while disposing of every charge of which he was suspected, by this very fact convict the Arian madmen of malignity? But, to complete their confusions by means of what he wrote in his defence, come, let me set before you his actual words. For from them you will learn firstly that the Arians are malicious, secondly that Dionysius has nothing to do with their error. To begin with, then, he wrote his letter as in Refutation and in Defence. But this means, surely, that he aims at refuting false statements, and defends himself for what he has written; shewing that he wrote not as Arius supposed, but that in mentioning what is said concerning the Lord in His human aspect, he was not ignorant that He was the Word and Wisdom undivided from the Father. Then he blames those who spoke against him for not quoting his language as a whole, but garbling it, and speaking not in good faith but disingenously and arbitrarily. And he compares them to those who used to impeach the letters of the blessed Apostle. But this complaint of his entirely clears him from sinister suspicion. For if he considers the detractors of Paul to be like his own, he shews precisely this, that he wrote as he did in Paul’s sense. At any rate, in meeting severally the charges of his opponents, he explains all the passages cited by them: and, whereas in these latter he upsets Sabellius, in his subsequent letters he shews how sound and pious is his own faith. Accordingly whereas they would have it that Dionysius held that ‘God was not always a Father, the Son did not always exist, but God existed apart from the Word, while the Son Himself was not before He was begotten: on the contrary, there was a time when He was not, for He is not eternal but has come later into being,’—see how he replies! Most of what he said, whether in the form of investigations, or collective inferences, or interrogatory refutations, or charges against his accusers, I omit because of the length of his discourses, inserting only what is strictly relevant to the charges against him. In answer to these, he writes after certain prefatory matter, in the first book inscribed ‘Refutation and Defence’ in the following terms.

15. Extracts from the ‘Refutation and Defence.’

‘For never was there a time when God was not a father.’ And this he acknowledges in what follows, ‘that Christ is for ever, being Word and Wisdom and Power. For it is not to be supposed that God, having at first no such issue, afterwards begat a Son, but that the Son has His being not of Himself but of the Father.’ And a little way on he adds on the same subject, ‘But being the brightness of light eternal, certainly He is Himself eternal; for as the light exists always, it is evident that the brightness must exist always as well. For it is by the fact of its shining that the existence of light is perceived, and there cannot be light that does not give light. For let us come back to our examples. If there is sun, there is sunlight, there is day. If there is none of these things, it is quite impossible for there to be sun. If then the sun were eternal, the day also would be unceasing. But in fact, as that is not so, the day begins and ceases with the sun. But God is light eternal, never beginning nor ceasing. The brightness then lies before Him eternally, and is with Him without beginning and ever-begotten, shining in His Presence, being that Wisdom which said, “I was that wherein he rejoiced, and daily I was glad in his presence at all times” (Prov. viii. 30).’ And again after a little he resumes the same subject with the words, ‘The Father then being eternal, the Son is eternal, being Light of Light: for if there is a parent there is also a child. But if there were not a child, how and of whom can there be a parent? But there are both, and that eternally.’ Then again he adds, ‘God then being light, Christ is brightness; and being Spirit, for “God is a Spirit” (John iv. 24),—in like manner Christ is called the breath, for He is the “breath of the power of God” (Wisd. vii. 25).’ And again, to quote the second book, he says, ‘But only the Son, who always is with the Father and is filled of Him that IS, Himself also IS from the Father.’

16. Contrast of the language of Dionysius with that of Arius.

Now if the sense of the above statements were doubtful, there would be need of an interpreter. But since he wrote plainly and repeatedly on the same subject, let Arius gnash his teeth when he sees his own heresy subverted by Dionysius, and hears him say what he does not wish to hear: ‘God was always Father, and the Son is not absolutely eternal, but His eternity flows from the eternity of the Father, and He coexists with Him as brightness with the light.’ But let these, who have so much as imagined that Dionysius held with Arius, lay aside such a slander against him. For what have they in common, when Arius says, ‘The Son was not before He was begotten, but there was once a time when He was not,’ whereas Dionysius teaches, ‘Now God is Light eternal, neither beginning, nor ever to end: accordingly the brightness lies before Him eternally, and coexists with Him, shining before Him without beginning and ever-begotten.’ For in fact to meet the suspicion of others who allege that Dionysius in speaking of the Father does not name the Son, and again in speaking of the Son does not name the Father, but divides, removes, and separates the Son from the Father, he replies and puts them to shame in the second book, as follows.

17. Dionysius did not separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

‘Each of the names I have mentioned is inseparable and indivisible 972 from that next to it. I spoke of the Father, and before referring to the Son I designated Him too in the Father. I referred to the Son,—and even if I did not also expressly mention the Father, certainly He was to be understood beforehand in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I further added both whence and through whom He proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither is the Father, qua Father, separated from the Son,—for the name carries that relationship with it,—nor is the Son expatriated from the Father. For the title Father denotes the common bond. But in their hands is the Spirit, who cannot be parted either from Him that sent or from Him that conveyed Him: How then can I, who use these names, imagine that they are sundered and utterly 973 separated from one another?’ And after a little he goes on, ‘Thus then we extend the Monad 974 indivisibly into the Triad, and conversely gather together the Triad without diminution into the Monad.’

18. Dionysius did not hold that the Son was not of one essence with the Father.

Next he confutes them upon their charge that he called the Son one of the things originated, and not of one essence with the Father (once more in the first book) as follows: ‘Only in saying that certain things were perceived to be originated and created, I gave them as examples cursorily, as being less adequate, saying that neither was the plant [of one essence] with the husbandman, nor the boat with its builder. Then I dwelt more upon more apposite and suitable comparisons, and went at greater length into those nearer the truth, making out various proofs, which I wrote to you 975 in another letter, by means of which proofs I shewed also that the charge they allege against me is untrue, namely, that I denied Christ to be of one essence with God. For even if I argue that I have not found this word (ὁμοούσιον) nor read it anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, yet my subsequent reasonings, which they have suppressed, do not discord with its meaning. For I gave the example of human birth evidently as being homogeneous, and saying that certainly the parents only differed from their children in not being themselves the children, else it would follow that there was no such thing as parents or children. And the letter, as I said before, I am prevented by circumstances from producing, else I would have sent you the exact words I then used, or rather a copy of all the letter: which I will do if I have an opportunity. But I know, and recollect, that I added several similitudes from kindred relations. For I said that a plant, sprung from a seed or root, was different from that whence it sprung, and at the same time entirely of one nature with it: and that a stream flowing from a well receives another form and name,—for the well is not called a river, nor the river a well,—and that both existed, and that the well was as it were a father, while the river was water from the well. But they pretend not to see these and the like written statements, but to be as it were blind, while they try to pelt me with two unconnected expressions like stones, from a distance, not knowing that in matters beyond our knowledge, and which require training to apprehend, frequently not only foreign, but even contrary examples serve to illustrate the problem in hand.’ And in the third book he says, ‘Life was begotten of Life, and flowed as a river from a well, and from Light unquenchable bright Light was kindled.’

19. Inconsistency of the Arian appeal to Dionysius.

Who that hears this will not set down as mad those who suspect Dionysius of holding with Arius? For lo! in these words, by arguments based on truth, he tramples upon his entire heresy. For by the simile of the Brightness he destroys the statements that ‘He was not before He was begotten,’ and ‘There was a time when He was not,’ as also by saying that His Father was never without issue. But their allegation that He was made ‘of nothing’ he destroys by saying that the Word was like a river from a well, and a shoot from a stock, and a child from a parent, and Light from Light, and Life from Life. And their barring off and separating the Word from God, he overthrows by saying that the Triad is without division and without diminution gathered together into the Monad. While their statement that the Son has no part in the Father’s essence, he unequivocally tramples down by saying that the Son is of one essence with the Father. Wherein one must wonder at the impudence of the irreligious persons. How can they, when Dionysius whom they claim as their partisan says that the Son is of one essence 976 , themselves go about buzzing like gnats with the complaint that the Synod was wrong in writing ‘of one essence?’ For if Dionysius is a friend of theirs, let them not deny what their partisan holds. But if they think that the expression was wrongly used, how can they reiterate that Dionysius, who used it, held with them? the more so as he does not appear to have written these things merely by the way, but having previously written other letters 977 , he convicts of falsehood those who had charged him with not saying that the Son was of one Essence with the Father, while he refutes those who thought that he said that the Word was originated, shewing that he did not hold what they supposed, but even if he had used the expressions, he had done so merely in order to shew that it was the Son, not the Father, who had put on the originated, formed, created body; for which reason the Son also is said to have been originated, created, and formed.

20. Dionysius must be fairly interpreted, and allowed the benefit of his own explanatory statements.

Clearly since he had previously used such expressions, while bidding a long farewell to the Arians, he demands a good conscience from his hearers,—being entitled to plead the difficulty, or perhaps one may say the incomprehensibleness of the problems concerned,—namely that they may judge not of the words but of the meaning of the writer, and the more so as there is very much to shew his intention. For instance he says himself: ‘I used the examples of such relations cursorily, as being less adequate, the plant and the husbandman for instance; while I dwelt upon the more pertinent examples, and went at greater length into those nearer the truth.’ But a man who says this shews that it is nearer the truth to say that the Son is eternal and of the Father, than to say that He is originated. For by the latter the bodily nature of the Lord is denoted, but by the former, the eternity of His Godhead. In the following words, for instance, he maintains, and not only so, but deliberately and with genuine demonstrative force, that they are refuted who charged him with not saying that the Son is of one essence with the Father: ‘even if I did not find this expression in the Scriptures, yet collecting from the actual Scriptures their general sense, I knew that, being Son and Word, He could not be outside the Essence of the Father.’ For that he does not hold the Son to be a thing created or formed,—for on this point also they have quoted him repeatedly—he says in the second book as follows: ‘But if any one of my traducers, because I called God the Creator the maker of all things, thinks that I mean that He is Maker of Christ also, let him mark that I previously called Him Father, in which term the Son also is implied. For after I said that the Father is Maker, I added neither is He Father of the things He created, if He that begat is to be called Father in the strict sense. For the wider sense of the term Father we will work out in what follows. Neither is the Father a maker, if by maker is meant simply the artificer. For among the Greeks, philosophers are called “makers” of their own discourses. And the Apostle speaks of a “doer” (ποιητής) “of the law” (Rom. ii. 13), for men are called “doers” of inward qualities, such as virtue and vice; as God said, “I looked for one to do justice, but he did wickedness ”’ (Isa. v. 7, LXX).

21. In what sense Dionysius said that the Son was ‘made.’

Of a truth one that hears this is reminded of the divine oracle which says, ‘whithersoever the impious turns, he is destroyed’ (Prov. xii. 7, LXX). For lo! turning subtly in each direction these impious men are destroyed, having even here no excuse as touching Dionysius. For he teaches openly that the Son is not a thing made or created, while he taxes and corrects those who accuse him of having said that God was the creator (of Christ), in that they failed to notice that he had previously spoken of God as Father, in which expression the Son also is implied. But in saying thus, he shews that the Son is not one of the creatures, and that God is not the maker but the Father of His own Word. And since certain had ignorantly objected to him that he called God the maker of Christ, he defends himself in various ways, shewing that not even here is what he said open to blame. For he had said that God was the maker of Christ in regard to His flesh, which the Word took, and which was in itself created. But if any one were to suspect that this referred to the Word, here too they were bound to give him a fair hearing. ‘For as I do not hold that the Word is a creature, and call God not His maker but His Father, even if I in passing, while referring to the Son, call God a creator, yet even here I am able to defend myself. For the Greek philosophers call themselves makers (ποιηταί) of their own discourses (λόγοι), although they are their fathers; while the Divine Scripture describes us as makers (doers) even of the motions of our hearts, speaking of “doers” of the law and of judgment and justice.’ So that on all sides he demonstrates not only that the Son is not a thing made or created, but also that he himself has nothing to do with Arian error.

22. The relation of the Son to the Father is essential, according to Dionysius.

For let not any Arian suppose that he says even anything of the following kind: The Son coexists with the Father, so that while the names are correlated, the things are widely removed; and whereas the Son did not always coexist with the Father, since the Son came into being, God received from that fact the additional name of Father, and His coexistence with Him dates from that time as happens in the case of men. On the contrary, let him observe and bear in mind what we have said before, and he will see that the faith of Dionysius is correct. For in saying, ‘For there was no time when God was not Father,’ and again, ‘God at any rate is light eternal without beginning nor ever to end, accordingly the brightness is eternally before Him and coexists with Him, without beginning and ever-begotten, shining in His presence,’ he should make it impossible for any one to entertain any such suspicion against him. Moreover the examples of the well and the river, and the root and the branch, and the breath and the vapour, put to shame the adversaries of Christ when they reiterate the contrary against him.

23. Dionysius did not hold that there are two Words.

But since in addition to all his own iniquities Arius has raked up this expression also as if from a dunghill, adding that, ‘The Word is not the Father’s own, but the Word that is in God is different, while this one, the Lord, is outside of and has nothing to do with the Essence of the Father, and is only called “Word” conceptually 978 , and is not by nature and of a truth Son of God, but is called Son, He too, by adoption, as a creature;’—and since saying thus he boasts among the ignorant as though here too he has Dionysius as his partisan;—look at the faith of Dionysius on these points also, how he contradicts these perversities of Arius. For in the first book he writes as follows: ‘Now I have said that God is the well of all that is good: while the Son has been described as the river which proceeds from Him. For word is an efflux of intelligence, and, to borrow language applicable to men, the intelligence that issues by the tongue is derived from the heart through the mouth, coming out different from the word in the heart. For the latter remains, after sending forth the other, as it was. But the other is sent forth and flies forth, and is borne in every direction. And so each is in the other, and each distinct from the other: and they are one and at the same time two. Likewise the Father and the Son were said to be one, and the One in the other.’ And in the fourth book he says: ‘For as our intelligence utters the word from itself, as the prophet says, My heart uttered a good word (Ps. xlv. 1), and, while either is distinct from the other, occupying a place of its own distinct from the other, the one dwelling and stirring in the heart, the other upon the tongue,—yet they are not separated, not for a moment lost to one another, nor is the intelligence without utterance (ἄλογος), nor the word without intelligence, but the intelligence creates the Word being manifested in it, and the Word shews forth the intelligence having originated in it, and the intelligence is as it were an internal word, and the word an issuing intelligence; the intelligence passing over into the word, while the word circulates the intelligence among the hearers: and so the intelligence through the word gains a lodgment in the souls of the hearers, entering in along with the word; and the intelligence is as it were the father of the word, existing in itself, while the word is as it were the son of the intelligence, having its origin, not of course before the latter, nor yet concurrently with it from some external source, but by springing out of it;—so the mighty Father and universal Intelligence has the Son before all things as His Word, Interpreter and Messenger.’

24. If the Arians agree with Dionysius let them use his language.

These things Arius either never heard, or heard and in his ignorance did not understand. For otherwise, had he understood, he would not have so grossly libelled the Bishop, but certainly would revile him also, as he did ourselves, because of his hatred of the truth. For being an adversary of Christ, he will not hesitate to persecute also those who hold the doctrine of Christ, as the Lord Himself has said beforehand: ‘If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you’ (Joh. xv. 20). Or, if the leaders of impiety think Dionysius was a partisan of theirs, let them write and confess what he did. Let them write about the vine and the husbandman, the boat and the shipbuilder; and let them at the same time confess, as he did in his defence, the Unity of Essence, and that the Son is of the Father’s Substance, and eternal; and the relation of intelligence and word, and the well and the river, and the rest; in order that they may see from the very contrast that he used the former class of language for a special purpose, but the latter as expressing the full meaning of the Christian Faith. And consequently let them, by adopting this language, revoke what they have held inconsistently with it. For in what way does the faith of Dionysius even approximate to the mischief of Arius? Does not Arius restrict the term Word to a conceptual sense, while Dionysius calls Him the true Word of God by nature? and while the one banishes the Word from the Father, the other teaches that He is the Father’s own, and inseparable from His Essence, as the word is to the intelligence and the river to the well. If then any one is able to separate and banish the word from the intelligence, or to put asunder the river and the well, and wall them off, or to say that the river is of another essence than the well, and to shew that the water is from elsewhere, or ventures to divide the brightness from the light and to say that the brightness is from another essence, then let him join Arius in his madness. For such an one will cease to have the semblance even of human intelligence. But if Nature knows that these are indivisible, and that the offspring of those objects is their very own, then let no one any longer hold with Arius or slander Dionysius, but rather on these grounds admire the plainness of his language and the correctness of his faith.

25. The teaching of Dionysius on the Word (continued).

For with reference to the madness of Arius when he says that the Word which is in God is distinct from that one of which John said, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (Joh. i. 1), and that God’s own wisdom within Himself is not the same as that to which the Apostle refers as ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. i. 24), Dionysius resists and denounces any such error, as you may see in the second book where he writes on the subject as follows: ‘“In the beginning was the Word;” but it was not Word that sent forth the Word, for “the Word was with God.” The Lord has been made wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. i. 30): He then that sent out Wisdom was not Wisdom, for “I was she,” saith Wisdom, “in whom He delighted.” Christ is truth: but “Blessed,” saith He, “be the God of truth”’ (1 Esdr. iv. 40). There He overthrows both Sabellius and Arius, and shews both heresies to be equal in impiety. For neither is the Father of the Word Himself Word, nor is the offspring of the Father a creature, but the Own-begotten of His essence. And again the Word that proceeded forth is not Father, nor again is He one word out of many; but He alone is the Father’s Son, the true and genuine Son by nature, Who both now is in Him, and is eternally and indivisibly from within Him. Thus the Lord is both Wisdom and Truth, and is not in the second place after another wisdom; but He alone it is through whom the Father made all things, and in Him He made the manifold essences of created things, and through Him He is made known to whom He will, and in Him He carries on and effects His universal providence. For Him alone does Dionysius recognise as Word of God. This is the faith of Dionysius: for I have collected and copied a few statements from his letters, enough to induce you to add to their number, but to put the Arians to utter shame on account of their libel upon the Bishop. For in all, even the details, of what he wrote, he exposed their error and branded their heresy.

26. How Dionysius dealt with the Sabellians.

Hence too it is manifest that even the letter to Euphranor and Ammonius was written by him in a different sense and for a special purpose. For this his defence makes plain. And in truth this is an effective form of argument for the subversion of the madness of Sabellius, for him that wishes for a short way with those heretics, not to start from expressions applicable to the deity of the Word, such as that the Son is God’s Word and Wisdom and Power, and that ‘I and the Father are one’ (John x. 30), lest they, perverting what is well said should use such expressions as a pretext for their unblushing contentiousness, when they hear the texts, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ (John 10:30, John 14:9); but to emphasize what is said of the Saviour as Man, as He Himself has done, such as His hungering and thirsting, and being weary, and how He is the Vine, and how He prayed and has suffered. For in so far as these are lowly expressions, it becomes all the clearer that it was not the Father that was made man. For it follows, when the Lord is called the Vine, that there must also be a husbandman: and when He prayed, that there was one to hear, and when He asked, that there was one to give. Now such things shew far more readily the madness of the Sabellians, because He that prayed was one, He that heard another, one the Vine and another the Husbandman. For whatever expressions are cited to distinguish between the Son and the Father are used of Him by reason of the flesh which He bore for our sake. For created things are distinct in nature from God. Accordingly since, the flesh being a created thing, ‘the Word,’ as John says, ‘was made flesh’ (John i. 14), although He is by nature the Father’s own and inseparable from Him, yet by reason of the flesh the Father is widely distinguished from Him. For He Himself permits that what is appropriate to the flesh should be said of him, that it may be made plain that the body was His own and not that of any other. But this being the sense of these sayings, Sabellius will be the more quickly confuted, it being proved that it was not the Father that was made flesh, but His Word, who also redeemed the flesh and offered it to the Father. But thus having confuted and persuaded him, he will next be able more readily to teach him concerning the deity of the Word, how that He is the Word and Wisdom, Son and Power, Brightness and Express Image. For it is here again a necessary inference that as the Word exists, there must also exist the Father of the Word, and as Wisdom exists, there exists also its Parent, and as Brightness exists so also does the Light; and that in this manner the Son and the Father are one.

27. Conclusion.

Dionysius knew this when he wrote. And by his first letters he silenced Sabellius, and in his others he overcame the heresy of Arius. For just as the human attributes of the Saviour overthrew Sabellius, so against the Arian madmen one must use proofs drawn not from the human attributes but from what betokens the deity of the Word, lest they pervert what is said of the Lord by reason of His Body, and think that the Word is of like nature with us men, and so abide still in their madness. But if they also are taught about His deity they will condemn their own error; and when they understand that the Word was made flesh, they too will the more easily distinguish in future the human characteristics from those which fit His deity. But this being so, and the Bishop Dionysius having been shewn by his writings to be pious, what will the Arian madmen do next? Convicted on this evidence, whom will they again venture to malign? For they needs must, since they have fallen from the foundation of the Apostles and have no settled mind of their own, seek some support, and if they can find none, then malign the fathers. But no one will believe them any more even if they make efforts to libel them, for the heresy is condemned on all hands. Unless perchance they will henceforth speak of the devil, for he is their only partisan, or rather he it is who suggested their heresy to them. Who then can any longer call men ‘Christians’ whose leader is the devil, and not rather ‘Diabolici,’ so that they may bear the name not merely of adversaries of Christ, but of partisans of the devil? Unless indeed they change round, and, rejecting the impiety they have contrived, come to know the truth. For this will at once be for their own good, and it is thus that it beseems us to pray for all those that are in error.

Footnotes

177:966

προσώπου: but see also Newman’s note 2 on de Decr. §14.

178:967

See Epiphanius, Hær. lxviii. 1. The arrangement is recognised as one of old standing in the sixth canon of Nicæa, ‘Let the old customs which exist in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis remain in force, namely that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all these regions; since this is also customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise also at Antioch and in the other prefectures (it is decreed) that their prerogatives should be maintained to those churches.’ The canon points to the natural explanation of the arrangement: the bishops of the capitals began from a very early date to exercise a loosely defined but gradually strengthening supervision over those of the rest of the province. In particular, they came to exercise a veto (and latterly more than a veto) upon the appointments to the provincial sees (εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης, ib.). The bishops of Alexandria as well as Rome had even at this date acquired something of the rank of secular potentates (δυναστεία, Socr. vii. 11, ἤδη πάλαι), but not to the extent to which it went later on (ib. 7. and supr. Apol. Ar. §9).

178:968

θεραπεύειν. For the word, cf. Hatch, Hibb. Lect. p. 80 note.

178:969

κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, as below §24. Cf. de Decr. §25, note 5. The word οἰκονομία has two main senses in Athanasius, both derived from the classical sense of management or dispensation, the adapting of means toward an end. (1) As in the present passage (cf. Origen in Migne XI. p. 77 b, οἰκονομικῶς): a use which is the lineal ancestor of the ill-sounding word ‘economy’ as a term in casuistry; (2) as applied to the Incarnation of our Lord, regarded as the Dispensation, the Divine Method for the salvation of mankind. This use is very frequent in St. Athanasius (compare Ep. Æg. 2. and Orat. ii. 11), and in earlier Fathers from Ignatius (Eph. 18 ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, where Lightfoot refers to a more detailed history of the word in his unpublished note on Eph. i. 10) downwards (references in Soph. Lex. s.v.).

179:970

See Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, Appendix C, 5.

180:971

Cf. Orat. i. 48, note 7, and ii. 56, note 5.

182:972

This passage is somewhat differently rendered by Dr. Pusey in his letter on the Filioque (1876), p. 112.

182:973

The παντελῶς somewhat qualifies the repudiation. Dionysius expressly maintained three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity, in contrast to the language of Rome (de Decr. 26 note 7a) and the later use of Athanasius himself. But see the Tom. ad Antioch. of 362, below, and supra p. 90, note 2. Dionysius of Rome repudiates τρεῖς μεμερισμένας ὑποστάσεις, while Dionysius of Alexandria (in Bas. de Sp. S.) maintains that unless three Hypostases be recognised, the divine Triad is denied.

182:974

As pointed out by Newman on De Decr. 25, note 9, Τριάς and Μονάς are concrete, Trinitas and Unitas abstract terms; so that while Trinitas (and Μονάς) lend themselves to a Sabellian, Τριὰς and Unitas may be pressed into an Arian sense: but each pair of terms (Greek and Latin) holds the balance evenly between the opposite misinterpretations.

183:975

‘To you’ is omitted in the extract de Decr. 25.

183:976

It should be noted that Dionysius while assenting to this word, does not use it as his own.

183:977

Possibly to other bishops who had questioned his teaching (Routh, Rell. iii. p. 380).

185:978

See Orat. ii. 37. note 7.

Introduction to Vita S. Antoni.

————————————

(Written between 356 and 362)

The Life of St. Antony is included in the present collection partly on account of the important influence it has exercised upon the development of the ascetic life in the Church, partly and more especially on the ground of its strong claim to rank as a work of Athanasius. If that claim were undisputed, no apology would be needed for its presence in this volume. If on the other hand its spurious and unhistorical character had been finally demonstrated, its insertion would be open to just objections. As it is, the question being still in dispute, although the balance of qualified opinion is on the side of the Athanasian authorship, it is well that the reader should have the work before him and judge for himself. To assist his judgment, it will be attempted in the following paragraphs to state the main reasons on either side. In doing so, I can honestly disclaim any bias for or against the Vita, or monasticism. Monasticism, with all its good and evil, is a great outgrowth of human life and instinct, a great fact in the history of the Christian religion; and whether its origin is to be put fifty years earlier or later (for that is the net value of the question at issue) is a somewhat small point relatively to the great problems which it offers to the theologian, the historian, and the moralist. But the point is at any rate worthy of careful and dispassionate examination. In attempting this, while holding no brief for either side, I may as well at once state my opinion on the evidence, namely that, genuine as are many of the difficulties which surround the question, the external evidence for the Vita is too strong to allow us to set it aside as spurious, and that in view of that evidence the attempts to give a positive account of the book as a spurious composition have failed.

1. Bibliography. a. Sources. The only reference to Antony in other writings of Athanasius is in Hist. Ar. 14. See also Fest. Index x. Vita Pachomii in Act. SS. Mai., Tom. iii. Appx. (written late in the fourth century, but by a person who had known Pachomius). Coptic fragments and documents (for early history of Egyptian monasticism with occasional details about Antony) in Zoega, Catalogus codd. Copticorum, (Rome, 1810), Mingarelli, Codd. copticorum reliquiæ, (Bologna, 1785), Revillout, Rapport sur une mission, etc. (in Archives des Missions scientifiques et littéraires, 3me, série, 1879, vol. 4), Amélineau, Hist. de S. Pakhôme, &c. (Annales du Musée Guimet, vol. xvii. Paris, 1889).

b. Modern discussions. Since the Reformation the general tendency of protestant writers has been to discredit, of Roman Catholics to maintain the authority of the Vita. To the former class belong the Magdeburg Centuriators, Rivet, Basnage, Casimir Oudin; to the latter, Bellarmin, Noel Alexandre, and above all Montfaucon in the Benedictine edition of Athanasius (especially in the Vita Athanasii, Animadversio II. in Vitam et Scripta S.A., and the Monitum in Antonii Vitam, which latter may still claim the first rank in critical discussions of the problem). We may add, as more or less unbiassed defenders of the Vita, Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 193), and Tillemont (Mem. vol. vii.). All the above belong to the period before 1750. In more recent times the attack has been led by Weingarten (Ursprung des Mönchtums in nachkonst. zeitalter, reprinted in 1877 from Zeitschrift für K.G. 1876, and in Herzog, vol. x. pp. 758 sqq.), followed by Gass (in Ztsch. K.G. II. 274), and Gwatkin (Studies, &c. pp. 98–103). Israel, in Zeitsch. Wiss. Theol. 1880, p. 130, &c., characterises Weingarten’s attack on the Vita as ‘too bold.’ Keim (Aus dem Urchr. 207 sqq.) and Hilgenfeld (in Zeitsch. f. Wiss. Theol. 1878) put the book in the lifetime of Ath. without absolutely pronouncing for him as the author, while Hase (J. Prot. Th. 1880), Harnack (especially in Th. Ltz. xi. 391, see also ‘Das Mönchtum’ u.s.w., Giessen, 1886), Möller, Lehrb. der K.G. i. 372, and Eichhorn (‘Athanasii de vita ascetica testimonia,’ Halle, 1886, the most convincing discussion of recent date, and indispensable) decide without hesitation in its favour. The discussion of Bornemann (In investigando monachatus origine, quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis, Leipzig, 1885) may also be mentioned as bearing on the general subject; also the articles ‘Monastery,’ ‘Cœnobium,’ and ‘Hermits’ in D. C. A. The article ‘Antony’ in D. C. B. passes over the question without discussion, excepting the trite, but untenable, statement that the Vita ‘is probably interpolated.’ Farrar (Lives of the Fathers, and Contemp. Review, Nov. 1887) follows Gwatkin. Picturesque representations of Antony (from the Vita) in Kingsley’s Hermits and Newman’s Historical Sketches, vol. 2.

2. External evidence as to authorship and date. This is given by Montfaucon in the Monitum and reproduced by Eichhorn, pp. 36 sqq.

i. The Version of Evagrius. Evagrius, presbyter (Eustathian) and subsequently (388) Bishop at Antioch (in Italy 364–373), translated the Vita Antonii into Latin. He prefaced with a short apology (see below, Vit. Ant. §1, note 1) for the freedom of his rendering, addressed ‘Innocentio carissimo filio.’ Now this Innocent, the friend of Jerome and Evagrius, died in the summer of 374, almost exactly a year after the death of Athanasius (D. C. B. iii. 31, 251). Of this identification there is no reason to doubt; still less ground is there for the hesitation (Hist. Lit. I. 283, ‘non una est dubitandi ratio’) of Cave and others as to the identity of the version, printed by Montfaucon and transmitted by very numerous mss. (‘quæ ingenti numero vidi,’ Migne xxv. p. clviii.) with that actually made by Evagrius. Therefore, even if we make the two very improbable assumptions that the Dedication to Innocentius falls within a few weeks or days of his death (i.e. during the journey from Italy to Syria!), and that the Vita was translated by Evagrius almost immediately upon its composition, the composition of the Vita falls within a few months of the death of Athanasius. Its antiquity then ‘is fully conceded’ even by Mr. Gwatkin (Studies, p. 103, who yet, p. 98, puts it down to ‘the generation after Athanasius!’). The translation of Evagrius also preserves what looks like the original heading. It should be added that the Evagrian version (read in the light of its preface), entirely excludes the hypothesis that the Greek text of the Vita is interpolated. Evagrius avowedly abridges at times, while in some cases he embellishes (see §82, note 16).

ii. Jerome wrote his Vita Pauli in the Syrian desert, between 374 and 379. He mentions both the Vita and its Latin Version in the prologue: if he had seen the latter he can scarcely have been ignorant of its heading. The non-mention of Athanasius as the author is an argumentum ex silentio of the most precarious kind. Some fifteen years later (de Script Eccles. 87, 88, 125) he repeatedly mentions Athanasius as the author, and specifies Evagrius as the translator.

iii. Ephrem the Syrian (Opp. ed. 1732–43, I. p. 249) quotes ‘Saint’ Athanasius by name as the biographer of Antony. Ephrem died in 373. But little stress can be laid upon this testimony, in view of the lack of a critical sifting of the works which bear the name of this saint (so Tillemont viii. 229, and vii. 138). More important is

iv. Gregory Naz. Or. 21, ‘Athanasius compiled the biography of the divine Antony τοῦ μοναδικοῦ βίου νομοθεσίαν ἐν πλάσματι διηγήσεως’ (cf. Vita, Prologue). This oration was delivered in 380, seven years after the death of Athanasius. Gregory, it is true, is not a good judge on a point of criticism. But he expresses the opinion of his time, and confirms and is confirmed by the evidence of Evagrius and Jerome.

v. Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. I. viii. He would give an account of Antony, but ‘ille libellus exclusit qui ab Athanasio scriptus etiam Latino Sermone editus est.’ This was written 400 a.d.: if in a later work (Hist. Mon. 30, and see also 29) he happens to allude to the Vita without mentioning its author, we are not entitled to say that to Rufinus ‘the work is anonymous’ (Gwatkin, p. 103).

vi. The Life of Pachomius, which (as above mentioned) has details of Antony’s life independent of the Vita, also mentions the latter (c. 1) as the work of Athanasius. Though written perhaps as late as 390, this document is of great weight as evidence in the case (see Krüger in Theol. Ltzg. 1890, p. 620).

vii. Paulinus in his prologue to the Life of Ambrose (after 400) refers to the Vita as written by Athanasius.

viii. Fifth-century historians, Palladius, Hist. Laus. 8, Socrates (H. E., i. 21) Sozomenus (i. 13) attest the established tradition of their day that Athanasius was the author of the Life.

ix. Augustine (Conf. viii. 14, 15, 19, 29) and Chrysostom (Hom. 8 on S. Matthew) mention the Vita without giving the name of the author. But we are not entitled to cite them as witnesses to its (alleged) anonymity, which they neither affirm nor imply.

The above witnesses, all of whom excepting No. viii. come within 50 years of the death of Athanasius, are a formidable array. No other work of Athanasius can boast of such external evidence in its favour. And in the face of such evidence it is impossible to place the composition later than the lifetime of the great Bishop. We have therefore to ask whether the contents of the Vita are in irreconcileable conflict with the result of the external evidence: whether they point, not indeed to a later age, for the external evidence excludes this, but to an author who during the lifetime of Athanasius (i.e. not later than the year of his death) ventured to publish a hagiographic romance in his name (‘Evagrian’ heading, and §§71, 82).

3. Internal Evidence. It may be remarked in limine that for the existence of Antony there is not only the evidence of the Vita itself, but also that of many other fourth-century documents (see above 1.a. under ‘sources’). Weingarten quite admits this (R. E., X. 774, but he implies the contrary in his Zeit-tafeln, ed. 3, p. 228); and Mr. Gwatkin is certainly far ahead of his evidence when he pronounces (Arian Controversy, p. 48) that Antony ‘never existed.’

a. Origin and early history of Monasticism. According to the Vita, the desert was unknown to μοναχοί (solitary ascetics) at the time (about 275? Vit. §3) when Antony first adopted the ascetic life. About the year 285 he began his twenty years’ sojourn in the ruined fort. To the end of this sojourn belongs the first great wave of Monastic settlement in the desert. During the later part of the great persecution ‘monasteries’ and monks begin to abound (§44, 46). The remainder of his long life (311–356) is passed mainly in his ‘inner mountain,’ where he forms the head and centre of Egyptian monasticism. Now it is contended by Weingarten and his followers that the Vita is contradicted in this important particular by all the real evidence as to the origin of monasticism, which cannot be proved to have originated before the death of Constantine. But Eichhorn has I think conclusively shewn the hastiness of this assumption. Passing over the disputable evidence of the De Vita Contemplativa ascribed to Philo, (which Weingarten endeavours, against Lucius and others, to put back to a date much earlier than the third century and out of relation to Christian asceticism 979 ), the writings of Athanasius himself are the sufficient refutation of the late date assigned to the rise of monachism.

In the writings of the supposed date (356–362) of the Vita, references to monks are very frequent (e.g. Apol. Fug. 4, Apol. Const. 29): but previous to this (339) we find them mentioned in Encyl. §3, and yet earlier, Apol. Ar. 67 (see below). In the letter to Dracontius (Letter 49 in this vol.), corporate monasticism is implied to be no novel institution. Dracontius himself (about 354) is president of a monastery, and many other similar communities are referred to. (Gwatkin deals with this letter in an unsatisfactory fashion, p. 102, see the letter itself, §§7, 9, and notes.) The letter to Amun, probably earlier than that just mentioned, is clearly (sub. fin.) addressed to the head of a monastic society. Again, the bishops Muis and Paulus of Letter 49, §7, who were monks before their consecration, had been in the monastery of Tabennæ before the death of Pachomius, which occurred almost certainly in 346 (Eichhorn 12, 13. The whole history of Pachomius, who was only a year or two older than Athanasius, although personally but little known to him, his monastery being at Tabennæ, an island near Philæ, is in conflict with Weingarten’s theory). Lastly 980 one of the most characteristic and life-like of the documents relating to the case of Arsenius and the Council of Tyre, namely the letter of Pinnes to John Arcaph (Apol. Ar. 67) carries back the evidence earlier still. Pinnes is ‘presbyter of a monastery’ (μονή): that μονή here means a society of monks, and not a posting station (Weing. in R. E., X. p. 775) is clear from the mention of ‘Helias the monk,’ and ‘I, Paphnutius, monk of the same monastery.’ This letter proves that there were not only Catholic but Meletian monks, and these not hermits but in societies: and thus the origin of the solitary type of monasticism goes back as far as the Meletian schism. (The existence of Meletian monks is attested independently of this letter, see Eich. p. 347.) Weingarten is quite unable to deal with this obstacle to his theory. His argument is simply this: either the letter has nothing to do with monks and monasteries (he overlooks Paphnutius), or it must be rejected as spurious! What reductio ad absurdum could be more complete? In an equally desperate way he deals with the clear evidence of Aphraates, Hom. vi., as to the existence of (at any rate) solitary monasticism in Eastern Syria as early as 336. See Texte und Untersuchungen iii. 3, pp. xvi. 89, &c. (Leipzig, 1888.)

b. Historical misstatements. i. It is better to include under this head rather than under the last the title ad peregrinos fratres. Who were the ‘foreign monks’ (τοὺς ἐν τῇ ξένῃ μοναχούς)? The introduction of monasticism into the West seems to belong to the time of S. Ambrose (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, cf. Sozom. III. 14, ‘the European nations [before 361] had no experience of monastic societies’) or rather Martin of Tours (D.C.B. iii. p. 840). The statement (Encycl. Brit. ‘Monachism’) that Athanasius carried the Vita Atonii to Rome in 340 is based on a misunderstanding of Jerome (Ep. 127), who really says no more than that the existence of monachism in Egypt first became known at Rome from the visits of Athanasius and of his successor Peter. If then the ‘peregrini fratres’ are to be looked for in the West, we have a serious difficulty, and must choose between the Vita and Sozomen. But the foreign monks may have belonged to the East. (I cannot see that §93 ‘assumes,’ as Mr. Gwatkin maintains, ‘the existence of numerous monks in the West.’ What is said is simply that Antony had been heard of—ἠκούσθη—in Spain, Gaul, and Africa.) However, the point must be left uncertain, and so far allowed to weigh against the Vita.

ii. Early intercourse of Athanasius with Antony (Prologue, and note 2). If the Benedictine text is correct, the reference must be to the period before Athanasius became deacon to Bishop Alexander, in fact to a period previous to 318 a.d. Tillemont (viii. 652), who maintains the other reading, mainly relies upon the impossibility of finding room for the intercourse in question in the early life of Athanasius. But his only source of knowledge of that period is Rufinus, a very poor authority, and Montfaucon replies with some force (Animadv. 11) that we have no sufficient information as to how Athanasius passed the years previous to his ordination by Alexander. He also suggests that Athanasius may have been one of those who followed Antony’s example (§46, cf. Apol. c. Ar. 6) after his first visit to Alexandria. I may add that the notes to the Vita will call attention to several points of contact between the teaching of Antony and the earliest treatises of Athanasius. Yet the impression left on the mind is here again one of uncertainty (cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §1 fin.).

iii. The narrative about Duke Balacius (§86: see note there) is another genuine difficulty, only to be got over if we suppose either that Athanasius in one place tells the story inaccurately, and corrects himself in the other, or that the Hist. Arian. was partly written for Athanasius by a secretary.

iv. Supposed learning of Antony. His ignorance of letters and of the Greek language does not prevent his forcibly employing the most effective arguments against Arianism (69), vindicating the Incarnation (74) much in the manner of Athanasius, and above all showing a fair acquaintance (72–74) with Platonic philosophy (see notes there). But everything in the biography points to a man of robust mind, retentive memory (3) and frequent intercourse with visitors. If he were so, he can scarcely have been ignorant of the theological controversies of his day, or of the current philosophical ideas. Nor can I see that the philosophy of his argument against the Greeks goes beyond what that would imply. His allusion to Plato does not look like a first-hand citation. And even an Athanasius would not so entirely rise out of the biographical habits of his day as to mingle nothing of his own with the speeches of his hero (‘Equidem quid Antonio quid Athanasio tribuendum sit uix diiudicari posse concedo,’ Eich. p. 52).

c. Inconsistencies with Athanasius. It is the most serious objection to the Athanasian authorship of the Vita that Athanasius (with the exception of the ‘antilegomenon’ Hist. Ar. 14) nowhere else mentions Antony by name. Especially in the letter to Dracontius, who at first refused the Episcopate in the supposed interests of his soul, we might, it is argued, have expected a reference to the deep reverence of Antony (§67) for even the lowest clergy (the persons enumerated, Letter 49, §7, are bishops who had previously been monks, and have nothing to do with this question). That is true. We might have expected it. But as a matter of fact Athanasius uses another argument instead (see Letter 49, §3, note 8a). It does not follow that he did not know of the Antony of the Vita. But although the letter in question has been pressed unduly, the general objection, as an argumentum ex silentio on a rather large scale, remains 981 . Some more detailed points must now be considered.

a. Demons and Miracles. The writings of Athanasius are singularly free from the tendency to indulge in the marvellous. The death of Arius he regards as a judgment, and relates it with a certain awe-struck sobriety. The φήμη of Julian’s death in the Narrat. ad Ammon. comes less under the head of ecclesiastical miracle than under that of τὰ θειᾶ τῶν πρηγμάτων (Herod. ix. 100, cf. Grote v. 260 sq.); whereas the Vita swarms with miraculous and demoniacal stories, some (passed over in silence by Newman and other apologists for the Life) indescribably silly (e.g. §§53, 63). Hence even Cave allows that the Vita contains things ‘tanto viro indigna.’ But it must be observed (1) that Antony disclaims, and his biographer disclaims for him, inherent miraculous power. His miracles are wrought by Christ in answer to prayer, and he prefers that those who desire his help should obtain what they want by praying for themselves (cf. also §49). (2) That again and again (esp. §§16–43) he insists on the absolute subjection of all evil powers to God, and their powerlessness to injure believers in Christ. (3) That Athanasius recognises σημεῖα (in the sense of miracles, see Letter 49, §9, note 9) as a known phenomenon in the case both of bishops and of monks. (4) That his language about demons and the power of the sign of the Cross in dispersing them is quite of a piece with what is related in the Vita (see notes passim). (5) On the clairvoyance of Antony, and one or two kindred matters which offer points of contact with phenomena that have been recently the subject of careful research, notes will be found below giving modern references. On the whole, one could wish that Athanasius, who is in so many ways surprisingly in touch with the modern mind (supra, introd. to de Incar and Prolegg. ch. iv. §2 d and §3), had not written a biography revealing such large credulity. But we must measure this credulity of his not by the evidential methods of our own day, but by those of his own. If we compare the Vita, not with our modern biographies but with those, say, of Paul and Hilarion by Jerome, its superiority is striking (this is pointed out by W. Israël in Zeitschr für Wiss. Theol. 1878, pp. 130, 137, 145, 153). For myself I should certainly prefer to believe that Athanasius had not written many things in the Vita: but I would far rather he had written them all than the one passage Hist. Ar. §38 fin.

β. Theology. That there should be certain characteristic differences from the theology of Athanasius is what one would expect in an account of Antony that bore any relation to the historical person. Such is the anthropomorphic tendency, shewn especially in the corporeal nature ascribed to demons. Such perhaps is a tinge of naive semi-pelagianism about the Hermit’s language (§20 and elsewhere); we cannot forget the connection of Cassian’s Collations with Egyptian monasticism. Once again, ‘Antony’s shame of the body is not in the spirit of the writer ad Amunem’ (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 102). Lastly, in Antony’s account of the heathen gods (§76) we miss the characteristic Euhemerism of Athanasius (see supra, pp. 10, 62, &c.). Throughout, in fact, the ruder monastic instinct crops up from under the Athanasian style and thought of the biographer. But the latter is also unmistakable (see the notes passim), and the differences have been certainly made too much of. I will give one example from Mr. Gwatkin, who says (ubi supra), ‘Athanasius does not speak of πρόνοια like the Vita (c. 49, 66, 74), for de Fuga 25 specially refers to his providential escape from Syrianus, and c. Gent. 47, πρόνοια τῶν πάντων is very incidental.’ Now certainly the constant introduction of πρόνοια, which Mr. Gwatkin has understated, is a marked feature of the Vita. But I am not prepared to say that Athanasius could not speak in this way. The word is common, and even characteristic, in his writings. A few examples will support this statement; more will be referred to in the index to this volume.

De Incarn. 2.1. τὴν τῶν ὅλων πρόνοιαν καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν οὐκ εἶναι μοθολογοῦσιν.

14. 6. τοῦ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας προνοίας…διδάσκοντος περὶ τοῦ πατρός.

Epist. Æg. 15. βλέποντες…πάντα τάξει καὶ προνοί& 139· κινούμενα.

Apol. Fug. 17. ἔμελε γὰρ αὐτοῖς…μήτε τὴν ὡρισμένην παρὰ τῆς Προνοίας κρίσιν προλαμβάνειν (and so in §§9, 16, 22, 25 of this short tract).

Orat. iii. 37. ῾Ο Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ῾Υιῷ τῶν πάντων τὴν πρόνοιαν ποιεῖται.

If each one of these and numberless other references to Providence is ‘very incidental,’ those in the Vita may surely claim the benefit (whatever that may be) of the same formula.

The above are the principal materials for a decision as to the genuineness of the Vita: and I do not see how they can justify any opinion but that stated at the outset. Against the Vita we have certain historical difficulties (intercourse with Athanasius, peregrini fratres, Balacius), and arguments ex silentio, a kind of evidence seldom conclusive. For it, we have a quite unusual array of external evidence, including an almost contemporary version, the absence of any room for its date at a safe distance from its traditional author, and the many points of contact, as well as the characteristic differences between the Vita and the writings of Athanasius. Moreover on the kindred question of the origin of monasticism, Weingarten’s theory breaks down, and leads him to suicidal steps in more than one direction. Although, therefore, it is permissible to keep an open mind on the subject, we must recognise that the enterprise of the recent assailants of the Vita is at present at a dead halt, that overwhelming probability is against them.

But if Athanasius wrote the Vita, it does not follow that all its less edifying details are true, nor that its portraiture is free from subjectivity 982 . At the same time, to the present writer at least, the lineaments of a genuine man, ὁμοιοπαθοῦς ἡμῖν, stand out from the story. Doubtless there is idealisation, panegyric, an absence of sinfulness (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 100). But the moderate value set on miracles (38, 56), the absence of the element of fear from his religion (42, &c.), his serene courtesy (73) and uniform cheerfulness (67, 70), the caution against being tempted to excess in ascetic exercises (25), the ready half-humorous good sense (73, 85) of the man, are human touches which belong to flesh and blood, not to hagiographic imagination. But here the question is one of individual taste. At any rate the Vita embodies the best spirit of early monasticism. It was the pure desire to serve God and fulfil the spirit of the Gospel that led Antony to part with all that might make the world precious to him, and to betake himself to his long voluntary martyrdom of solitude, privation, and prayer. We see nothing but tenderness and love of men in his character, nothing of the fierce bloodthirsty fanaticism which in persons like Senuti made fifth-century monasticism a reproach to the Christian name. Had Antony lived in our time, he might have felt that the solitary life was a renunciation of the highest vocation of which man is capable, the ministry to the material and spiritual needs of others. But it is not given to man to see all aspects of truth at once and to our bustling, comfort-loving age, even the life of Antony has its lesson.

The Vita has undoubtedly exercised a powerful and wide-spread influence. Upon it Jerome modelled his highly idealised tales of Paul and Hilarion; at Rome and all over the West it kindled the flame of monastic aspirations; it awoke in Augustine (Conf. viii. ubi supra) the resolution to renounce the world and give himself wholly to God. The ingens numerus of Latin manuscripts, and the imitation of its details in countless monastic biographies, testify to its popularity in the middle ages. Like monasticism itself, its good influence was not without alloy; but on the whole we may claim for it that it tended to stimulate the nobler of the impulses which underlie the monastic life.

A few words may be added on the evidence of the Vita as to the form and motive of early monachism. In the Life of Antony, the stages are (1) ascetics living in the towns and villages, not withdrawn from society (§§3, 4); (2) solitary monasticism in the desert, away from human society; and, as the fame of Antony increases, (3) the formation (§44) of clusters of cells centering round some natural leader, the germ of the λαύρα (such as the community of Tabennæ under Pachomius). Of organised monastic communities the Vita tells us nothing. With regard to the motive of the earliest monasticism, this has been variously sought in (1) the development of the ascetic element present in Christianity from the very first; (2) in the influence of the Alexandrian School, especially Origen, who again is influenced by the spirit of revolt against the body and detachment from the world which characterised neo-Platonism (see Bornemann’s work mentioned above); (3) in the persecutions, which drove Christians to the desert (Eus. H. E. vi. 42), which some adopted as their home; (4) to the (not necessarily conscious) imitation of analogous heathen institutions, especially the societies of ἁγνεύοντες which were gathered round or in the temples of Serapis (Weingarten, R. E., X. 779–785. Revillout, p. 480 n, refers to Zoega, p. 542, for the fact that Pachomius himself was a monk of Serapis before his forced baptism by his Christian neighbours; and that after it he continued his ascetic life with no external difference. (5) To the desire to avoid civil obligations, already marked in the Rescript of Valens (Cod. Th. xii. 1. 63, quidam ignauiæ sectatores desertis civitatum muneribus, &c.). Of the above motives the Vita gives no support to any but the first, which it directly confirms, and perhaps indirectly to the second. The date of the Vita depends mainly on the view to be taken of §82, where see note 16.

Footnotes

190:979

See the note in Vol. I. of this Series, p. 117, D.C.B. iv. 368, Theod. Ltzg. xiii. 493–499.

190:980

The silence of Ep. Fest. X. (338) is made much of by Weingarten, but there is nothing there to lead up to a reference to desert monasticism.

191:981

It is fortified by the ‘silence of Eusebius’ (1) as to monks in general (but yet see H. E. II. 17, vol. i., p. 116, note in this series); (2) as to the part played by Antony at Alexandria during the persecution (H. E. VII. 32, VIII. 13, IX. 6); (3) as to Constantine’s letter to Antony (§81).

193:982

The life of Senuti (or ‘Schnoudi’), by his disciple Visa, may be consulted in illustration of this point. See edition by Amélineau in vol. 4 of the Memoires de la Mission archéologique Française au Caire, 1888.

Life of Antony.

Table of Contents.

————————————

Prologue.

§§1, 2. Birth and beginnings of Antony.

§§3, 4. His early ascetic life.

§§5, 6. Early conflicts with the devil.

§7. Details of his life at this time (271–285?)

§§8–10. His life in the tombs, and combats with demons there.

§11. He goes to the desert and overcomes temptations on the way.

§§12, 13. How Antony took up his abode in a ruined fort across the Nile, and how he defeated the demons. His twenty years’ sojourn there.

§§14, 15. How he left the fort, and how monasticism began to flourish in Egypt. Antony its leader.

§§16–43. His address to monks, rendered from Coptic, exhorting them to perseverance, and encouraging them against the wiles of Satan.

§44. The growth of the monastic life at this time (about A.D. 305).

§45. How Antony renewed his ascetic endeavours at this time.

§46. How he sought martyrdom at Alexandria during the Persecution (311).

§47. How he lived at this time.

§48. How he delivered a woman from an evil spirit.

§§49, 50. How at this time he betook himself to his ‘inner mountain.’

§§51–53. How he there combated the demons.

§54. Of the miraculous spring, and how he edified the monks of the ‘outer’ mountain, and of Antony’s sister.

§§55, 56. How humanely he counselled those who resorted to him.

§57. Of the case of Fronto, healed by faith and prayer.

§58. Of a certain virgin, and of Paphnutius the confessor.

§59. Of the two brethren, and how one perished of thirst.

§60. Of the death of Amun, and Antony’s vision thereof.

§61, 62. Of Count Archelaus and the virgin Polycration.

§§63, 64. Strange tales of the casting out of demons.

§65. Of Antony’s vision concerning the forgiveness of his sins.

§66. Of the passage of souls, and how some were hindered of Satan.

§67. How Antony reverenced all ordained persons.

§68. How he rejected the schism of Meletius and the heresies of Manes and Arius.

§69. How he confuted the Arians.

§§70, 71. How he visited Alexandria, and healed and converted many, and how Athanasius escorted him from the city.

§§72–79. How he reasoned with divers Greeks and philosophers at the ‘outer’ mountain.

§80. How he confuted the philosophers by healing certain vexed with demons.

§81. How the Emperors wrote to Antony, and of his answer.

§82. How he saw in a vision the present doings of the Arians.

§§83, 84. That his healings were done by Christ alone, through prayer.

§85. How wisely he answered a certain duke.

§86. Of the Duke Balacius, and how, warned by Antony, he met with a miserable end.

§87. How he bore the infirmities of the weak, and of his great benefits to all Egypt.

§88. Of his discernment, and how he was a counsellor to all.

§§89, 90. How, when now 105 years old, he counselled the monks, and gave advice concerning burial.

§91. Of his sickness and his last will.

§92. Of Antony’s death.

§93. How Antony remained hale until his death, and how the fame of him filled all the world.

§94. The end.

[Antony’s answers to a philosopher, and to Didymus, are given by Socrates IV. 23, 25: the following is from Hanmer’s translation of Socr. I. 21: “The same time lived Antony the monk in the deserts of Ægypt. But inasmuch as Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, hath lately set forth in a several volume, intituled of his life, his manners and converasiton, how openly he buckled with divils, how he over-reached their slights and subtle combats, and wrought many marvellous and strange miracles, I think it superfluous on my part to intreat thereof.’]

For the translation of the text I am indebted to my friend and colleague the Rev. H. Ellershaw, jun.

Life of Antony.

————————————

The life and conversation of our holy Father, Antony: written and sent to the monks in foreign parts by our Father among the Saints, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Athanasius 983 the bishop to the brethren in foreign parts.

You have entered upon a noble rivalry with the monks of Egypt by your determination either to equal or surpass them in your training in the way of virtue. For by this time there are monasteries among you, and the name of monk receives public recognition. With reason, therefore, all men will approve this determination, and in answer to your prayers God will give its fulfilment. Now since you asked me to give you an account of the blessed Antony’s way of life, and are wishful to learn how he began the discipline, who and what manner of man he was previous to this, how he closed his life, and whether the things told of him are true, that you also may bring yourselves to imitate him, I very readily accepted your behest, for to me also the bare recollection of Antony is a great accession of help. And I know that you, when you have heard, apart from your admiration of the man, will be wishful to emulate his determination; seeing that for monks the life of Antony is a sufficient pattern of discipline. Wherefore do not refuse credence to what you have heard from those who brought tidings of him; but think rather that they have told you only a few things, for at all events they scarcely can have given circumstances of so great import in any detail. And because I at your request have called to mind a few circumstances about him, and shall send as much as I can tell in a letter, do not neglect to question those who sail from here: for possibly when all have told their tale, the account will hardly be in proportion to his merits. On account of this I was desirous, when I received your letter, to send for certain of the monks, those especially who were wont to be more frequently with him, that if I could learn any fresh details I might send them to you. But since the season for sailing was coming to an end and the letter-carrier urgent, I hastened to write to your piety what I myself know, having seen him many times, and what I was able to learn from him, for I was his attendant for a long time, and poured water on his hands 984 ; in all points being mindful of the truth, that no one should disbelieve through hearing too much, nor on the other hand by hearing too little should despise the man.

Footnotes

195:983

This heading, preserved in the Evagrian version, is probably the original one. Compare the statement to the same effect in Vit. Pachom. 63. The preface to the Evagrian version is important as bearing on the question of interpolation. It runs as follows: ‘Evagrius, presbyter, to his dearest son Innocent, greeting in the Lord. A word-for-word translation from one language to another obscures the sense and as it were chokes the corn with luxuriant grass. For in slavishly following cases and constructions, the language scarcely explains by lengthy periphrasis what it might state by concise expression. To avoid this, I have at your request rendered the Life of the blessed Antony in such a way as to give the full sense, but cut short somewhat of the words. Let others try to catch syllables and letters; do you seek the meaning.’

195:984

Cf. 2 Kings iii. 11: the expression merely refers to personal attendance (contrast §§47, 93). The text is uncertain, as some mss., both Greek and Latin read, ‘was able to learn from him who was his attendant,’ &c. The question of textual evidence requires further sifting. In support of the statement in the text we may cite Ap. c. Ar. 6, where Ath. is called ‘one of the ascetics,’ which may, but need not, refer to something of the kind.

1. Antony you must know was by descent an Egyptian: his parents were of good family and possessed considerable wealth 985 , and as they were Christians he also was reared in the same Faith. In infancy he was brought up with his parents, knowing nought else but them and his home. But when he was grown and arrived at boyhood, and was advancing in years, he could not endure to learn 986 letters, not caring to associate with other boys; but all his desire was, as it is written of Jacob, to live a plain man at home 987 . With his parents he used to attend the Lord’s House, and neither as a child was he idle nor when older did he despise them; but was both obedient to his father and mother and attentive to what was read, keeping in his heart what was profitable in what he heard. And though as a child brought up in moderate affluence, he did not trouble his parents for varied or luxurious fare, nor was this a source of pleasure to him; but was content simply with what he found nor sought anything further.

2. After the death of his father and mother he was left alone with one little sister: his age was about eighteen or twenty, and on him the care both of home and sister rested. Now it was not six months after the death of his parents, and going according to custom into the Lord’s House, he communed with himself and reflected as he walked how the Apostles 988 left all and followed the Saviour; and how they in the Acts 989 sold their possessions and brought and laid them at the Apostles’ feet for distribution to the needy, and what and how great a hope was laid up for them in heaven. Pondering over these things he entered the church, and it happened the Gospel was being read, and he heard the Lord saying to the rich man 990 , ‘If thou wouldest be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor; and come follow Me and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.’ Antony, as though God had put him in mind of the Saints, and the passage had been read on his account, went out immediately from the church, and gave the possessions of his forefathers to the villagers—they were three hundred acres 991 , productive and very fair—that they should be no more a clog upon himself and his sister 992 . And all the rest that was movable he sold, and having got together much money he gave it to the poor, reserving a little however for his sister’s sake.

Footnotes

195:985

At Coma in Upper Egypt, see Sozom. i. 13.

195:986

Cf. St. Aug. de Doctr. Christ. Prologue.

195:987

Gen. xxv. 27.

196:988

Matt. iv. 20.

196:989

Acts iv. 35.

196:990

Matt. xix. 21.

196:991

ἄρουραι. The arura was 100 Egyptian cubits square, see Herod. ii. 168.

196:992

Or, perhaps, ‘in order that they (the villagers) might have no occasion to trouble himself and his sister,’ i.e. on condition of future immunity from taxes, &c. (so Neander).

3. And again as he went into the church, hearing the Lord say in the Gospel 993 , ‘be not anxious for the morrow,’ he could stay no longer, but went out and gave those things also to the poor. Having committed his sister to known and faithful virgins, and put her into a convent 994 to be brought up, he henceforth devoted himself outside his house to discipline 995 , taking heed to himself and training himself with patience. For there were not yet so many monasteries 996 in Egypt, and no monk at all knew of the distant desert; but all who wished to give heed to themselves practised the discipline in solitude near their own village. Now there was then in the next village an old man who had lived the life of a hermit from his youth up. Antony, after he had seen this man, imitated him in piety. And at first he began to abide in places outside the village: then if he heard of a good man anywhere, like the prudent bee, he went forth and sought him, nor turned back to his own palace until he had seen him; and he returned, having got from the good man as it were supplies for his journey in the way of virtue. So dwelling there at first, he confirmed his purpose not to return to the abode of his fathers nor to the remembrance of his kinsfolk; but to keep all his desire and energy for perfecting his discipline. He worked, however, with his hands, having heard, ‘he who is idle let him not eat 997 ,’ and part he spent on bread and part he gave to the needy. And he was constant in prayer, knowing that a man ought to pray in secret unceasingly 998 . For he had given such heed to what was read that none of the things that were written fell from him to the ground, but he remembered all, and afterwards his memory served him for books.

4. Thus conducting himself, Antony was beloved by all. He subjected himself in sincerity to the good men whom he visited, and learned thoroughly where each surpassed him in zeal and discipline. He observed the graciousness of one; the unceasing prayer of another; he took knowledge of another’s freedom from anger and another’s loving-kindness; he gave heed to one as he watched, to another as he studied; one he admired for his endurance, another for his fasting and sleeping on the ground; the meekness of one and the long-suffering of another he watched with care, while he took note of the piety towards Christ and the mutual love which animated all. Thus filled, he returned to his own place of discipline, and henceforth would strive to unite the qualities of each, and was eager to show in himself the virtues of all. With others of the same age he had no rivalry; save this only, that he should not be second to them in higher things. And this he did so as to hurt the feelings of nobody, but made them rejoice over him. So all they of that village and the good men in whose intimacy he was, when they saw that he was a man of this sort, used to call him God-beloved. And some welcomed him as a son, others as a brother.

Footnotes

196:993

Matt. vi. 34.

196:994

Παρθενών: the earliest use of the word in this sense. Perhaps a house occupied by Virgins is implied in Apol. c. Ar. 15. But at this time virgins generally lived with their families. See D.C.A. 2021b (the reference to Tertullian is not relevant), Eichhorn, pp. 4, sqq., 28–30.

196:995

ἄσκησ*ς (so throughout the Vita).

196:996

Probably the word has in this place the sense of a monk’s cell (D.C.A. 1220), as below, §39.

196:997

2 Thess. iii. 10.

196:998

Matt. vi. 7; 1 Thess. v. 17.

5. But the devil, who hates and envies what is good, could not endure to see such a resolution in a youth, but endeavoured to carry out against him what he had been wont to effect against others. First of all he tried to lead him away from the discipline, whispering to him the remembrance of his wealth, care for his sister, claims of kindred, love of money, love of glory, the various pleasures of the table and the other relaxations of life, and at last the difficulty of virtue and the labour of it; he suggested also the infirmity of the body and the length of the time. In a word he raised in his mind a great dust of debate, wishing to debar him from his settled purpose. But when the enemy saw himself to be too weak for Antony’s determination, and that he rather was conquered by the other’s firmness, overthrown by his great faith and falling through his constant prayers, then at length putting his trust in the weapons which are 999 ‘in the navel of his belly’ and boasting in them—for they are his first snare for the young—he attacked the young man, disturbing him by night and harassing him by day, so that even the onlookers saw the struggle which was going on between them. The one would suggest foul thoughts and the other counter them with prayers: the one fire him with lust, the other, as one who seemed to blush, fortify his body with faith, prayers, and fasting. And the devil, unhappy wight, one night even took upon him the shape of a woman and imitated all her acts simply to beguile Antony. But he, his mind filled with Christ and the nobility inspired by Him, and considering the spirituality of the soul, quenched the coal of the other’s deceit. Again the enemy suggested the ease of pleasure. But he like a man filled with rage and grief turned his thoughts to the threatened fire and the gnawing worm, and setting these in array against his adversary, passed through the temptation unscathed. All this was a source of shame to his foe. For he, deeming himself like God, was now mocked by a young man; and he who boasted himself against flesh and blood was being put to flight by a man in the flesh. For the Lord was working with Antony—the Lord who for our sake took flesh 1000 and gave the body victory over the devil, so that all who truly fight can say 1001 , ‘not I but the grace of God which was with me.’

6. At last when the dragon could not even thus overthrow Antony, but saw himself thrust out of his heart, gnashing his teeth as it is written, and as it were beside himself, he appeared to Antony like a black boy, taking a visible shape 1002 in accordance with the colour of his mind. And cringing to him, as it were, he plied him with thoughts no longer, for guileful as he was, he had been worsted, but at last spoke in human voice and said, ‘Many I deceived, many I cast down; but now attacking thee and thy labours as I had many others, I proved weak.’ When Antony asked, Who art thou who speakest thus with me? he answered with a lamentable voice, ‘I am the friend of whoredom, and have taken upon me incitements which lead to it against the young. I am called the spirit of lust. How many have I deceived who wished to live soberly, how many are the chaste whom by my incitements I have over-persuaded! I am he on account of whom also the prophet reproves those who have fallen, saying 1003 , “Ye have been caused to err by the spirit of whoredom.” For by me they have been tripped up. I am he who have so often troubled thee and have so often been overthrown by thee.’ But Antony having given thanks to the Lord, with good courage said to him, ‘Thou art very despicable then, for thou art black-hearted and weak as a child. Henceforth I shall have no trouble from thee 1004 , “for the Lord is my helper, and I shall look down on mine enemies.”’ Having heard this, the black one straightway fled, shuddering at the words and dreading any longer even to come near the man.

Footnotes

197:999

Job xl. 16 (v. 11, LXX): the descriptions of behemoth and leviathan are allegorically referred to Satan, cf. Orat. i. 1, note 5. and below, §24, Ep. Æg. 3.

197:1000

Cf. de Incar. 8. 2; 10. 5.

197:1001

1 Cor. xv. 10.

197:1002

For visible appearances of devils, see ‘Phantasms of the Living,’ vol. 2, p. 266, &c. (Trübner, 1886).

197:1003

Hosea iv. 12.

197:1004

Ps. cxviii. 7.

7. This was Antony’s first struggle against the devil, or rather this victory was the Saviour’s work in Antony 1005 , ‘Who condemned sin in the flesh that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.’ But neither did Antony, although the evil one had fallen, henceforth relax his care and despise him; nor did the enemy as though conquered cease to lay snares for him. For again he went round as a lion seeking some occasion against him. But Antony having learned from the Scriptures that the devices 1006 of the devil are many, zealously continued the discipline, reckoning that though the devil had not been able to deceive his heart by bodily pleasure, he would endeavour to ensnare him by other means. For the demon loves sin. Wherefore more and more he repressed the body and kept it in subjection 1007 , lest haply having conquered on one side, he should be dragged down on the other. He therefore planned to accustom himself to a severer mode of life. And many marvelled, but he himself used to bear the labour easily; for the eagerness of soul, through the length of time it had abode in him, had wrought a good habit in him, so that taking but little initiation from others he shewed great zeal in this matter. He kept vigil to such an extent that he often continued the whole night without sleep; and this not once but often, to the marvel of others. He ate once a day, after sunset, sometimes once in two days, and often even in four. His food was bread and salt, his drink, water only. Of flesh and wine it is superfluous even to speak, since no such thing was found with the other earnest men. A rush mat served him to sleep upon, but for the most part he lay upon the bare ground. He would not anoint himself with oil, saying it behoved young men to be earnest in training and not to seek what would enervate the body; but they must accustom it to labour, mindful of the Apostle’s words 1008 , ‘when I am weak, then am I strong.’ ‘For,’ said he, ‘the fibre of the soul is then sound when the pleasures of the body are diminished.’ And he had come to this truly wonderful conclusion, ‘that progress in virtue, and retirement from the world for the sake of it, ought not to be measured by time, but by desire and fixity of purpose.’ He at least gave no thought to the past, but day by day, as if he were at the beginning of his discipline, applied greater pains for advancement, often repeating to himself the saying of Paul 1009 : ‘Forgetting the things which are behind and stretching forward to the things which are before.’ He was also mindful of the words spoken by the prophet Elias 1010 , ‘the Lord liveth before whose presence I stand to-day.’ For he observed that in saying ‘to-day’ the prophet did not compute the time that had gone by: but daily as though ever commencing he eagerly endeavoured to make himself fit to appear before God, being pure in heart and ever ready to submit to His counsel, and to Him alone. And he used to say to himself that from the life of the great Elias the hermit ought to see his own as in a mirror.

Footnotes

197:1005

Rom. 8:3, 4Rom. viii. 3 and 4.

197:1006

Eph. vi. 11.

197:1007

1 Cor. ix. 27; Ath. (with many fathers and uncials) appears to have read ὑποπιάζω, the reading which is followed by the Authorised Version.

198:1008

2 Cor. xii. 10.

198:1009

Phil. iii. 14.

198:1010

1 Kings xviii. 15.

8. Thus tightening his hold upon himself, Antony departed to the tombs, which happened to be at a distance from the village; and having bid one of his acquaintances to bring him bread at intervals of many days, he entered one of the tombs, and the other having shut the door on him, he remained within alone. And when the enemy could not endure it, but was even fearful that in a short time Antony would fill the desert with the discipline, coming one night with a multitude of demons, he so cut him with stripes that he lay on the ground speechless from the excessive pain. For he affirmed that the torture had been so excessive that no blows inflicted by man could ever have caused him such torment. But by the Providence of God—for the Lord never overlooks them that hope in Him—the next day his acquaintance came bringing him the loaves. And having opened the door and seeing him lying on the ground as though dead, he lifted him up and carried him to the church in the village, and laid him upon the ground. And many of his kinsfolk and the villagers sat around Antony as round a corpse. But about midnight he came to himself and arose, and when he saw them all asleep and his comrade alone watching, he motioned with his head for him to approach, and asked him to carry him again to the tombs without waking anybody.

9. He was carried therefore by the man, and as he was wont, when the door was shut he was within alone. And he could not stand up on account of the blows, but he prayed as he lay. And after he had prayed, he said with a shout, Here am I, Antony; I flee not from your stripes, for even if you inflict more nothing shall separate me 1011 from the love of Christ. And then he sang, ‘though a camp be set against me, my heart shall not be afraid 1012 .’ These were the thoughts and words of this ascetic. But the enemy, who hates good, marvelling that after the blows he dared to return, called together his hounds and burst forth, ‘Ye see,’ said he, ‘that neither by the spirit of lust nor by blows did we stay the man, but that he braves us, let us attack him in another fashion.’ But changes of form for evil are easy for the devil, so in the night they made such a din that the whole of that place seemed to be shaken by an earthquake, and the demons as if breaking the four walls of the dwelling seemed to enter through them, coming in the likeness of beasts and creeping things. And the place was on a sudden filled with the forms of lions, bears, leopards, bulls, serpents, asps, scorpions, and wolves, and each of them was moving according to his nature. The lion was roaring, wishing to attack, the bull seeming to toss with its horns, the serpent writhing but unable to approach, and the wolf as it rushed on was restrained; altogether the noises of the apparitions, with their angry ragings, were dreadful. But Antony, stricken and goaded by them, felt bodily pains severer still. He lay watching, however, with unshaken soul, groaning from bodily anguish; but his mind was clear, and as in mockery he said, ‘If there had been any power in you, it would have sufficed had one of you come, but since the Lord hath made you weak, you attempt to terrify me by numbers: and a proof of your weakness is that you take the shapes of brute beasts.’ And again with boldness he said, ‘If you are able, and have received power against me, delay not to attack; but if you are unable, why trouble me in vain? For faith in our Lord is a seal and a wall of safety to us.’ So after many attempts they gnashed their teeth upon him, because they were mocking themselves rather than him.

10. Nor was the Lord then forgetful of Antony’s wrestling, but was at hand to help him. So looking up he saw the roof as it were opened, and a ray of light descending to him. The demons suddenly vanished, the pain of his body straightway ceased, and the building was again whole. But Antony feeling the help, and getting his breath again, and being freed from pain, besought the vision which had appeared to him, saying, ‘Where wert thou? Why didst thou not appear at the beginning to make my pains to cease?’ And a voice came to him, ‘Antony, I was here, but I waited to see thy fight; wherefore since thou hast endured, and hast not been worsted, I will ever be a succour to thee, and will make thy name known everywhere.’ Having heard this, Antony arose and prayed, and received such strength that he perceived that he had more power in his body than formerly. And he was then about thirty-five years old.

Footnotes

198:1011

Rom. viii. 35.

198:1012

Ps. xxvii. 3.

11. And on the day following he went forth still more eagerly bent on the service of God and having fallen in with the old man he had met previously, he asked him to dwell with him in the desert. But when the other declined on account of his great age, and because as yet there was no such custom, Antony himself set off forthwith to the mountain. And yet again the enemy seeing his zeal and wishing to hinder it, cast in his way what seemed to be a great silver dish. But Antony, seeing the guile of the Evil One, stood, and having looked on the dish, he put the devil in it to shame, saying, ‘Whence comes a dish in the desert? This road is not well-worn, nor is there here a trace of any wayfarer; it could not have fallen without being missed on account of its size; and he who had lost it having turned back, to seek it, would have found it, for it is a desert place. This is some wile of the devil. O thou Evil One, not with this shalt thou hinder my purpose; let it go with thee to destruction. 1013 ’ And when Antony had said this it vanished like smoke from the face of fire.

Footnotes

199:1013

Cf. Acts viii. 20.

12. Then again as he went on he saw what was this time not visionary, but real gold scattered in the way. But whether the devil showed it, or some better power to try the athlete and show the Evil One that Antony truly cared nought for money, neither he told nor do we know. But it is certain that that which appeared was gold. And Antony marvelled at the quantity, but passed it by as though he were going over fire; so he did not even turn, but hurried on at a run to lose sight of the place. More and more confirmed in his purpose, he hurried to the mountain, and having found a fort, so long deserted that it was full of creeping things, on the other side of the river; he crossed over to it and dwelt there. The reptiles, as though some one were chasing them, immediately left the place. But he built up the entrance completely, having stored up loaves for six months—this is a custom of the Thebans, and the loaves often remain fresh a whole year—and as he found water within, he descended as into a shrine, and abode within by himself, never going forth nor looking at any one who came. Thus he employed a long time training himself, and received loaves, let down from above, twice in the year.

13. But those of his acquaintances who came, since he did not permit them to enter, often used to spend days and nights outside, and heard as it were crowds within clamouring, dinning, sending forth piteous voices and crying, ‘Go from what is ours. What dost thou even in the desert? Thou canst not abide our attack.’ So at first those outside thought there were some men fighting with him, and that they had entered by ladders; but when stooping down they saw through a hole there was nobody, they were afraid, accounting them to be demons, and they called on Antony. Them he quickly heard, though he had not given a thought to the demons, and coming to the door he besought them to depart and not to be afraid, ‘for thus,’ said he, ‘the demons make their seeming onslaughts against those who are cowardly. Sign yourselves therefore with the cross 1014 , and depart boldly, and let these make sport for themselves.’ So they departed fortified with the sign of the Cross. But he remained in no wise harmed by the evil spirits, nor was he wearied with the contest, for there came to his aid visions from above, and the weakness of the foe relieved him of much trouble and armed him with greater zeal. For his acquaintances used often to come expecting to find him dead, and would hear him singing 1015 , ‘Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered, let them also that hate Him flee before His face. As smoke vanisheth, let them vanish; as wax melteth before the face of fire, so let the sinners perish from the face of God;’ and again, ‘All nations compassed me about, and in the name of the Lord I requited them 1016 .’

Footnotes

199:1014

Cf. de Incarn. xlvii. 2.

199:1015

Ps. lxviii. 1.

199:1016

Ps. cxviii. 10. Evagr. renders by ‘vindicavi in eis.’

14. And so for nearly twenty years he continued training himself in solitude, never going forth, and but seldom seen by any. After this, when many were eager and wishful to imitate his discipline, and his acquaintances came and began to cast down and wrench off the door by force, Antony, as from a shrine, came forth initiated in the mysteries and filled with the Spirit of God. Then for the first time he was seen outside the fort by those who came to see him. And they, when they saw him, wondered at the sight, for he had the same habit of body as before, and was neither fat, like a man without exercise, nor lean from fasting and striving with the demons, but he was just the same as they had known him before his retirement. And again his soul was free from blemish, for it was neither contracted as if by grief, nor relaxed by pleasure, nor possessed by laughter or dejection, for he was not troubled when he beheld the crowd, nor overjoyed at being saluted by so many. But he was altogether even as being guided by reason, and abiding in a natural state. Through him the Lord healed the bodily ailments of many present, and cleansed others from evil spirits. And He gave grace to Antony in speaking, so that he consoled many that were sorrowful, and set those at variance at one, exhorting all to prefer the love of Christ before all that is in the world. And while he exhorted and advised them to remember the good things to come, and the loving-kindness of God towards us, ‘Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all 1017 ,’ he persuaded many to embrace the solitary life. And thus it happened in the end that cells arose even in the mountains, and the desert was colonised by monks, who came forth from their own people, and enrolled themselves for the citizenship in the heavens.

15. But when he was obliged to cross the Arsenoitic Canal 1018 —and the occasion of it was the visitation of the brethren—the canal was full of crocodiles. And by simply praying, he entered it, and all they with him, and passed over in safety. And having returned to his cell, he applied himself to the same noble and valiant exercises; and by frequent conversation he increased the eagerness of those already monks, stirred up in most of the rest the love of the discipline, and speedily by the attraction of his words cells multiplied, and he directed them all as a father.

Footnotes

200:1017

Rom. viii. 32.

200:1018

Between the Nile and the Fayûm.

16. One day when he had gone forth because all the monks had assembled to him and asked to hear words from him, he spoke to them in the Egyptian tongue as follows: ‘The Scriptures are enough for instruction 1019 , but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words. Wherefore you, as children, carry that which you know to your father; and I as the elder share my knowledge and what experience has taught me with you. Let this especially be the common aim of all, neither to give way having once begun, nor to faint in trouble, nor to say: We have lived in the discipline a long time: but rather as though making a beginning daily let us increase our earnestness. For the whole life of man is very short, measured by the ages to come, wherefore all our time is nothing compared with eternal life. And in the world everything is sold at its price, and a man exchanges one equivalent for another; but the promise of eternal life is bought for a trifle. For it is written, “The days of our life in them are threescore years and ten, but if they are in strength, fourscore years, and what is more than these is labour and sorrow 1020 .” Whenever, therefore, we live full fourscore years, or even a hundred in the discipline, not for a hundred years only shall we reign, but instead of a hundred we shall reign for ever and ever. And though we fought on earth, we shall not receive our inheritance on earth, but we have the promises in heaven; and having put off the body which is corrupt, we shall receive it incorrupt.

17. ‘Wherefore, children, let us not faint nor deem that the time is long, or that we are doing something great, “for the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward 1021 .” Nor let us think, as we look at the world, that we have renounced anything of much consequence, for the whole earth is very small compared with all the heaven. Wherefore if it even chanced that we were lords of all the earth and gave it all up, it would be nought worthy of comparison with the kingdom of heaven. For as if a man should despise a copper drachma to gain a hundred drachmas of gold; so if a man were lord of all the earth and were to renounce it, that which he gives up is little, and he receives a hundredfold. But if not even the whole earth is equal in value to the heavens, then he who has given up a few acres leaves as it were nothing; and even if he have given up a house or much gold he ought not to boast nor be low-spirited. Further, we should consider that even if we do not relinquish them for virtue’s sake, still afterwards when we die we shall leave them behind—very often, as the Preacher saith 1022 , to those to whom we do not wish. Why then should we not give them up for virtue’s sake, that we may inherit even a kingdom? Therefore let the desire of possession take hold of no one, for what gain is it to acquire these things which we cannot take with us? Why not rather get those things which we can take away with us—to wit, prudence, justice, temperance, courage, understanding, love, kindness to the poor, faith in Christ, freedom from wrath, hospitality? If we possess these, we shall find them of themselves preparing for us a welcome there in the land of the meek-hearted.

18. ‘And so from such things let a man persuade himself not to make light of it, especially if he considers that he himself is the servant of the Lord, and ought to serve his Master. Wherefore as a servant would not dare to say, because I worked yesterday, I will not work today; and considering the past will do no work in the future; but, as it is written in the Gospel, daily shows the same readiness to please his master, and to avoid risk: so let us daily abide firm in our discipline, knowing that if we are careless for a single day the Lord will not pardon us, for the sake of the past, but will be wrath against us for our neglect. As also we have heard in Ezekiel 1023 ; and as Judas because of one night destroyed his previous labour.

19. ‘Wherefore, children, let us hold fast our discipline, and let us not be careless. For in it the Lord is our fellow-worker, as it is written, “to all that choose the good, God worketh with them for good 1024 .” But to avoid being heedless, it is good to consider the word of the Apostle, “I die daily 1025 .” For if we too live as though dying daily, we shall not sin. And the meaning of that saying is, that as we rise day by day we should think that we shall not abide till evening; and again, when about to lie down to sleep, we should think that we shall not rise up. For our life is naturally uncertain, and Providence allots it to us daily. But thus ordering our daily life, we shall neither fall into sin, nor have a lust for anything, nor cherish wrath against any, nor shall we heap up treasure upon earth. But, as though under the daily expectation of death, we shall be without wealth, and shall forgive all things to all men, nor shall we retain at all the desire of women or of any other foul pleasure. But we shall turn from it as past and gone, ever striving and looking forward to the day of Judgment. For the greater dread and danger of torment ever destroys the ease of pleasure, and sets up the soul if it is like to fall.

20. ‘Wherefore having already begun and set out in the way of virtue, let us strive the more that we may attain those things that are before. And let no one turn to the things behind, like Lot’s wife, all the more so that the Lord hath said, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and turning back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven 1026 .” And this turning back is nought else but to feel regret, and to be once more worldly-minded. But fear not to hear of virtue, nor be astonished at the name. For it is not far from us, nor is it without ourselves, but it is within us, and is easy if only we are willing. That they may get knowledge, the Greeks live abroad and cross the sea, but we have no need to depart from home for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, nor to cross the sea for the sake of virtue. For the Lord aforetime hath said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you 1027 .” Wherefore virtue hath need at our hands of willingness alone, since it is in us and is formed from us. For when the soul hath its spiritual faculty in a natural state virtue is formed. And it is in a natural state when it remains as it came into existence. And when it came into existence it was fair and exceeding honest. For this cause Joshua, the son of Nun, in his exhortation said to the people, “Make straight your heart unto the Lord God of Israel 1028 ,” and John, “Make your paths straight 1029 .” For rectitude of soul consists in its having its spiritual part in its natural state as created. But on the other hand, when it swerves and turns away from its natural state, that is called vice of the soul. Thus the matter is not difficult. If we abide as we have been made, we are in a state of virtue, but if we think of ignoble things we shall be accounted evil. If, therefore, this thing had to be acquired from without, it would be difficult in reality; but if it is in us, let us keep ourselves from foul thoughts. And as we have received the soul as a deposit, let us preserve it for the Lord, that He may recognise His work as being the same as He made it.

21. ‘And let us strive that wrath rule us not nor lust overcome us, for it is written, “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. And lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin, and the sin when it is full grown bringeth forth death 1030 .” Thus living, let us keep guard carefully, and as it is written, “keep our hearts with all watchfulness 1031 .” For we have terrible and crafty foes—the evil spirits—and against them we wrestle, as the Apostle said, “Not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places 1032 .” Great is their number in the air around us 1033 , and they are not far from us. Now there are great distinctions among them; and concerning their nature and distinctions much could be said, but such a description is for others of greater powers than we possess. But at this time it is pressing and necessary for us only to know their wiles against ourselves.

22. ‘First, therefore, we must know this: that the demons have not been created like what we mean when we call them by that name; for God made nothing evil, but even they have been made good. Having fallen, however, from the heavenly wisdom, since then they have been grovelling on earth. On the one hand they deceived the Greeks with their displays, while out of envy of us Christians they move all things in their desire to hinder us from entry into the heavens; in order that we should not ascend up thither from whence they fell. Thus there is need of much prayer and of discipline, that when a man has received through the Spirit the gift of discerning spirits, he may have power to recognise their characteristics: which of them are less and which more evil; of what nature is the special pursuit of each, and how each of them is overthrown and cast out. For their villainies and the changes in their plots are many. The blessed Apostle and his followers knew such things when they said, “for we are not ignorant of his devices 1034 ;” and we, from the temptations we have suffered at their hands, ought to correct one another under them. Wherefore I, having had proof of them, speak as to children.

23. ‘The demons, therefore, if they see all Christians, and monks especially, labouring cheerfully and advancing, first make an attack by temptation and place hindrances to hamper our way, to wit, evil thoughts. But we need not fear their suggestions, for by prayer, fasting, and faith in the Lord their attack immediately fails. But even when it does they cease not, but knavishly by subtlety come on again. For when they cannot deceive the heart openly with foul pleasures they approach in different guise, and thenceforth shaping displays they attempt to strike fear, changing their shapes, taking the forms of women, wild beasts, creeping things, gigantic bodies, and troops of soldiers. But not even then need ye fear their deceitful displays. For they are nothing and quickly disappear, especially if a man fortify himself beforehand with faith and the sign of the cross 1035 . Yet are they bold and very shameless, for if thus they are worsted they make an onslaught in another manner, and pretend to prophesy and foretell the future, and to shew themselves of a height reaching to the roof and of great breadth; that they may stealthily catch by such displays those who could not be deceived by their arguments. If here also they find the soul strengthened by faith and a hopeful mind, then they bring their leader to their aid.

24. ‘And he said they often appeared as the Lord revealed the devil to Job, saying, “His eyes are as the morning star. From his mouth proceed burning lamps and hearths of fire are cast forth. The smoke of a furnace blazing with the fire of coals proceeds from his nostrils. His breath is coals and from his mouth issues flame 1036 .” When the prince of the demons appears in this wise, the crafty one, as I said before, strikes terror by speaking great things, as again the Lord convicted him saying to Job, for “he counteth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood, yea he counteth the sea as a pot of ointment, and the depth of the abyss as a captive, and the abyss as a covered walk 1037 .” And by the prophet, “the enemy said, I will pursue and overtake 1038 ,” and again by another, “I will grasp the whole world in my hand as a nest, and take it up as eggs that have been left 1039 .” Such, in a word, are their boasts and professions that they may deceive the godly. But not even then ought we, the faithful, to fear his appearance or give heed to his words. For he is a liar and speaketh of truth never a word. And though speaking words so many and so great in his boldness, without doubt, like a dragon he was drawn with a hook by the Saviour 1040 , and as a beast of burden he received the halter round his nostrils, and as a runaway his nostrils were bound with a ring, and his lips bored with an armlet 1041 . And he was bound by the Lord as a sparrow, that we should mock him. And with him are placed the demons his fellows, like serpents and scorpions to be trodden underfoot by us Christians. And the proof of this is that we now live opposed to him. For he who threatened to dry the sea and seize upon the world, behold now cannot stay our discipline, nor even me speaking against him. Let us then heed not his words, for he is a liar: and let us not fear his visions, seeing that they themselves are deceptive. For that which appears in them is no true light, but they are rather the preludes and likenesses of the fire prepared for the demons who attempt to terrify men with those flames in which they themselves will be burned. Doubtless they appear; but in a moment disappear again, hurting none of the faithful, but bringing with them the likeness of that fire which is about to receive themselves. Wherefore it is unfitting that we should fear them on account of these things; for through the grace of Christ all their practices are in vain.

25. ‘Again they are treacherous, and are ready to change themselves into all forms and assume all appearances. Very often also without appearing they imitate the music of harp and voice, and recall the words of Scripture. Sometimes, too, while we are reading they immediately repeat many times, like an echo, what is read. They arouse us from our sleep to prayers; and this constantly, hardly allowing us to sleep at all. At another time they assume the appearance of monks and feign the speech of holy men, that by their similarity they may deceive and thus drag their victims where they will. But no heed must be paid them even if they arouse to prayer, even if they counsel us not to eat at all, even though they seem to accuse and cast shame upon us for those things which once they allowed. For they do this not for the sake of piety or truth, but that they may carry off the simple to despair; and that they may say the discipline is useless, and make men loathe the solitary life as a trouble and burden, and hinder those who in spite of them walk in it.

26. ‘Wherefore the prophet sent by the Lord declared them to be wretched, saying: “Wo is he who giveth his neighbours to drink muddy destruction 1042 .” For such practices and devices are subversive of the way which leads to virtue. And the Lord Himself, even if the demons spoke the truth,—for they said truly “Thou art the Son of God 1043 ”—still bridled their mouths and suffered them not to speak; lest haply they should sow their evil along with the truth, and that He might accustom us never to give heed to them even though they appear to speak what is true. For it is unseemly that we, having the holy Scriptures and freedom from the Saviour, should be taught by the devil who hath not kept his own order but hath gone from one mind to another 1044 . Wherefore even when he uses the language of Scripture He forbids him, saying: “But to the sinner said God, Wherefore dost thou declare My ordinances and takest My covenant in thy mouth 1045 ?” For the demons do all things—they prate, they confuse, they dissemble, they confound—to deceive the simple. They din, laugh madly, and whistle; but if no heed is paid to them forthwith they weep and lament as though vanquished.’

27. ‘The Lord therefore, as God, stayed the mouths of the demons: and it is fitting that we, taught by the saints, should do like them and imitate their courage. For they when they saw these things used to say: “When the sinner rose against me, I was dumb and humble, and kept silence from good words 1046 .” And again: “But I was as a deaf man and heard not, and as a dumb man who openeth not his mouth, and I became as a man who heareth not 1047 .” So let us neither hear them as being strangers to us, nor give heed to them even though they arouse us to prayer and speak concerning fasting. But let us rather apply ourselves to our resolve of discipline, and let us not be deceived by them who do all things in deceit, even though they threaten death. For they are weak and can do nought but threaten.

28. ‘Already in passing I have spoken on these things, and now I must not shrink from speaking on them at greater length, for to put you in remembrance will be a source of safety. Since the Lord visited earth 1048 , the enemy is fallen and his powers weakened. Wherefore although he could do nothing, still like a tyrant, he did not bear his fall quietly, but threatened, though his threats were words only. And let each one of you consider this, and he will be able to despise the demons. Now if they were hampered with such bodies as we are, it would be possible for them to say, “Men when they are hidden we cannot find, but whenever we do find them we do them hurt.” And we also by lying in concealment could escape them, shutting the doors against them. But if they are not of such a nature as this, but are able to enter in, though the doors be shut, and haunt all the air, both they and their leader the devil, and are wishful for evil and ready to injure; and, as the Saviour said, “From the beginning the devil is a manslayer and a father of vice 1049 ;” while we, though this is so, are alive, and spend our lives all the more in opposing him; it is plain they are powerless. For place is no hindrance to their plots, nor do they look on us as friends that they should spare us; nor are they lovers of good that they should amend. But on the contrary they are evil, and nothing is so much sought after by them as wounding them that love virtue and fear God. But since they have no power to effect anything, they do nought but threaten. But if they could, they would not hesitate, but forthwith work evil (for all their desire is set on this), and especially against us. Behold now we are gathered together and speak against them, and they know when we advance they grow weak. If therefore they had power they would permit none of us Christians to live, for godliness is an abomination to a sinner 1050 . But since they can do nothing they inflict the greater wounds on themselves; for they can fulfil none of their threats. Next this ought to be considered, that we may be in no fear of them: that if they had the power they would not come in crowds, nor fashion displays, nor with change of form would they frame deceits. But it would suffice that one only should come and accomplish that which he was both able and willing to do: especially as every one who has the power neither slays with display nor strikes fear with tumult, but forthwith makes full use of his authority as he wishes. But the demons as they have no power are like actors on the stage changing their shape and frightening children with tumultuous apparition and various forms: from which they ought rather to be despised as shewing their weakness. At least the true angel of the Lord sent against the Assyrian had no need for tumults nor displays from without, nor noises nor rattlings, but in quiet he used his power and forthwith destroyed a hundred and eighty-five thousand. But demons like these, who have no power, try to terrify at least by their displays 1051 .

29. ‘But if any one having in mind the history of Job 1052 should say, Why then hath the devil gone forth and accomplished all things against him; and stripped him of all his possessions, and slew his children, and smote him with evil ulcers? let such a one, on the other hand, recognise that the devil was not the strong man, but God who delivered Job to him to be tried. Certainly he had no power to do anything, but he asked, and having received it, he hath wrought what he did. So also from this the enemy is the more to be condemned, for although willing he could not prevail against one just man. For if he could have, he would not have asked permission. But having asked not once but also a second time, he shows his weakness and want of power. And it is no wonder if he could do nothing against Job, when destruction would not have come even on his cattle had not God allowed it. And he has not the power over swine, for as it is written in the Gospel, they besought the Lord, saying, “Let us enter the swine 1053 .” But if they had power not even against swine, much less have they any over men formed 1054 in the image of God.

30. ‘So then we ought to fear God only, and despise the demons, and be in no fear of them. But the more they do these things the more let us intensify our discipline against them, for a good life and faith in God is a great weapon. At any rate they fear the fasting, the sleeplessness, the prayers, the meekness, the quietness, the contempt of money and vainglory, the humility, the love of the poor, the alms, the freedom from anger of the ascetics, and, chief of all, their piety towards Christ. Wherefore they do all things that they may not have any that trample on them, knowing the grace given to the faithful against them by the Saviour, when He says, “Behold I have given to you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy 1055 .”

31. ‘Wherefore if they pretend to foretell the future, let no one give heed, for often they announce beforehand that the brethren are coming days after. And they do come. The demons, however, do this not from any care for the hearers, but to gain their trust, and that then at length, having got them in their power, they may destroy them. Whence we must give no heed to them, but ought rather to confute them when speaking, since we do not need them. For what wonder is it, if with more subtle bodies than men have 1056 , when they have seen them start on their journey, they surpass them in speed, and announce their coming? Just as a horseman getting a start of a man on foot announces the arrival of the latter beforehand, so in this there is no need for us to wonder at them. For they know none of those things which are not yet in existence; but God only is He who knoweth all things before their birth 1057 . But these, like thieves, running off first with what they see, proclaim it: to how many already have they announced our business—that we are assembled together, and discuss measures against them, before any one of us could go and tell these things. This in good truth a fleet-footed boy could do, getting far ahead of one less swift. But what I mean is this. If any one begins to walk from the Thebaid, or from any other district, before he begins to walk, they do not know whether he will walk. But when they have seen him walking they run on, and before he comes up report his approach. And so it falls out that after a few days the travellers arrive. But often the walkers turn back, and the demons prove false.’

32. ‘So, too, with respect to the water of the river, they sometimes make foolish statements. For having seen that there has been much rain in the regions of Ethiopia, and knowing that they are the cause of the flood of the river before the water has come to Egypt they run on and announce it. And this men could have told, if they had as great power of running as the demons. And as David’s spy 1058 going up to a lofty place saw the man approaching better than one who stayed down below, and the forerunner himself announced, before the others came up, not those things which had not taken place, but those things which were already on the way and were being accomplished, so these also prefer to labour, and declare what is happening to others simply for the sake of deceiving them. If, however, Providence meantime plans anything different for the waters or wayfarers—for Providence can do this—the demons are deceived, and those who gave heed to them cheated.’

33. ‘Thus in days gone by arose the oracles of the Greeks, and thus they were led astray by the demons. But thus also thenceforth their deception was brought to an end by the coming of the Lord 1059 , who brought to nought the demons and their devices. For they know nothing of themselves, but, like thieves, what they get to know from others they pass on, and guess at rather than foretell things. Therefore if sometimes they speak the truth, let no one marvel at them for this. For experienced physicians also, since they see the same malady in different people, often foretell what it is, making it out by their acquaintance with it. Pilots, too, and farmers, from their familiarity with the weather, tell at a glance the state of the atmosphere, and forecast whether it will be stormy or fine. And no one would say that they do this by inspiration, but from experience and practice. So if the demons sometimes do the same by guesswork, let no one wonder at it or heed them. For what use to the hearers is it to know from them what is going to happen before the time? Or what concern have we to know such things, even if the knowledge be true? For it is not productive of virtue, nor is it any token of goodness. For none of us is judged for what he knows not, and no one is called blessed because he hath learning and knowledge. But each one will be called to judgment in these points—whether he have kept the faith and truly observed the commandments.’

34. ‘Wherefore there is no need to set much value on these things, nor for the sake of them to practise a life of discipline and labour; but that living well we may please God. And we neither ought to pray to know the future, nor to ask for it as the reward of our discipline; but our prayer should be that the Lord may be our fellow-helper for victory over the devil. And if even once we have a desire to know the future, let us be pure in mind, for I believe that if a soul is perfectly pure and in its natural state, it is able 1060 , being clear-sighted, to see more and further than the demons—for it has the Lord who reveals to it—like the soul of Elisha, which saw what was done 1061 by Gehazi, and beheld the hosts 1062 standing on its side.’

35. ‘When, therefore, they come by night to you and wish to tell the future, or say, “we are the angels,” give no heed, for they lie. Yea even if they praise your discipline and call you blessed, hear them not, and have no dealings with them; but rather sign yourselves and your houses, and pray, and you shall see them vanish. For they are cowards, and greatly fear the sign of the Lord’s Cross, since of a truth in it the Saviour stripped them, and made an example of them 1063 . But if they shamelessly stand their ground, capering and changing their forms of appearance, fear them not, nor shrink, nor heed them as though they were good spirits. For the presence either of the good or evil by the help of God can easily be distinguished. The vision of the holy ones is not fraught with distraction: “For they will not strive, nor cry, nor shall any one hear their voice 1064 .” But it comes so quietly and gently that immediately joy, gladness and courage arise in the soul. For the Lord who is our joy is with them, and the power of God the Father. And the thoughts of the soul remain unruffled and undisturbed, so that it, enlightened as it were with rays, beholds by itself those who appear. For the love of what is divine and of the things to come possesses it, and willingly it would be wholly joined with them if it could depart along with them. But if, being men, some fear the vision of the good, those who appear immediately take fear away; as Gabriel 1065 did in the case of Zacharias, and as the angel 1066 did who appeared to the women at the holy sepulchre, and as He did who said to the shepherds in the Gospel, “Fear not.” For their fear arose not from timidity, but from the recognition of the presence of superior beings. Such then is the nature of the visions of the holy ones.’

36. ‘But the inroad and the display of the evil spirits is fraught with confusion, with din, with sounds and cryings such as the disturbance of boorish youths or robbers would occasion. From which arise fear in the heart, tumult and confusion of thought, dejection, hatred towards them who live a life of discipline, indifference, grief, remembrance of kinsfolk and fear of death, and finally desire of evil things, disregard of virtue and unsettled habits. Whenever, therefore, ye have seen ought and are afraid, if your fear is immediately taken away and in place of it comes joy unspeakable, cheerfulness, courage, renewed strength, calmness of thought and all those I named before, boldness and love toward God,—take courage and pray. For joy and a settled state of soul show the holiness of him who is present. Thus Abraham beholding the Lord rejoiced 1067 ; so also John 1068 at the voice of Mary, the God-bearer 1069 , leaped for gladness. But if at the appearance of any there is confusion, knocking without, worldly display, threats of death and the other things which I have already mentioned, know ye that it is an onslaught of evil spirits.’

37. ‘And let this also be a token for you: whenever the soul remains fearful there is a presence of the enemies. For the demons do not take away the fear of their presence as the great archangel Gabriel did for Mary and Zacharias, and as he did who appeared to the women at the tomb; but rather whenever they see men afraid they increase their delusions that men may be terrified the more; and at last attacking they mock them, saying, “fall down and worship.” Thus they deceived the Greeks, and thus by them they were considered gods, falsely so called. But the Lord did not suffer us to be deceived by the devil, for He rebuked him whenever he framed such delusions against Him, saying: “Get behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve 1070 .” More and more, therefore, let the deceiver be despised by us; for what the Lord hath said, this for our sakes He hath done: that the demons hearing like words from us may be put to flight through the Lord who rebuked them in those words.’

38. ‘And it is not fitting to boast at the casting forth of the demons, nor to be uplifted by the healing of diseases: nor is it fitting that he who casts out devils should alone be highly esteemed, while he who casts them not out should be considered nought. But let a man learn the discipline of each one and either imitate, rival, or correct it. For the working of signs is not ours but the Saviour’s work: and so He said to His disciples: “Rejoice not that the demons are subject to you, but that your names are written in the heavens 1071 .” For the fact that our names are written in heaven is a proof of our virtuous life, but to cast out demons is a favour of the Saviour who granted it. Wherefore to those who boasted in signs but not in virtue, and said: “Lord, in Thy name did we not cast out demons, and in Thy name did many mighty works 1072 ?” He answered, “Verily I say unto you, I know you not;” for the Lord knoweth not the ways of the wicked. But we ought always to pray, as I said above, that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits; that, as it is written 1073 , we may not believe every spirit.’

39. ‘I should have liked to speak no further and to say nothing from my own promptings, satisfied with what I have said: but lest you should think that I speak at random and believe that I detail these things without experience or truth; for this cause even though I should become as a fool, yet the Lord who heareth knoweth the clearness of my conscience, and that it is not for my own sake, but on account of your affection towards me and at your petition that I again tell what I saw of the practices of evil spirits. How often have they called me blessed and I have cursed them in the name of the Lord! How often have they predicted the rising of the river, and I answered them, “What have you to do with it?” Once they came threatening and surrounded me like soldiers in full armour. At another time they filled the house with horses, wild beasts and creeping things, and I sang: “Some in chariots and some in horses, but we will boast in the name of the Lord our God 1074 ;” and at the prayers they were turned to flight by the Lord. Once they came in darkness, bearing the appearance of a light, and said, “We are come to give thee a light, Antony.” But I closed my eyes and prayed, and immediately the light of the wicked ones was quenched. And a few months after they came as though singing psalms and babbling the words of Scripture, “But I like a deaf man, heard not 1075 .” Once they shook the cell 1076 with an earthquake, but I continued praying with unshaken heart. And after this they came again making noises, whistling and dancing. But as I prayed and lay singing psalms to myself they forthwith began to lament and weep, as if their strength had failed them. But I gave glory to the Lord who had brought down and made an example of their daring and madness.’

40. ‘Once a demon exceeding high appeared with pomp, and dared to say, “I am the power of God and I am Providence, what dost thou wish that I shall give thee?” But I then so much the more breathed upon him 1077 , and spoke the name of Christ, and set about to smite him. And I seemed to have smitten him, and forthwith he, big as he was, together with all his demons, disappeared at the name of Christ. At another time, while I was fasting, he came full of craft, under the semblance of a monk, with what seemed to be loaves, and gave me counsel, saying, “Eat and cease from thy many labours. Thou also art a man and art like to fall sick.” But I, perceiving his device, rose up to pray; and he endured it not, for he departed, and through the door there seemed to go out as it were smoke. How often in the desert has he displayed what resembled gold, that I should only touch it and look on it. But I sang psalms against him, and he vanished away. Often they would beat me with stripes, and I repeated again and again, “Nothing shall separate me from the love of Christ 1078 ,” and at this they rather fell to beating one another. Nor was it I that stayed them and destroyed their power, but it was the Lord, who said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from Heaven; 1079 ” but I, children, mindful of the Apostle’s words, transferred 1080 this to myself, that you might learn not to faint in discipline, nor to fear the devil nor the delusions of the demons.’

41. ‘And since I have become a fool in detailing these things, receive this also as an aid to your safety and fearlessness; and believe me for I do not lie. Once some one knocked at the door of my cell, and going forth I saw one who seemed of great size and tall. Then when I enquired, “Who art thou?” he said, “I am Satan.” Then when I said, “Why art thou here?” he answered, “Why do the monks and all other Christians blame me undeservedly? Why do they curse me hourly?” Then I answered, “Wherefore dost thou trouble them?” He said, “I am not he who troubles them, but they trouble themselves, for I am become weak. Have they not read 1081 ,” “The swords of the enemy have come to an end, and thou hast destroyed the cities?” “I have no longer a place, a weapon, a city. The Christians are spread everywhere, and at length even the desert is filled with monks. Let them take heed to themselves, and let them not curse me undeservedly.” Then I marvelled at the grace of the Lord, and said to him: “Thou who art ever a liar and never speakest the truth, this at length, even against thy will, thou hast truly spoken. For the coming of Christ hath made thee weak, and He hath cast thee down and stripped thee.” But he having heard the Saviour’s name, and not being able to bear the burning from it, vanished.’

42. ‘If, therefore, the devil himself confesses that his power is gone, we ought utterly to despise both him and his demons; and since the enemy with his hounds has but devices of this sort, we, having got to know their weakness, are able to despise them. Wherefore let us not despond after this fashion, nor let us have a thought of cowardice in our heart, nor frame fears for ourselves, saying, I am afraid lest a demon should come and overthrow me; lest he should lift me up and cast me down; or lest rising against me on a sudden he confound me. Such thoughts let us not have in mind at all, nor let us be sorrowful as though we were perishing; but rather let us be courageous and rejoice always, believing that we are safe. Let us consider in our soul that the Lord is with us, who put the evil spirits to flight and broke their power. Let us consider and lay to heart that while the Lord is with us, our foes can do us no hurt. For when they come they approach us in a form corresponding to the state in which they discover us 1082 , and adapt their delusions to the condition of mind in which they find us. If, therefore, they find us timid and confused, they forthwith beset the place, like robbers, having found it unguarded; and what we of ourselves are thinking, they do, and more also. For if they find us faint-hearted and cowardly, they mightily increase our terror, by their delusions and threats; and with these the unhappy soul is thenceforth tormented. But if they see us rejoicing in the Lord, contemplating the bliss of the future, mindful of the Lord, deeming all things in His hand, and that no evil spirit has any strength against the Christian, nor any power at all over any one—when they behold the soul fortified with these thoughts—they are discomfited and turned backwards. Thus the enemy, seeing Job fenced round with them, withdrew from him; but finding Judas unguarded, him he took captive. Thus if we are wishful to despise the enemy, let us ever ponder over the things of the Lord, and let the soul ever rejoice in hope. And we shall see the snares of the demon are like smoke, and the evil ones themselves flee rather than pursue. For they are, as I said before, exceeding fearful, ever looking forward to the fire prepared for them.’

43. ‘And for your fearlessness against them hold this sure sign—whenever there is any apparition, be not prostrate with fear, but whatsoever it be, first boldly ask, Who art thou? And from whence comest thou? And if it should be a vision of holy ones they will assure you, and change your fear into joy. But if the vision should be from the devil, immediately it becomes feeble, beholding your firm purpose of mind. For merely to ask, Who art thou 1083 ? and whence comest thou? is a proof of coolness. By thus asking, the son of Nun learned who his helper was; nor did the enemy escape the questioning of Daniel 1084 .’

Footnotes

200:1019

Compare c. Gent. 1, de Synod. 6.

200:1020

Ps. xc. 10. LXX.

200:1021

Rom. viii. 18.

200:1022

Eccl. iv. 8, vi. 2.

201:1023

Ezek. xviii. 26.

201:1024

Rom. viii. 28, R.V. Marg.

201:1025

1 Cor. xv. 31.

201:1026

Phil. iii. 13; Gen. xix. 26; Luke ix. 62

201:1027

Luke xvii. 21 (from memory).

201:1028

Josh. xxiv. 23.

201:1029

Matt. iii. 3.

201:1030

Jas. 1:20, 15James i. 20 and 15.

201:1031

Prov. iv. 23.

201:1032

Eph. vi. 12.

202:1033

This is not quite the view of Athanasius himself, who regards the air as cleared of evil spirits by the Death of Christ, de Incar. xxv. 5: but Athan. does not mean that their power over the wicked is done away; nor does Antony ascribe to them any power over the Christian, see §§24, 28, 41.

202:1034

2 Cor. ii. 11.

202:1035

See above, §13.

202:1036

Job 41:18, 19, 20 (vv. 9–11, LXX.), see above §5, note 15.

202:1037

Job xli. 27 sq.

202:1038

Exod. xv. 9.

202:1039

Isa. 1:0, Isa. 10:14, cf. Ep Æg. 2.

202:1040

Job xli. 1.

202:1041

Ibid. Job 41:1, Job 40:19Job xl. 19-24

203:1042

Habak. ii. 15. LXX.

203:1043

Luke iv. 41.

203:1044

ἕτερα ἀνθ᾽ ἑτέρων, as in de Incar. 11. 4.

203:1045

Ps. l. 16, Ep Æg. 3.

203:1046

Ps. xxxix. 2.

203:1047

Ps. xxxviii. 14.

203:1048

Cf. de Incar. 47, 48.

203:1049

John viii. 44.

204:1050

Ecclesiasticus i. 25.

204:1051

2 Kings xix. 35.

204:1052

Job 1:0, Job 2:0Job i. and ii.

204:1053

Matt. viii. 31.

204:1054

Cf. de Incar. 3. 3, and passim.

204:1055

Luke x. 19.

204:1056

This materialistic view of demons may be paralleled from Origen and other fathers (D.C.B. i. 809), but is not Athanasian. But it would be congenial to the Coptic mind; compare the story told by Cassian of the Monk Serapion, who, on being convinced that ‘God is a Spirit,’ cried out, ‘You have taken my God from me’ (and see D.C.B. 1. p. 120).

204:1057

Susann. 42.

205:1058

2 Sam. xviii. 24.

205:1059

De Incar. 47.

205:1060

Compare below, §§59, 62, for examples. This quite goes beyond any teaching of Athanasius himself; at the same time it finds a point of contact in what he says about dreams in c. Gent. 30 (μαντευόμενος καὶ προγιγνώσκων), and about the soul’s capacity for objective thought, ib. 33, de Incar. 17. 3.

205:1061

2 Kings v. 26.

205:1062

2 Kings vi. 17.

205:1063

Col. ii. 15.

205:1064

Matt. 12:19, Isa. 42:2Matt. xii. 19, cf. Isai. xlii. 2.

205:1065

Luke i. 13.

205:1066

Matt. xxviii. 5.

206:1067

John viii. 56.

206:1068

Luke i. 41.

206:1069

θεοτόκος, as in Orat. iii. 14 (where see note 3).

206:1070

Matt. iv. 10.

206:1071

Luke x. 20.

206:1072

Matt. vii. 22.

206:1073

1 John iv. 1.

206:1074

Ps. xx. 7.

206:1075

Ps. xxxviii. 14.

206:1076

μοναστήριον

207:1077

See D.C.A. p. 652.

207:1078

Rom. viii. 35.

207:1079

Luke x. 18.

207:1080

1 Cor. iv. 6.

207:1081

Ps. ix. 6.

207:1082

‘An important psychological observation.’ (Schaff. Ch. Hist.)

208:1083

Josh. v. 13.

208:1084

Susann. 51–59

44. While Antony was thus speaking all rejoiced; in some the love of virtue increased, in others carelessness was thrown aside, the self-conceit of others was stopped; and all were persuaded to despise the assaults of the Evil One, and marvelled at the grace given to Antony from the Lord for the discerning of spirits. So their cells were in the mountains, like filled with holy bands of men who sang psalms, loved reading, fasted, prayed, rejoiced in the hope of things to come, laboured in alms-giving, and preserved love and harmony one with another. And truly it was possible, as it were, to behold a land set by itself, filled with piety and justice. For then there was neither the evil-doer, nor the injured, nor the reproaches of the tax-gatherer: but instead a multitude of ascetics; and the one purpose of them all was to aim at virtue. So that any one beholding the cells again, and seeing such good order among the monks, would lift up his voice and say, ‘How goodly are thy dwellings, O Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel; as shady glens and as a garden 1085 by a river; as tents which the Lord hath pitched, and like cedars near waters 1086 .’

Footnotes

208:1085

LXX. ‘gardens.’

208:1086

Num. 24:5, 6.

45. Antony, however, according to his custom, returned alone to his own cell, increased his discipline, and sighed daily as he thought of the mansions in Heaven, having his desire fixed on them, and pondering over the shortness of man’s life. And he used to eat and sleep, and go about all other bodily necessities with shame when he thought of the spiritual faculties of the soul. So often, when about to eat with any other hermits, recollecting the spiritual food, he begged to be excused, and departed far off from them, deeming it a matter for shame if he should be seen eating by others. He used, however, when by himself, to eat through bodily necessity, but often also with the brethren; covered with shame on these occasions, yet speaking boldly words of help. And he used to say that it behoved a man to give all his time to his soul rather than his body, yet to grant a short space to the body through its necessities; but all the more earnestly to give up the whole remainder to the soul and seek its profit, that it might not be dragged down by the pleasures of the body, but, on the contrary, the body might be in subjection to the soul. For this is that which was spoken by the Saviour: ‘Be not anxious for your life what ye shall eat, nor for your body what ye shall put on. And do ye seek not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, and be not of a doubtful mind. For all these things the nations of the world seek after. But your Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. Howbeit seek ye first His Kingdom, and all these things shall be added unto you 1087 .’

Footnotes

208:1087

Matt. vi. 31; Luke xii. 29.

46. After this the Church was seized by the persecution which then 1088 took place under Maximinus, and when the holy martyrs were led to Alexandria, Antony also followed, leaving his cell, and saying, Let us go too, that if called, we may contend or behold them that are contending. And he longed to suffer martyrdom, but not being willing to give himself up, he ministered to the confessors in the mines and in the prisons. And he was very zealous in the judgment hall to stir up to readiness those who were summoned when in their contest, while those who were being martyred he received and brought on their way until they were perfected. The judge, therefore, beholding the fearlessness of Antony and his companions, and their zeal in this matter, commanded that no monk should appear in the judgment hall, nor remain at all in the city. So all the rest thought it good to hide themselves that day, but Antony gave so little heed to the command that he washed his garment, and stood all next day on a raised place before them, and appeared in his best before the governor. Therefore when all the rest wondered at this, and the governor saw and passed by with his array, he stood fearlessly, shewing the readiness of us Christians. For, as I said before, he prayed himself to be a martyr, wherefore he seemed as one grieved that he had not borne his witness. But the Lord was keeping him for our profit and that of others, that he should become a teacher to many of the discipline which he had learned from the Scriptures. For many only beholding his manner of life were eager to be imitators of his ways. So he again ministered as usual to the confessors, and as though he were their fellow captive he laboured in his ministry.

Footnotes

208:1088

a.d. 303–311.

47. And when at last the persecution ceased, and the blessed Bishop Peter 1089 had borne his testimony, Antony departed, and again withdrew to his cell, and was there daily a martyr to his conscience, and contending in the conflicts of faith. And his discipline was much severer, for he was ever fasting, and he had a garment of hair on the inside, while the outside was skin, which he kept until his end. And he neither bathed his body with water to free himself from filth, nor did he ever wash his feet, nor even endure so much as to put them into water, unless compelled by necessity. Nor did any one even see him unclothed, nor his body naked at all, except after his death, when he was buried.

Footnotes

209:1089

Martyred on Nov. 25, 311, cf. Eus. H. E. vii. 32.

48. When therefore he had retired and determined to fix a time, after which neither to go forth himself nor admit anybody, Martinian, a military officer, came and disturbed Antony. For he had a daughter afflicted with an evil spirit. But when he continued for a long while knocking at the door, and asking him to come out and pray to God for his child, Antony, not bearing to open, looked out from above and said, ‘Man, why dost thou call on me? I also am a man even as you. But if you believe on Christ whom I serve, go, and according as you believe, pray to God, and it shall come to pass.’ Straightway, therefore, he departed, believing and calling upon Christ, and he received his daughter cleansed from the devil. Many other things also through Antony the Lord did, who saith, ‘Seek and it shall be given unto you 1090 .’ For many of the sufferers, when he would not open his door, slept outside his cell, and by their faith and sincere prayers were healed.

Footnotes

209:1090

Luke xi. 9.

49. But when he saw himself beset by many, and not suffered to withdraw himself according to his intent as he wished, fearing because of the signs which the Lord wrought by him, that either he should be puffed up, or that some other should think of him above what he ought to think, he considered and set off to go into the upper Thebaid, among those to whom he was unknown. And having received loaves from the brethren, he sat down by the bank of the river, looking whether a boat would go by, that, having embarked thereon, he might go up the river with them. While he was considering these things, a voice came to him from above, ‘Antony, whither goest thou and wherefore?’ But he no way disturbed, but as he had been accustomed to be called 1091 often thus, giving ear to it, answered, saying, ‘Since the multitude permit me not to be still, I wish to go into the upper Thebaid on account of the many hindrances that come upon me here, and especially because they demand of me things beyond my power.’ But the voice said unto him, ‘Even though you should go into the Thebaid, or even though, as you have in mind, you should go down to the Bucolia 1092 , you will have to endure more, aye, double the amount of toil. But if you wish really to be in quiet, depart now into the inner desert.’ And when Antony said, ‘Who will show me the way for I know it not?’ immediately the voice pointed out to him Saracens about to go that way. So Antony approached, and drew near them, and asked that he might go with them into the desert. And they, as though they had been commanded by Providence, received him willingly. And having journeyed with them three days and three nights, he came to a very lofty mountain, and at the foot of the mountain ran a clear spring, whose waters were sweet and very cold; outside there was a plain and a few uncared-for palm trees.

50. Antony then, as it were, moved by God, loved the place 1093 , for this was the spot which he who had spoken with him by the banks of the river had pointed out. So having first received loaves from his fellow travellers, he abode in the mountain alone, no one else being with him. And recognising it as his own home, he remained in that place for the future. But the Saracens, having seen the earnestness of Antony, purposely used to journey that way, and joyfully brought him loaves, while now and then the palm trees also afforded him a poor and frugal relish. But after this, the brethren learning of the place, like children mindful of their father, took care to send to him. But when Antony saw that the bread was the cause of trouble and hardships to some of them, to spare the monks this, he resolved to ask some of those who came to bring him a spade, an axe, and a little corn. And when these were brought, he went over the land round the mountain, and having found a small plot of suitable ground, tilled it; and having a plentiful supply of water for watering, he sowed. This doing year by year, he got his bread from thence, rejoicing that thus he would be troublesome to no one, and because he kept himself from being a burden to anybody. But after this, seeing again that people came, he cultivated a few pot-herbs, that he who came to him might have some slight solace after the labour of that hard journey. At first, however, the wild beasts in the desert, coming because of the water, often injured his seeds and husbandry. But he, gently laying hold of one of them, said to them all, ‘Why do you hurt me, when I hurt none of you? Depart, and in the name of the Lord come not nigh this spot.’ And from that time forward, as though fearful of his command, they no more came near the place.

Footnotes

209:1091

See on this subject ‘Phantasms of the Living,’ vol. 1, p. 480 sq. (Trübner, 1886).

209:1092

In Lower Egypt.

209:1093

Mount Colzim, seven hours distant from the Red Sea, where an old cloister still preserves his name and memory (Schaff, Ch. Hist. Nic, p. 183).

51. So he was alone in the inner mountain, spending his time in prayer and discipline. And the brethren who served him asked that they might come every month and bring him olives, pulse and oil, for by now he was an old man. There then he passed his life, and endured such great wrestlings, ‘Not against flesh and blood 1094 ,’ as it is written, but against opposing demons, as we learned from those who visited him. For there they heard tumults, many voices, and, as it were, the clash of arms. At night they saw the mountain become full of wild beasts, and him also fighting as though against visible beings, and praying against them. And those who came to him he encouraged, while kneeling he contended and prayed to the Lord. Surely it was a marvellous thing that a man, alone in such a desert, feared neither the demons who rose up against him, nor the fierceness of the four-footed beasts and creeping things, for all they were so many. But in truth, as it is written, ‘He trusted in the Lord as Mount Sion 1095 ,’ with a mind unshaken and undisturbed; so that the demons rather fled from him, and the wild beasts, as it is written 1096 , ‘kept peace with him.’

52. The devil, therefore, as David says in the Psalms 1097 , observed Antony and gnashed his teeth against him. But Antony was consoled by the Saviour and continued unhurt by his wiles and varied devices. As he was watching in the night the devil sent wild beasts against him. And almost all the hyenas in that desert came forth from their dens and surrounded him; and he was in the midst, while each one threatened to bite. Seeing that it was a trick of the enemy he said to them all: ‘If ye have received power against me I am ready to be devoured by you; but if ye were sent against me by demons, stay not, but depart, for I am a servant of Christ.’ When Antony said this they fled, driven by that word as with a whip.

53. A few days after, as he was working (for he was careful to work hard), some one stood at the door and pulled the plait which he was working, for he used to weave baskets, which he gave to those who came in return for what they brought him. And rising up he saw a beast like a man to the thighs but having legs and feet like those of an ass. And Antony only signed himself and said, ‘I am a servant of Christ. If thou art sent against me, behold I am here.’ But the beast together with his evil spirits fled, so that, through his speed, he fell and died. And the death of the beast was the fall of the demons. For they strove in all manner of ways to lead Antony from the desert and were not able.

Footnotes

210:1094

Eph. vi. 12.

210:1095

Ps. cxxv. 1.

210:1096

Job v. 23.

210:1097

Ps. xxxv. 16.

54. And once being asked by the monks to come down and visit them and their abodes after a time, he journeyed with those who came to him. And a camel carried the loaves and the water for them. For all that desert is dry, and there is no water at all that is fit to drink, save in that mountain from whence they drew the water, and in which Antony’s cell was. So when the water failed them on their way, and the heat was very great, they all were in danger. For having gone round the neighbourhood and finding no water, they could walk no further, but lay on the ground and despairing of themselves, let the camel go. But the old man seeing that they were all in jeopardy, groaning in deep grief, departed a little way from them, and kneeling down he stretched forth his hands and prayed. And immediately the Lord made water to well forth where he had stood praying, and so all drank and were revived. And having filled their bottles they sought the camel and found her, for the rope happened to have caught in a stone and so was held fast. Having led it and watered it they placed the bottles on its back and finished their journey in safety. And when he came to the outer cells all saluted him, looking on him as a father. And he too, as though bringing supplies from the mountain, entertained them with his words and gave them a share of help. And again there was joy in the mountains, zeal for improvement and consolation through their mutual faith. Antony also rejoiced when he beheld the earnestness of the monks, and his sister grown old in virginity, and that she herself also was the leader of other virgins.

55. So after certain days he went in again to the mountain. And henceforth many resorted to him, and others who were suffering ventured to go in. To all the monks therefore who came to him, he continually gave this precept: ‘Believe on the Lord and love Him; keep yourselves from filthy thoughts and fleshly pleasures, and as it is written in the Proverbs, be not deceived “by the fulness of the belly 1098 .” Pray continually; avoid vainglory; sing psalms before sleep and on awaking; hold in your heart the commandments of Scripture; be mindful of the works of the saints that your souls being put in remembrance of the commandments may be brought into harmony with the zeal of the saints.’ And especially he counselled them to meditate continually on the apostle’s word, ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath 1099 .’ And he considered this was spoken of all commandments in common, and that not on wrath alone, but not on any other sin of ours, ought the sun to go down. For it was good and needful that neither the sun should condemn us for an evil by day nor the moon for a sin by night, or even for an evil thought. That this state may be preserved in us it is good to hear the apostle and keep his words, for he says, ‘Try your own selves and prove your own selves 1100 .’ Daily, therefore, let each one take from himself the tale of his actions both by day and night; and if he have sinned, let him cease from it; while if he have not, let him not be boastful. But let him abide in that which is good, without being negligent, nor condemning his neighbours, nor justifying himself, ‘until the Lord come who searcheth out hidden things 1101 ,’ as saith the blessed apostle Paul. For often unawares we do things that we know not of; but the Lord seeth all things. Wherefore committing the judgment to Him, let us have sympathy one with another. Let us bear each other’s burdens 1102 : but let us examine our own selves and hasten to fill up that in which we are lacking. And as a safeguard against sin let the following be observed. Let us each one note and write down our actions and the impulses of our soul as though we were going to relate them to each other. And be assured that if we should be utterly ashamed to have them known, we shall abstain from sin and harbour no base thoughts in our mind. For who wishes to be seen while sinning? or who will not rather lie after the commission of a sin, through the wish to escape notice? As then while we are looking at one another, we would not commit carnal sin, so if we record our thoughts as though about to tell them to one another, we shall the more easily keep ourselves free from vile thoughts through shame lest they should be known. Wherefore let that which is written be to us in place of the eyes of our fellow hermits, that blushing as much to write as if we had been caught, we may never think of what is unseemly. Thus fashioning ourselves we shall be able to keep the body in subjection, to please the Lord, and to trample on the devices of the enemy.

56. This was the advice he gave to those who came to him. And with those who suffered he sympathised and prayed. And oft-times the Lord heard him on behalf of many: yet he boasted not because he was heard, nor did he murmur if he were not. But always he gave the Lord thanks and besought the sufferer to be patient, and to know that healing belonged neither to him nor to man at all, but only to the Lord, who doeth good when and to whom He will. The sufferers therefore used to receive the words of the old man as though they were a cure, learning not to be downhearted but rather to be long-suffering. And those who were healed were taught not to give thanks to Antony but to God alone.

Footnotes

210:1098

Prov. xxiv. 15, LXX.

211:1099

Eph. iv. 26.

211:1100

2 Cor. xiii. 5.

211:1101

1 Cor. iv. 5; Rom. ii. 16.

211:1102

Gal. vi. 6.

57. Wherefore a man, Fronto by name, who was an officer of the Court and had a terrible disease, for he used to bite his own tongue and was in danger of injury to his eyes, having come to the mountain, asked Antony to pray for him. But Antony said to him, ‘Depart and thou shalt be healed.’ But when he was violent and remained within some days, Antony waited and said, ‘If thou stayest here, thou canst not be healed. Go, and having come into Egypt thou shalt see the sign wrought in thee.’ And he believed and went. And as soon as he set eyes on Egypt his sufferings ceased, and the man became whole according to the word of Antony, which the Saviour had revealed to him in prayer.

58. There was also a maiden from Busiris Tripolitana, who had a terrible and very hideous disorder. For the runnings of her eyes, nose, and ears fell to the ground and immediately became worms. She was paralysed also and squinted. Her parents having heard of monks going to Antony, and believing on the Lord who healed 1103 the woman with the issue of blood, asked to be allowed, together with their daughter, to journey with them. And when they suffered them, the parents together with the girl, remained outside the mountain with Paphnutius, the confessor and monk; but the monks went in to Antony. And when they only wished to tell about the damsel, he anticipated them, and detailed both the sufferings of the child and how she journeyed with them. Then when they asked that she should be admitted, Antony did not allow it, but said, ‘Go, and if she be not dead, you will find her healed: for the accomplishment of this is not mine, that she should come to me, wretched man that I am, but her healing is the work of the Saviour, who in every place sheweth His pity to them that call upon Him. Wherefore the Lord hath inclined to her as she prayed, and His loving-kindness hath declared to me that He will heal the child where she now is.’ So the wonder took place; and going out they found the parents rejoicing and the girl whole.

Footnotes

211:1103

Matt. ix. 20.

59. But when two brethren were coming to him, the water failed on the way, and one died and the other was at the point of death, for he had no strength to go on, but lay upon the ground expecting to die. But Antony sitting in the mountain called two monks, who chanced to be there, and urged them saying, ‘Take a pitcher of water and run on the road towards Egypt. For of two men who were coming, one is already dead and the other will die unless you hasten. For this has been revealed to me as I was praying.’ The monks therefore went, and found one lying dead, whom they buried, and the other they restored with water and led him to the old man. For it was a day’s journey 1104 . But if any one asks, why he did not speak before the other died, the question ought not to be asked. For the punishment of death was not Antony’s but God’s, who also judged the one and revealed the condition of the other. But the marvel here was only in the case of Antony: that he sitting in the mountain had his heart watchful, and had the Lord to show him things afar off.

Footnotes

212:1104

For similar cases, cf. ‘Phantasms of the Living,’ vol. 2, p. 368, &c.

60. And this is so, for once again he was sitting on the mountain, and looking up saw in the air some one being borne upwards, and there was much joy among those who met him. Then wondering and deeming a company of that kind to be blessed, he prayed to learn what this might be. And immediately a voice came to him: ‘This is the soul of Amun, the monk at Nitria.’ Now Amun had persevered in the discipline up to old age; and the distance from Nitria to the mountain where Antony was, was thirteen days’ journey. The companions of Antony therefore, seeing the old man amazed, asked to learn, and heard that Amun was just dead 1105 . And he was well known, for he had stayed there very often, and many signs had been wrought by his means. And this is one of them. Once when he had need to cross the river called Lycus (now it was the season of the flood), he asked his comrade Theodorus to remain at a distance, that they should not see one another naked as they swam the water. Then when Theodorus was departed he again felt ashamed even to see himself naked. While, therefore, he was pondering filled with shame, on a sudden he was borne over to the other side. Theodorus, therefore, himself being a good man, approached, and seeing Amun across first without a drop of water falling from him, enquired how he had got over. And when he saw that Amun was unwilling to tell him, he held him by the feet and declared that he would not let him go before he had learned it from him. So Amun seeing the determination of Theodorus especially from what he had said, and having asked him to tell no man before his death, told him that he had been carried and placed on the further side. And that he had not even set foot on the water, nor was that possible for man, but for the Lord alone and those whom He permits, as He did for the great apostle Peter 1106 . Theodorus therefore told this after the death of Amun. And the monks to whom Antony spoke concerning Amun’s death marked the day; and when the brethren came up from Nitria thirty days after, they enquired of them and learned that Amun had fallen asleep at that day and hour in which the old man had seen his soul borne upwards. And both these and the others marvelled at the purity of Antony’s soul, how he had immediately learned that which was taking place at a distance of thirteen days’ journey, and had seen the soul as it was taken up.

Footnotes

212:1105

The same story is told (by Bede in his Life) of St. Cuthbert, who saw the soul of St. Aidan being carried to heaven. Amun was probably the recipient of the letter, No. 48 in this volume.

212:1106

Matt. xiv. 28.

61. And Archelaus too, the Count, on a time having found him in the outer mountain, asked him merely to pray for Polycratia of Laodicea, an excellent and Christian 1107 maiden, for she suffered terribly in the stomach and side through over much discipline, and was altogether weakly of body. Antony prayed therefore, and the Count noted the day in which the prayer was made, and having departed to Laodicea he found the maiden whole. And having enquired when and on what day she was relieved of her infirmity, he produced the paper on which he had written the time of the prayer, and having read it he immediately shewed the writing on the paper. And all wondered when they knew that the Lord had relieved her of pain at the time when Antony was praying and invoking the goodness of the Saviour on her behalf.

62. And concerning those who came to him, he often foretold some days or sometimes a month beforehand what was the cause of their coming. For some came only for the sake of seeing him, others through sickness, and others suffering from evil spirits. And all thought the labour of the journey neither trouble nor loss. For each one returned aware that he had received benefit. But though saying such things and beholding such sights, he used to ask that no one should wonder at him for this; but should rather marvel at the Lord for having granted to us men to know Him as far as our powers extended.

Footnotes

212:1107

Χριστοφόρος, lit. Christ-bearing.

63. Afterwards, on another occasion, having descended to the outer cells, he was asked to enter a vessel and pray with the monks, and he alone perceived an exceedingly unpleasant smell. But those on board said that the stench arose from the fish and salt meat in the ship. He replied however, the smell was different from that; and while he was speaking, a youth with an evil spirit, who had come and hidden himself in the ship, cried out. But the demon being rebuked in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ departed from him, and the man became whole. And all knew that the evil smell arose from the demon.

64. And another, a person of rank, came to him, possessed by a demon; and the demon was so terrible that the man possessed did not know that he was coming to Antony. But he even ate the excreta from his body. So those who brought him besought Antony to pray for him. And Antony pitying the young man prayed and kept watch with him all the night. And about dawn the young man suddenly attacked Antony and gave him a push. But when those who came with him were angry, Antony said, ‘Be not angry with the young man, for it is not he, but the demon which is in him. And being rebuked and commanded to go into dry places, the demon became raging mad, and he has done this. Wherefore give thanks to the Lord, for his attack on me thus is a sign of the departure of the evil spirit.’ When Antony had said this, straightway the young man had become whole, and having come at last to his right mind, knew where he was, and saluted the old man and gave thanks to God.

65. And many monks have related with the greatest agreement and unanimity that many other such like things were done by him. But still these do not seem as marvellous as certain other things appear to be. For once, when about to eat, having risen up to pray about the ninth hour, he perceived that he was caught up in the spirit, and, wonderful to tell, he stood and saw himself, as it were, from outside himself, and that he was led in the air by certain ones. Next certain bitter and terrible beings stood in the air and wished to hinder him from passing through. But when his conductors opposed them, they demanded whether he was not accountable to them. And when they wished to sum up the account from his birth, Antony’s conductors stopped them, saying, ‘The Lord hath wiped out the sins from his birth, but from the time he became a monk, and devoted himself to God, it is permitted you to make a reckoning.’ Then when they accused him and could not convict him, his way was free and unhindered. And immediately he saw himself, as it were, coming and standing by himself, and again he was Antony as before. Then forgetful of eating, he remained the rest of the day and through the whole of the night groaning and praying. For he was astonished when he saw against what mighty opponents our wrestling is, and by what labours we have to pass through the air. And he remembered that this is what the Apostle said, ‘according to the prince of the power of the air 1108 .’ For in it the enemy hath power to fight and to attempt to hinder those who pass through. Wherefore most earnestly he exhorted, ‘Take up the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day 1109 ,’ that the enemy, ‘having no evil thing to say against us, may be ashamed 1110 .’ And we who have learned this, let us be mindful of the Apostle when he says, ‘whether in the body I know not, or whether out of the body I know not; God knoweth 1111 .’ But Paul was caught up unto the third heaven, and having heard things unspeakable he came down; while Antony saw that he had come to the air, and contended until he was free.

Footnotes

213:1108

Eph. ii. 2.

213:1109

Eph. vi. 13.

213:1110

Tit. ii. 8.

213:1111

2 Cor. xii. 2.

66. And he had also this favour granted him. For as he was sitting alone on the mountain, if ever he was in perplexity in his meditations, this was revealed to him by Providence in prayer. And the happy man, as it is written, was taught of God 1112 . After this, when he once had a discussion with certain men who had come to him concerning the state of the soul and of what nature its place will be after this life, the following night one from above called him, saying, ‘Antony, rise, go out and look.’ Having gone out therefore (for he knew whom he ought to obey) looking up, he beheld one standing and reaching to the clouds, tall, hideous, and fearful, and others ascending as though they were winged. And the figure stretched forth his hands, and some of those who were ascending were stayed by him, while others flew above, and having escaped heaven-ward, were borne aloft free from care. At such, therefore, the giant gnashed his teeth, but rejoiced over those who fell back. And forthwith a voice came to Antony, ‘Understandest thou what thou seest?’ And his understanding was opened, and he understood that it was the passing of souls, and that the tall being who stood was the enemy who envies the faithful. And those whom he caught and stopped from passing through are accountable to him, while those whom he was unable to hold as they passed upwards had not been subservient to him. So having seen this, and as it were being reminded, he struggled the more daily to advance towards those things which were before. And these visions he was unwilling to tell, but as he spent much time in prayer, and was amazed, when those who were with him pressed him with questions and forced him, he was compelled to speak, as a father who cannot withhold ought from his children. And he thought that as his conscience was clear, the account would be beneficial for them, that they might learn that discipline bore good fruit, and that visions were oftentimes the solace of their labours.

Footnotes

213:1112

Isai. liv. 13; John vi. 45.

67. Added to this he was tolerant in disposition and humble in spirit. For though he was such a man, he observed the rule of the Church most rigidly, and was willing that all the clergy should be honoured above himself 1113 . For he was not ashamed to bow his head to bishops and presbyters, and if ever a deacon came to him for help he discoursed with him on what was profitable, but gave place to him in prayer, not being ashamed to learn himself. For often he would ask questions, and desired to listen to those who were present, and if any one said anything that was useful he confessed that he was profited. And besides, his countenance had a great and wonderful grace. This gift also he had from the Saviour. For if he were present in a great company of monks, and any one who did not know him previously, wished to see him, immediately coming forward he passed by the rest, and hurried to Antony, as though attracted by his appearance. Yet neither in height nor breadth was he conspicuous above others, but in the serenity of his manner and the purity of his soul. For as his soul was free from disturbances, his outward appearance was calm; so from the joy of his soul he possessed a cheerful countenance, and from his bodily movements could be perceived the condition of his soul, as it is written, ‘When the heart is merry the countenance is cheerful, but when it is sorrowful it is cast down 1114 .’ Thus Jacob recognised the counsel Laban had in his heart, and said to his wives, ‘The countenance of your father is not as it was yesterday and the day before 1115 .’ Thus Samuel recognised David, for he had mirthful eyes, and teeth white as milk. Thus Antony was recognised, for he was never disturbed, for his soul was at peace; he was never downcast, for his mind was joyous.

Footnotes

214:1113

This was by no means universal among monks: Athan. argues to Dracontius (cc. 8, 9) against the monastic tendency to think little of the clergy. Here, he propounds the example of Antony for the imitation of the ‘peregrini fratres.’

214:1114

Prov. xv. 13.

214:1115

Gen. xxxi. 5; 1 Sam. xvi. 12, xvii. 32

68. And he was altogether wonderful in faith and religious, for he never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and apostacy from the beginning; nor had he friendly dealings with the Manichæans or any other heretics; or, if he had, only as far as advice that they should change to piety. For he thought and asserted that intercourse with these was harmful and destructive to the soul. In the same manner also he loathed the heresy of the Arians, and exhorted all neither to approach them nor to hold their erroneous belief. And once when certain Arian madmen came to him, when he had questioned them and learned their impiety, he drove them from the mountain, saying that their words were worse than the poison of serpents.

69. And once also the Arians having lyingly asserted that Antony’s opinions were the same as theirs, he was displeased and wroth against them. Then being summoned by the bishops and all the brethren, he descended from the mountain, and having entered Alexandria 1116 , he denounced the Arians, saying that their heresy was the last of all and a forerunner of Antichrist. And he taught the people that the Son of God was not a created being, neither had He come into being from non-existence, but that He was the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Essence of the Father. And therefore it was impious to say, ‘there was a time when He was not,’ for the Word was always co-existent with the Father. Wherefore have no fellowship with the most impious Arians. For there is no communion between light and darkness 1117 . For you are good Christians, but they, when they say that the Son of the Father, the Word of God, is a created being, differ in nought from the heathen, since they worship that which is created, rather than God the creator 1118 . But believe ye that the Creation itself is angry with them because they number the Creator, the Lord of all, by whom all things came into being, with those things which were originated.

Footnotes

214:1116

July 25–27, 338, Fest. Ind. x.

214:1117

2 Cor. vi. 14.

214:1118

Orat. ii. 23, &c. This was an argument much used against Arianism. Antony’s arguments may be compared with those of Ath. in Ep. Æg. 13.

70. All the people, therefore, rejoiced when they heard the anti-Christian heresy anathematised by such a man. And all the people in the city ran together to see Antony; and the Greeks and those who are called their Priests, came into the church, saying, ‘We ask to see the man of God,’ for so they all called him. For in that place also the Lord cleansed many of demons, and healed those who were mad. And many Greeks asked that they might even but touch the old man, believing that they should be profited. Assuredly as many became Christians in those few days as one would have seen made in a year. Then when some thought that he was troubled by the crowds, and on this account turned them all away from him, he said, undisturbedly, that there were not more of them than of the demons with whom he wrestled in the mountain.

71. But when he was departing, and we were setting him forth on his way, as we 1119 arrived at the gate a woman from behind cried out, ‘Stay, thou man of God, my daughter is grievously vexed by a devil. Stay, I beseech thee, lest I too harm myself with running.’ And the old man when he heard her, and was asked by us, willingly stayed. And when the woman drew near, the child was cast on the ground. But when Antony had prayed and called upon the name of Christ, the child was raised whole, for the unclean spirit was gone forth. And the mother blessed God, and all gave thanks. And Antony himself also rejoiced, departing to the mountain as though it were to his own home.

Footnotes

215:1119

This seems to imply Athanasius as the (real or ostensible) narrator.

72. And Antony also was exceeding prudent, and the wonder was that although he had not learned letters, he was a ready-witted and sagacious man. At all events two Greek philosophers once came, thinking they could try their skill on Antony; and he was in the outer mountain, and having recognised who they were from their appearance, he came to them and said to them by means of an interpreter, ‘Why, philosophers, did ye trouble yourselves so much to come to a foolish man?’ And when they said that he was not a foolish man, but exceedingly prudent, he said to them, ‘If you came to a foolish man, your labour is superfluous; but if you think me prudent become as I am, for we ought to imitate what is good. And if I had come to you I should have imitated you; but if you to me, become as I am, for I am a Christian.’ But they departed with wonder, for they saw that even demons feared Antony.

73. And again others such as these met him in the outer mountain and thought to mock 1120 him because he had not learned letters. And Antony said to them, ‘What say ye? which is first, mind or letters? And which is the cause of which—mind of letters or letters of mind?’ And when they answered mind is first and the inventor of letters, Antony said, ‘Whoever, therefore, hath a sound mind hath not need of letters.’ This answer amazed both the bystanders and the philosophers, and they departed marvelling that they had seen so much understanding in an ignorant man. For his manners were not rough as though he had been reared in the mountain and there grown old, but graceful and polite, and his speech was seasoned with the divine salt, so that no one was envious, but rather all rejoiced over him who visited him.

74. After this again certain others came; and these were men who were deemed wise among the Greeks, and they asked him a reason for our faith in Christ. But when they attempted to dispute concerning the preaching of the divine Cross and meant to mock, Antony stopped for a little, and first pitying their ignorance, said, through an interpreter, who could skilfully interpret his words, ‘Which is more beautiful, to confess the Cross or to attribute to those whom you call gods adultery and the seduction of boys? For that which is chosen by us is a sign of courage and a sure token of the contempt of death, while yours are the passions of licentiousness. Next, which is better, to say that the Word of God was not changed, but, being the same, He took a human body for the salvation and well-being of man, that having shared in human birth He might make man partake in the divine and spiritual nature 1121 ; or to liken the divine to senseless animals and consequently to worship four-footed beasts, creeping things and the likenesses of men? For these things, are the objects of reverence of you wise men. But how do you dare to mock us, who say that Christ has appeared as man, seeing that you, bringing the soul from heaven, assert that it has strayed and fallen from the vault of the sky into body 1122 ? And would that you had said that it had fallen into human body alone, and not asserted that it passes and changes into four-footed beasts and creeping things. For our faith declares that the coming of Christ was for the salvation of men. But you err because you speak of soul as not generated. And we, considering the power and loving-kindness of Providence, think that the coming of Christ in the flesh was not impossible with God. But you, although calling the soul the likeness of Mind 1123 , connect it with falls and feign in your myths that it is changeable, and consequently introduce the idea that Mind itself is changeable by reason of the soul. For whatever is the nature of a likeness, such necessarily is the nature of that of which it is a likeness. But whenever you think such a thought concerning Mind, remember that you blaspheme even the Father of Mind Himself 1124 .

75. But concerning the Cross, which would you say to be the better, to bear it, when a plot is brought about by wicked men, nor to be in fear of death brought about under any form whatever 1125 ; or to prate about the wanderings of Osiris and Isis, the plots of Typhon, the flight of Cronos, his eating his children and the slaughter of his father. For this is your wisdom. But how, if you mock the Cross, do you not marvel at the resurrection? For the same men who told us of the latter wrote the former. Or why when you make mention of the Cross are you silent about the dead who were raised, the blind who received their sight, the paralytics who were healed, the lepers who were cleansed, the walking upon the sea, and the rest of the signs and wonders, which shew that Christ is no longer a man but God? To me you seem to do yourselves much injustice and not to have carefully read our Scriptures. But read and see that the deeds of Christ prove Him to be God come upon earth for the salvation of men.

76. But do you tell us your religious beliefs. What can you say of senseless creatures except senselessness and ferocity? But if, as I hear, you wish to say that these things are spoken of by you as legends, and you allegorize the rape of the maiden Persephone of the earth; the lameness of Hephæstus of fire; and allegorize the air as Hera, the sun as Apollo, the moon as Artemis, and the sea as Poseidon; none the less, you do not worship God Himself, but serve the creature rather than God who created all things. For if because creation is beautiful you composed such legends, still it was fitting that you should stop short at admiration and not make gods of the things created; so that you should not give the honour of the Creator to that which is created. Since, if you do, it is time for you to divert the honour of the master builder to the house built by him; and of the general to the soldier. What then can you reply to these things, that we may know whether the Cross hath anything worthy of mockery?’

77. But when they were at a loss, turning hither and thither, Antony smiled and said—again through an interpreter—‘Sight itself carries the conviction of these things. But as you prefer to lean upon demonstrative arguments, and as you, having this art, wish us also not to worship God, until after such proof, do you tell first how things in general and specially the recognition of God are accurately known. Is it through demonstrative argument or the working of faith? And which is better, faith which comes through the inworking (of God) or demonstration by arguments?’ And when they answered that faith which comes through the inworking was better and was accurate knowledge, Antony said, ‘You have answered well, for faith arises from disposition of soul, but dialectic from the skill of its inventors. Wherefore to those who have the inworking through faith, demonstrative argument is needless, or even superfluous. For what we know through faith this you attempt to prove through words, and often you are not even able to express what we understand. So the inworking through faith is better and stronger than your professional arguments.’

78. ‘We Christians therefore hold the mystery not in the wisdom of Greek arguments, but in the power of faith richly supplied to us by God through Jesus Christ. And to show that this statement is true, behold now, without having learned letters, we believe in God, knowing through His works His providence over all things. And to show that our faith is effective, so now we are supported by faith in Christ, but you by professional logomachies. The portents of the idols among you are being done away, but our faith is extending everywhere. You by your arguments and quibbles have converted none from Christianity to Paganism. We, teaching the faith on Christ, expose your superstition, since all recognise that Christ is God and the Son of God. You by your eloquence do not hinder the teaching of Christ. But we by the mention of Christ crucified put all demons to flight, whom you fear as if they were gods. Where the sign of the Cross is 1126 , magic is weak and witchcraft has no strength.

79. ‘Tell us therefore where your oracles are now? Where are the charms of the Egyptians? Where the delusions of the magicians? When did all these things cease and grow weak except when the Cross of Christ arose? Is It then a fit subject for mockery, and not rather the things brought to nought by it, and convicted of weakness? For this is a marvellous thing, that your religion was never persecuted, but even was honoured by men in every city, while the followers of Christ are persecuted, and still our side flourishes and multiplies over yours. What is yours, though praised and honoured, perishes, while the faith and teaching of Christ, though mocked by you and often persecuted by kings, has filled the world. For when has the knowledge of God so shone forth? or when has self-control and the excellence of virginity appeared as now? or when has death been so despised except when the Cross of Christ has appeared? And this no one doubts when he sees 1127 the martyr despising death for the sake of Christ, when he sees for Christ’s sake the virgins of the Church keeping themselves pure and undefiled.

Footnotes

215:1120

Cf. c. Gent. 1, de Incar. 1, 41, 48. 7.

215:1121

Cf. de Incar. 54. 3; 2 Pet. i. 4.

215:1122

Cf. Plat. Phædr. 274 B: but the resemblances is not close and the relation of this passage to the Phædrus is probably mediate. I cannot see that the doctrine referred to here is necessarily different from that of Plotinus (Enn. IV. iii. 15).

215:1123

Plotinus (Enn. V. i. 3) taught that the soul was, as it were, an image of Mind, as the uttered word is of the word in the soul (cf. Philo. Vit. Mos. iii. 13).

216:1124

It is certainly startling to find Antony, ignorant of Greek and of letters, reasoning with philosophers upon the doctrines of Neoplatonism. His whole life, excepting two short visits to Alexandria, had been spent out of ear-shot of such discussions. Yet it is not easy to say exactly how much a man of strong mind and retentive memory may have picked up from the conversation of those who visited him upon subjects so widely discussed as these speculations were.

216:1125

De Incar. 24. 3.

216:1126

De Incar. 47. 4.

217:1127

Compare de Incar. 48. 2.

80. ‘And these signs are sufficient to prove that the faith of Christ alone is the true religion. But see! you still do not believe and are seeking for arguments. We however make our proof “not in the persuasive words of Greek wisdom 1128 ” as our teacher has it, but we persuade by the faith which manifestly precedes argumentative proof. Behold there are here some vexed with demons;’—now there were certain who had come to him very disquieted by demons, and bringing them into the midst he said,—‘Do you cleanse them either by arguments and by whatever art or magic you choose, calling upon your idols, or if you are unable, put away your strife with us and you shall see the power of the Cross of Christ.’ And having said this he called upon Christ, and signed the sufferers two or three times with the sign of the Cross. And immediately the men stood up whole, and in their right mind, and forthwith gave thanks unto the Lord. And the philosophers, as they are called, wondered, and were astonished exceedingly at the understanding of the man and at the sign which had been wrought. But Antony said, ‘Why marvel ye at this? We are not the doers of these things, but it is Christ who worketh them by means of those who believe on Him. Believe, therefore, also yourselves, and you shall see that with us there is no trick of words, but faith through love which is wrought in us towards Christ; which if you yourselves should obtain you will no longer seek demonstrative arguments, but will consider faith in Christ sufficient.’ These are the words of Antony. And they marvelling at this also, saluted him and departed, confessing the benefit they had received from him 1129 .

Footnotes

217:1128

1 Cor. ii. 4.

217:1129

The above argument with the philosophers runs upon the general lines of that of Athanasius c. Gent. The point which we miss here is the Euhemerism upon which Athanasius so strongly insists. This latter view would be naturally less congenial to Antony’s mind than the view that the gods were merely demons.

81. And the fame of Antony came even unto kings. For Constantine Augustus, and his sons Constantius and Constans the Augusti wrote letters to him, as to a father, and begged an answer from him. But he made nothing very much of the letters, nor did he rejoice at the messages, but was the same as he had been before the Emperors wrote to him. But when they brought him the letters he called the monks and said, ‘Do not be astonished if an emperor writes to us, for he is a man; but rather wonder that God wrote the Law for men and has spoken to us 1130 through His own Son.’ And so he was unwilling to receive the letters, saying that he did not know how to write an answer to such things. But being urged by the monks because the emperors were Christians, and lest they should take offence on the ground that they had been spurned, he consented that they should be read, and wrote an answer approving them because they worshipped Christ, and giving them counsel on things pertaining to salvation: ‘not to think much of the present, but rather to remember the judgment that is coming, and to know that Christ alone was the true and Eternal King.’ He begged them to be merciful and to give heed to justice and the poor. And they having received the answer rejoiced. Thus he was dear to all, and all desired to consider him as a father.

Footnotes

217:1130

Heb. i. 2.

82. Being known to be so great a man, therefore, and having thus given answers to those who visited him, he returned again to the inner mountain, and maintained his wonted discipline. And often when people came to him, as he was sitting or walking, as it is written in Daniel 1131 , he became dumb, and after a season he resumed the thread of what he had been saying before to the brethren who were with him. And his companions perceived that he was seeing a vision. For often when he was on the mountains he saw what was happening in Egypt, and told it to Serapion the bishop 1132 , who was indoors with him, and who saw that Antony was wrapped in a vision. Once as he was sitting and working, he fell, as it were, into a trance, and groaned much at what he saw. Then after a time, having turned to the bystanders with groans and trembling, he prayed, and falling on his knees remained so a long time. And having arisen the old man wept. His companions, therefore, trembling and terrified, desired to learn from him what it was. And they troubled him much, until he was forced to speak. And with many groans he spake as follows: ‘O, my children, it were better to die before what has appeared in the vision come to pass.’ And when again they asked him, having burst into tears, he said, ‘Wrath is about to seize the Church, and it is on the point of being given up to men who are like senseless beasts. For I saw the table of the Lord’s House, and mules standing around it on all sides in a ring, and kicking the things therein, just like a herd kicks when it leaps in confusion. And you saw,’ said he, ‘how I groaned, for I heard a voice saying, “My altar shall be defiled.”’ These things the old man saw, and after two years the present 1133 inroad of the Arians and the plunder of the churches took place, when they violently carried off the vessels, and made the heathen carry them; and when they forced the heathen from the prisons to join in their services, and in their presence did upon the Table as they would. Then we all understood that these kicks of the mules signified to Antony what the Arians, senselessly like beasts, are now doing. But when he saw this vision, he comforted those with him, saying, ‘Be not downcast, my children; for as the Lord has been angry, so again will He heal us, and the Church shall soon again receive her own order, and shall shine forth as she is wont. And you shall behold the persecuted restored, and wickedness again withdrawn to its own hiding-place, and pious faith speaking boldly in every place with all freedom. Only defile 1134 not yourselves with the Arians, for their teaching is not that of the Apostles, but that of demons and their father the devil; yea, rather, it is barren and senseless, and without light understanding, like the senselessness of these mules.’

Footnotes

217:1131

Dan. iv. 19 (v. 16 (LXX).

217:1132

Of Thmuis, the friend and correspondent of Athanasius: see below, §91.

218:1133

Cf. below, ‘what the Arians are now doing.’ This incidental notice of time fixes the date of the present passage. Weingarten in vain attempts to extract some other sense from the Greek, which is plainness itself. It also fixes the date of Antony’s death to within two years of the troubles in question. The Benedictines refer the troubles to the intrusion of Gregory ‘in 341’ (really 339), and the apparently unprecedented character ascribed to the outrages by Antony is in favour of this, as well as the fact (Encyc. 3) that in 339 the heathen are said to have offered sacrifice in the churches. But the latter is only in superficial agreement with the Greek text of the present passage, which speaks of Arian συνάξεις at which heathen were impressed to be present, apparently to make some show of a congregation. The Evagrian version, indeed, adds that the Gentiles on this occasion also carried on idolatrous rites in the Church and polluted the baptisteries; but Evagrius is in the habit of interpolating little details from his own knowledge or opinion (e.g. 16, ‘Ita exorsus,’ &c., 26, ‘qui vinctas hominum linguas solvebat,’ 58, ‘qui effosso pro Christo oculo sub Maximiano,’ &c.), and in this case appears to borrow from Encycl. 3. Again, the writer of the Vita was not present (‘the bystanders’ supra; ‘they troubled him;’ ‘they asked him;’…and infr. ‘those with him’) when the Vision took place: but when, two years later, it was interpreted by events, he was in the company of those who had been with Antony at the time (infr. ‘then we all understood’). This (on the assumption of Athanasian authorship) excludes the year 339, when Athanasius fled to Italy, and compels us to refer the Vision to the troubles of 356 (Apol. Fug. 6, 7. Hist. Ar. 55, 56, Ep. ad Lucif.), after which Athanasius fled to the desert and was in the company of the monks. This conclusion is in independent agreement with (1) the fact, decisive by itself, that Antony is still alive in 345, when Nestorius became Prefect of Egypt (§86, note 3), i.e. six years after the troubles of 339; (2) the evidence that Antony was still living about 353 a.d. (Epist. Ammon. de Pachom. et Theod. 20, 21, in Act. SS. Mai. tom. iii. Appendix 70 C E, Tillemont vii. 123), and (3) the statement of Jerome (Chron.) that Antony died in 356. Against it Weingarten urges the prophecy of restored peace to the Church (infr.) as pointing to a time after the overthrow of Arianism. This is of little weight, for the prophecy expresses only what must have been the hope and belief of all. The prologue, which Tillemont (viii. 227) thinks must have been written in a time of peace at Alexandria, is not sufficiently explicit on the point to weigh against the plain sense of the present passage.

218:1134

Cf. the Second Letter to monks (Letter 53).

83. Such are the words of Antony, and we ought not to doubt whether such marvels were wrought by the hand of a man. For it is the promise of the Saviour, when He saith, ‘If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say to this mountain, remove hence and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you 1135 .’ And again, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask the father in My name He will give it you. Ask and ye shall receive 1136 .’ And He himself it is who saith to His disciples and to all who believe on Him, ‘Heal the sick, cast out demons; freely ye have received, freely give 1137 .’

84. Antony, at any rate, healed not by commanding, but by prayer and speaking the name of Christ. So that it was clear to all that it was not he himself who worked, but the Lord who showed mercy by his means and healed the sufferers. But Antony’s part was only prayer and discipline, for the sake of which he stayed in the mountain, rejoicing in the contemplation of divine things, but grieving when troubled by much people, and dragged to the outer mountain. For all judges used to ask him to come down, because it was impossible for them to enter on account of their following of litigants. But nevertheless they asked him to come that they might but see him. When therefore he avoided it and refused to go to them, they remained firm, and sent to him all the more the prisoners under charge of soldiers, that on account of these he might come down. Being forced by necessity, and seeing them lamenting, he came into the outer mountain, and again his labour was not unprofitable. For his coming was advantageous and serviceable to many; and he was of profit to the judges, counselling them to prefer justice to all things; to fear God, and to know, ‘that with what judgment they judged, they should be judged 1138 .’ But he loved more than all things his sojourn in the mountain.

Footnotes

218:1135

Matt. xvii. 20.

218:1136

John xvi. 23.

218:1137

Matt. x. 8.

218:1138

Matt. vii. 2.

85. At another time, suffering the same compulsion at the hands of them who had need, and after many entreaties from the commander of the soldiers, he came down, and when he was come he spoke to them shortly of the things which make for salvation, and concerning those who wanted him, and was hastening away. But when the duke, as he is called, entreated him to stay, he replied that he could not linger among them, and persuaded him by a pretty simile, saying, ‘Fishes, if they remain long on dry land, die. And so monks lose their strength if they loiter among you and spend their time with you. Wherefore as fish must hurry to the sea, so must we hasten to the mountain. Lest haply if we delay we forget the things within us.’ And the general having heard this and many other things from him, was amazed and said, ‘Of a truth this man is the servant of God. For, unless he were beloved of God, whence could an ignorant man have such great understanding?’

86. And a certain general, Balacius by name, persecuted us Christians bitterly on account of his regard for the Arians—that name of ill-omen. And as his ruthlessness was so great that he beat virgins, and stripped and scourged monks, Antony at this time wrote a letter as follows, and sent it to him. ‘I see wrath coming upon thee, wherefore cease to persecute the Christians, lest haply wrath catch hold of thee, for even now it is on the point of coming upon thee 1139 .’ But Balacius laughed and threw the letter on the ground, and spit on it, and insulted the bearers, bidding them tell this to Antony: ‘Since thou takest thought for the monks, soon I will come after thee also.’ And five days had not passed before wrath came upon him. For Balacius and Nestorius, the Prefect of Egypt 1140 , went forth to the first halting-place from Alexandria, which is called Chæreu, and both were on horseback, and the horses belonged to Balacius, and were the quietest of all his stable. But they had not gone far towards the place when the horses began to frisk with one another as they are wont to do; and suddenly the quieter, on which Nestorius sat 1141 , with a bite dismounted Balacius, and attacked him, and tore his thigh so badly with its teeth that he was borne straight back to the city, and in three days died. And all wondered because what Antony had foretold had been so speedily fulfilled.

Footnotes

219:1139

In Hist. Ar. 14 the letter is sent not to Balacius but to Gregory, who died on June 26, 345 (Gwatkin, p. 105).

219:1140

Nestorius was prefect ‘345–352’ (Index to Fest. Letters, where the year ‘345’ is from August 344 to August 345).

219:1141

In the Hist. Ar. it is simply stated that Balacius was bitten by his own horse. The present passage looks like a more careful restatement.

87. Thus, therefore, he warned the cruel. But the rest who came to him he so instructed that they straightway forgot their lawsuits, and felicitated those who were in retirement from the world. And he championed those who were wronged in such a way that you would imagine that he, and not the others, was the sufferer. Further, he was able to be of such use to all, that many soldiers and men who had great possessions laid aside the burdens of life, and became monks for the rest of their days. And it was as if a physician had been given by God to Egypt. For who in grief met Antony and did not return rejoicing? Who came mourning for his dead and did not forthwith put off his sorrow? Who came in anger and was not converted to friendship? What poor and low-spirited man met him who, hearing him and looking upon him, did not despise wealth and console himself in his poverty? What monk, having being neglectful, came to him and became not all the stronger? What young man having come to the mountain and seen Antony, did not forthwith deny himself pleasure and love temperance? Who when tempted by a demon, came to him and did not find rest? And who came troubled with doubts and did not get quietness of mind?

88. For this was the wonderful thing in Antony’s discipline, that, as I said before, having the gift of discerning spirits, he recognised their movements, and was not ignorant whither any one of them turned his energy and made his attack. And not only was he not deceived by them himself, but cheering those who were troubled with doubts, he taught them how to defeat their plans, telling them of the weakness and craft of those who possessed them. Thus each one, as though prepared by him for battle, came down from the mountain, braving the designs of the devil and his demons. How many maidens who had suitors, having but seen Antony from afar, remained maidens for Christ’s sake. And people came also from foreign parts to him, and like all others, having got some benefit, returned, as though set forward by a father. And certainly when he died, all as having been bereft of a father, consoled themselves solely by their remembrances of him, preserving at the same time his counsel and advice.

89. It is worth while that I should relate, and that you, as you wish it, should hear what his death was like. For this end of his is worthy of imitation. According to his custom he visited the monks in the outer mountain, and having learned from Providence that his own end was at hand, he said to the brethren, ‘This is my last visit to you which I shall make. And I shall be surprised if we see each other again in this life. At length the time of my departure is at hand, for I am near a hundred and five years old.’ And when they heard it they wept, and embraced, and kissed the old man. But he, as though sailing from a foreign city to his own, spoke joyously, and exhorted them ‘Not to grow idle in their labours, nor to become faint in their training, but to live as though dying daily. And as he had said before, zealously to guard the soul from foul thoughts, eagerly to imitate the Saints, and to have nought to do with the Meletian schismatics, for you know their wicked and profane character. Nor have any fellowship with the Arians, for their impiety is clear to all. Nor be disturbed if you see the judges protect them, for it shall cease, and their pomp is mortal and of short duration. Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me.’

90. But when the brethren were urging him to abide with them and there to die, he suffered it not for many other reasons, as he showed by keeping silence, and especially for this:—The Egyptians are wont to honour with funeral rites, and to wrap in linen cloths at death the bodies of good men, and especially of the holy martyrs; and not to bury them underground, but to place them on couches, and to keep them in their houses, thinking in this to honour the departed. And Antony often urged the bishops to give commandment to the people on this matter. In like manner he taught the laity and reproved the women, saying, ‘that this thing was neither lawful nor holy at all. For the bodies of the patriarchs and prophets are until now preserved in tombs, and the very body of the Lord was laid in a tomb, and a stone was laid upon it, and hid it until He rose on the third day 1142 .’ And thus saying, he showed that he who did not bury the bodies of the dead after death transgressed the law, even though they were sacred. For what is greater or more sacred than the body of the Lord? Many therefore having heard, henceforth buried the dead underground, and gave thanks to the Lord that they had been taught rightly.

Footnotes

220:1142

Cf. John 19:41, Matt. 27:60.

91. But he, knowing the custom, and fearing that his body would be treated this way, hastened, and having bidden farewell to the monks in the outer mountain entered the inner mountain, where he was accustomed to abide. And after a few months he fell sick. Having summoned those who were there—they were two in number who had remained in the mountain fifteen years, practising the discipline and attending on Antony on account of his age—he said to them, ‘I, as it is written 1143 , go the way of the fathers, for I perceive that I am called by the Lord. And do you be watchful and destroy not your long discipline, but as though now making a beginning, zealously preserve your determination. For ye know the treachery of the demons, how fierce they are, but how little power they have. Wherefore fear them not, but rather ever breathe Christ, and trust Him. Live as though dying daily. Give heed to yourselves, and remember the admonition you have heard from me. Have no fellowship with the schismatics, nor any dealings at all with the heretical Arians. For you know how I shunned them on account of their hostility to Christ, and the strange doctrines of their heresy. Therefore be the more earnest always to be followers first of God and then of the Saints; that after death they also may receive you as well-known friends into the eternal habitations. Ponder over these things and think of them, and if you have any care for me and are mindful of me as of a father, suffer no one to take my body into Egypt, lest haply they place me in the houses 1144 , for to avoid this I entered into the mountain and came here. Moreover you know how I always put to rebuke those who had this custom, and exhorted them to cease from it. Bury my body, therefore, and hide it underground yourselves, and let my words be observed by you that no one may know the place 1145 but you alone. For at the resurrection of the dead I shall receive it incorruptible from the Saviour. And divide my garments. To Athanasius the bishop give one sheepskin and the garment whereon I am laid, which he himself gave me new, but which with me has grown old. To Serapion the bishop give the other sheepskin, and keep the hair garment yourselves 1146 . For the rest fare ye well, my children, for Antony is departing, and is with you no more.’

Footnotes

220:1143

Josh. xxiii. 14.

220:1144

Cf. St. Aug. Serm. 361. 12, D.C.A. p. 251.

220:1145

The body of Antony was discovered ‘by a revelation’ in 561, and translated to Alexandria. When the Saracens conquered Egypt it was transferred to Constantinople, and lastly in the tenth century was carried to Vienne by a French Seigneur. The first and last links of this history are naturally precarious. The translation to Alexandria is vouched for by Victor of Tunis (Chron.) who was in the neighbourhood at the time.

220:1146

Jerome, in his life of Paul of Thebes, relates that Antony received from Paul, and ever afterwards wore on festivals, his tunic of palm-leaves. If this ‘legacy more glorious than the purple of a king’ (Vit. Paul. c. 13) had any existence, it would certainly not have been forgotten by Antony in disposing of his worldly goods. The silence of the Life of Antony throws discredit on Jerome’s whole account of Paul.

92. Having said this, when they had kissed him, he lifted up his feet, and as though he saw friends coming to him and was glad because of them—for as he lay his countenance appeared joyful—he died and was gathered to the fathers. And they afterward, according to his commandment, wrapped him up and buried him, hiding his body underground. And no one knows to this day where it was buried, save those two only. But each of those who received the sheepskin of the blessed Antony and the garment worn by him guards it as a precious treasure. For even to look on them is as it were to behold Antony; and he who is clothed in them seems with joy to bear his admonitions.

93. This is the end of Antony’s life in the body and the above was the beginning of the discipline. Even if this account is small compared with his merit, still from this reflect how great Antony, the man of God, was. Who from his youth to so great an age preserved a uniform zeal for the discipline, and neither through old age was subdued by the desire of costly food, nor through the infirmity of his body changed the fashion of his clothing, nor washed even his feet with water, and yet remained entirely free from harm. For his eyes were undimmed and quite sound and he saw clearly; of his teeth he had not lost one, but they had become worn to the gums through the great age of the old man. He remained strong both in hands and feet; and while all men were using various foods, and washings and divers garments, he appeared more cheerful and of greater strength. And the fact that his fame has been blazoned everywhere; that all regard him with wonder, and that those who have never seen him long for him, is clear proof of his virtue and God’s love of his soul. For not from writings, nor from worldly wisdom, nor through any art, was Antony renowned, but solely from his piety towards God. That this was the gift of God no one will deny. For from whence into Spain and into Gaul, how into Rome and Africa, was the man heard of who abode hidden in a mountain, unless it was God who maketh His own known everywhere, who also promised this to Antony at the beginning? For even if they work secretly, even if they wish to remain in obscurity, yet the Lord shows them as lamps to lighten all, that those who hear may thus know that the precepts of God are able to make men prosper and thus be zealous in the path of virtue.

94. Read these words, therefore, to the rest of the brethren that they may learn what the life of monks ought to be; and may believe that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ glorifies those who glorify Him: and leads those who serve Him unto the end, not only to the kingdom of heaven, but here also—even though they hide themselves and are desirous of withdrawing from the world—makes them illustrious and well known everywhere on account of their virtue and the help they render others. And if need be, read this among the heathen, that even in this way they may learn that our Lord Jesus Christ is not only God and the Son of God, but also that the Christians who truly serve Him and religiously believe on Him, prove, not only that the demons, whom the Greeks themselves think to be gods, are no gods, but also tread them under foot and put them to flight, as deceivers and corrupters of mankind, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Introduction to Ad Episcopos Ægypti Et Libyæ Epistola Encyclica.

————————————

Written A.D. 356.

This letter was addressed by St. Athanasius to the bishops of his Province after his expulsion by Syrianus (Feb. 8, 356), and when the nomination of George the contractor to the Alexandrian See was already known (§7). But no details of the persecution of the orthodox in Egypt had reached Athanasius when he wrote, in fact he mentions it as only beginning (§5). This points to about the Easter of 356; see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1). The tract thus opens the series of anti-Arian works composed during the ‘third exile.’ It has indeed been inferred (by Baronius and others) from §22 that the letter was written thirty-six years after the Nicene Synod, i.e. in 361. But it was certainly written before the arrival of George, and in the passage referred to it is the first condemnation of Arius by Alexander, and not the Council of Nicæa, that is placed thirty-six years ago. The primary purpose of the letter is to warn the bishops against a formulary which was on the point of being circulated for their acceptance on pain of banishment (§5). The creed in question cannot now be identified,—but it was very possibly the Sirmian Creed of 351 (de Synod. 27), not formally Arian, but evading the Nicene test (§10). He begins, accordingly, after a general warning (1–4) against being imposed upon by mere words, and a statement (5) of the tactics of his opponents, by urging the bishops to hold to the faith of Nicæa, in contrast to the shifting professions of its opponents (6–8), and to be satisfied with nothing short of an explicit repudiation of Arianism (9–11). In the Second Part of the Letter he turns to doctrine. He states (12) the original Arian position, and confronts it (13) with passages from Scripture. He challenges the Arians (14) to state any clear belief as to the nature of the Word, which shall reconcile their premises with the language of Holy Writ (15, 16). He explains Prov. viii. 22 of the Incarnation, and taxes the Arians with denying this truth, like the heathen (17). He next taxes them with dissimulation, especially Arius in his profession to Constantine (18); he describes the death of Arius, and presses the charge of complicity with a man already judged by God (19). He urges the bishops (20, 21) to steadfastness and confessorship, reprobates the coalition of Meletians (22) and Arians, and finally expresses the conviction (23) that the Emperor Constantius will put an end to these outrages when informed of the true facts of the case.

The last section is an anticipation of the Apol. ad Constantium, which Athanasius was probably preparing at the same time. Not till two years later does he cast aside all hope of the Emperor and launch out in the bitter invective of the ‘Arian History’ (see Apol. pro Fuga 26, note 7).

The place where this Encyclical was written is quite uncertain, but it was most probably in the Libyan desert, or in Cyrenaica (Prolegg. ubi supr. note 10). His language (infr. §5, note 7) would naturally be such as not to give, through so public a document, a clue to his pursuers.

It may be added that in many mss., and in the editions previous to 1698, this tract was counted as the first of the ‘five’ (or in some cases ‘six’) Orationes contra Arianos. For a discussion of this error, see Montfaucon’s Monita to this tract and to the four Orationes.

To the Bishops of Egypt.

————————————

Chapter I.

1. Christ warned His followers against false prophets.

All things whatsoever our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as Luke wrote, ‘both hath done and taught 1147 ,’ He effected after having appeared for our salvation; for He came, as John saith, ‘not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved 1148 .’ And among the rest we have especially to admire this instance of His goodness, that He was not silent concerning those who should fight against us, but plainly told us beforehand, that, when those things should come to pass, we might straightway be found with minds established by His teaching. For He said, ‘There shall arise false prophets and false Christs, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, the very elect shall be deceived. Behold, I have told you before 1149 .’ Manifold indeed and beyond human conception are the instructions and gifts of grace which He has laid up in us; as the pattern of heavenly conversation, power against demons, the adoption of sons, and that exceeding great and singular grace, the knowledge of the Father and of the Word Himself, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. But the mind of man is prone to evil exceedingly; moreover, our adversary the devil, envying us the possession of such great blessings, goeth about seeking to snatch away the seed of the word which is sown within us. Wherefore as if by His prophetic warnings He would seal up His instructions in our hearts as His own peculiar treasure, the Lord said, ‘Take heed that no man deceive you: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am he; and the time draweth near; and they shall deceive many: go ye not therefore after them 1150 .’ This is a great gift which the Word has bestowed upon us, that we should not be deceived by appearances, but that, howsoever these things are concealed, we should all the more distinguish them by the grace of the Spirit. For whereas the inventor of wickedness and great spirit of evil, the devil, is utterly hateful, and as soon as he shews himself is rejected 1151 of all men,—as a serpent, as a dragon, as a lion seeking whom he may seize upon and devour,—therefore he conceals and covers what he really is, and craftily personates that Name which all men desire, so that deceiving by a false appearance, he may thenceforth fix fast in his own chains those whom he has led astray. And as if one that desired to kidnap the children of others during the absence of their parents, should personate their appearance, and so putting a cheat on the affections of the offspring, should carry them far away and destroy them; in like manner this evil and wily spirit the devil, having no confidence in himself, and knowing the love which men bear to the truth, personates its appearance, and so spreads his own poison among those that follow after him.

2. Satan pretending to be holy, is detected by the Christian.

Thus he deceived Eve, not speaking his own, but artfully adopting the words of God, and perverting their meaning. Thus he suggested evil to the wife of Job, persuading her to feign affection for her husband, while he taught her to blaspheme God. Thus does the crafty spirit mock men by false displays, deluding and drawing each into his own pit of wickedness. When of old he deceived the first man Adam, thinking that through him he should have all men subject unto him, he exulted with great boldness and said, ‘My hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people; and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth; and there is none that shall escape me or speak against me 1152 .’ But when the Lord came upon earth, and the enemy made trial of His human Economy, being unable to deceive the flesh which He had taken upon Him, from that time forth he, who promised himself the occupation of the whole world, is for His sake mocked even by children: that proud one is mocked as a sparrow 1153 . For now the infant child lays his hand upon the hole of the asp, and laughs at him that deceived Eve 1154 ; and all that rightly believe in the Lord tread under foot him that said, ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds: I will be like the Most High 1155 .’ Thus he suffers and is dishonoured; and although he still ventures with shameless confidence to disguise himself, yet now, wretched spirit, he is detected the rather by them that bear the Sign on their foreheads 1156 ; yea, more, he is rejected of them, and is humbled, and put to shame. For even if, now that he is a creeping serpent, he shall transform himself into an angel of light, yet his deception will not profit him; for we have been taught that ‘though an angel from heaven preach unto us any other gospel than that we have received, he is anathema 1157 .’

3. And although, again, he conceal his natural falsehood, and pretend to speak truth with his lips; yet are we ‘not ignorant of his devices 1158 ,’ but are able to answer him in the words spoken by the Spirit against him; ‘But unto the ungodly, said God, why dost thou preach My laws?’ and, ‘Praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner 1159 .’ For even though he speak the truth, the deceiver is not worthy of credit. And whereas Scripture shewed this, when relating his wicked artifices against Eve in Paradise, so the Lord also reproved him,—first in the mount, when He laid open ‘the folds of his breast-plate 1160 ,’ and shewed who the crafty spirit was, and proved that it was not one of the saints 1161 , but Satan that was tempting Him. For He said, ‘Get thee behind Me Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve 1162 .’ And again, when He put a curb in the mouths of the demons that cried after Him from the tombs. For although what they said was true, and they lied not then, saying, ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ and ‘the Holy One of God 1163 ;’ yet He would not that the truth should proceed from an unclean mouth, and especially from such as them, lest under pretence thereof they should mingle with it their own malicious devices, and sow these also while men slept. Therefore He suffered them not to speak such words, neither would He have us to suffer such, but hath charged us by His own mouth, saying, ‘Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps’ clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves 1164 ;’ and by the mouth of His Holy Apostles, ‘Believe not every spirit 1165 .’ Such is the method of our adversary’s operations; and of the like nature are all these inventions of heresies, each of which has for the father of its own device the devil, who changed and became a murderer and a liar from the beginning. But being ashamed to profess his hateful name, they usurp the glorious Name of our Saviour ‘which is above every name 1166 ,’ and deck themselves out in the language of Scripture, speaking indeed the words, but stealing away the true meaning thereof; and so disguising by some artifice their false inventions, they also become the murderers of those whom they have led astray.

4. It profits not to receive part of Scripture, and reject part.

For whence do Marcion and Manichæus receive the Gospel while they reject the Law? For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, ‘which God promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures 1167 :’ and our Lord Himself said, ‘ye search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me 1168 .’ How then shall they confess the Lord unless they first search the Scriptures which are written concerning Him? And the disciples say that they have found Him, ‘of whom Moses and the Prophets did write 1169 .’ And what is the Law to the Sadducees if they receive not the Prophets 1170 ? For God who gave the Law, Himself promised in the Law that He would raise up Prophets also, so that the same is Lord both of the Law and of the Prophets, and he that denies the one must of necessity deny the other also. And again, what is the Old Testament to the Jews, unless they acknowledge the Lord whose coming was expected according to it? For had they believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed the words of the Lord; for He said, ‘He wrote of Me 1171 .’ Moreover, what are the Scriptures to him 1172 of Samosata, who denies the Word of God and His incarnate Presence 1173 , which is signified and declared both in the Old and New Testament? And of what use are the Scriptures to the Arians also, and why do they bring them forward, men who say that the Word of God is a creature, and like the Gentiles ‘serve the creature more than’ God ‘the Creator 1174 ?’ Thus each of these heresies, in respect of the peculiar impiety of its invention, has nothing in common with the Scriptures. And their advocates are aware of this, that the Scriptures are very much, or rather altogether, opposed to the doctrines of every one of them; but for the sake of deceiving the more simple sort (such as are those of whom it is written in the Proverbs, ‘The simple believeth every word 1175 ),’ they pretend like their ‘father the devil 1176 ’ to study and to quote the language of Scripture, in order that they may appear by their words to have a right belief, and so may persuade their wretched followers to believe what is contrary to the Scriptures. Assuredly in every one of these heresies the devil has thus disguised himself, and has suggested to them words full of craftiness. The Lord spake concerning them, that ‘there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many 1177 .’ Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, ‘I am Christ, and the truth is with me;’ and he has made them, one and all, to be liars like himself. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed, they are united together only by the common purpose of lying 1178 . For they have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood. Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits. But the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles. Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits, so that every one may know, according to the precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends and of the same faith. Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go into details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient 1179 for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.

5. Attempt of Arians to substitute a Creed for the Nicene.

I heard during my sojourn in these parts 1180 (and they were true and orthodox brethren that informed me), that certain professors of Arian opinions had met together, and drawn a confession of faith to their own liking, and that they intend to send word to you, that you must either subscribe to what pleases them, or rather to what the devil has inspired them with, or in case of refusal must suffer banishment. They are indeed already beginning to molest the Bishops of these parts; and thereby are plainly manifesting their disposition. For inasmuch as they frame this document only for the purpose of inflicting banishment or other punishments, what does such conduct prove them to be, but enemies of the Christians, and friends of the devil and his angels? and especially since they spread abroad what they like contrary to the mind of that gracious Prince, our most religious Emperor Constantius 1181 . And this they do with great craftiness, and, as appears to me, chiefly with two ends in view; first, that by obtaining your subscriptions, they may seem to remove the evil repute that rests upon the name of Arius, and may escape notice themselves as if not professing his opinions; and again, that by putting forth these statements they may cast a shade over the Council of Nicæa 1182 , and the confession of faith which was then put forth against the Arian heresy. But this proceeding does but prove the more plainly their own maliciousness and heterodoxy. For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenic Council; and had they considered themselves calumniated and falsely called Arians, they ought not to have been so eager to innovate upon what was written against Arius, lest what was directed against him might seem to be aimed at them also. This, however, is not the course they pursue, but they conduct the struggle in their own behalf, just as if they were Arius. Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defence of that heresy which they opposed and protested against? And what they now write proceeds not from any regard for the truth, as I said before, but rather they do it as in mockery and by an artifice, for the purpose of deceiving men; that by sending about their letters they may engage the ears of the people to listen to these notions, and so put off the time when they will be brought to trial; and that by concealing their impiety from observation, they may have room to extend their heresy, which, ‘like a gangrene 1183 ,’ eats its way everywhere.

6. Accordingly they disturb and disorder everything, and yet not even thus are they satisfied with their own proceedings. For every year, as if they were going to draw up a contract, they meet together and pretend to write about the faith, whereby they expose themselves the more to ridicule and disgrace, because their expositions are rejected, not by others, but by themselves. For had they had any confidence in their previous statements, they would not have desired to draw up others; nor again, leaving these last, would they now have set down the one in question, which no doubt true to their custom they will again alter, after a very short interval, and as soon as they shall find a pretence for their customary plotting against certain persons. For when they have a design against any, then it is that they make a great show of writing about the faith; that, as Pilate washed his hands, so they by writing may destroy those who rightly believe in Christ, hoping that, as making definitions about the faith, they may appear, as I have repeatedly said, to be free from the charge of false doctrine. But they will not be able to hide themselves, nor to escape; for they continually become their own accusers even while they defend themselves. Justly so, since instead of answering those who bring proof against them, they do but persuade themselves to believe whatever they wish. And when is an acquittal obtained, upon the criminal becoming his own judge? Hence it is that they are always writing, and always altering their own previous statements, and thus they shew an uncertain faith 1184 ,’ or rather a manifest unbelief and perverseness. And this, it appears to me, must needs be the case with them; for since, having fallen away from the truth, and desiring to overthrow that sound confession of faith which was drawn up at Nicæa, they have, in the language of Scripture, ‘loved to wander, and have not refrained their feet 1185 ;’ therefore, like Jerusalem of old, they labour and toil in their changes, sometimes writing one thing, and sometimes another, but only for the sake of gaining time, and that they may continue enemies of Christ, and deceivers of mankind.

7. The party of Acacius really Arians.

Who, then, that has any real regard for truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? who will not justly reject their writing? who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few 1186 in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenic Council? Men who have been promoted by Eusebius and his fellows for advocating this Antichristian heresy, venture to define articles of faith, and while they ought to be brought to judgment as criminals, like Caiaphas, they take upon themselves to judge. They compose a Thalia, and would have it received as a standard of faith, while they are not yet themselves determined what they believe. Who does not know that Secundus 1187 of Pentapolis, who was several times degraded long ago, was received by them for the sake of the Arian madness; and that George 1188 , now of Laodicea, and Leontius the Eunuch, and before him Stephanus, and Theodorus of Heraclea 1189 , were promoted by them? Ursacius and Valens also, who from the first were instructed by Arius as young men 1190 , though they had been formerly degraded from the Priesthood, afterwards got the title of Bishops on account of their impiety; as did also Acacius, Patrophilus 1191 , and Narcissus, who have been most forward in all manner of impiety. These were degraded in the great Synod of Sardica; Eustathius also now of Sebastea, Demophilus and Germinius 1192 , Eudoxius, and Basil, who are supporters of that impiety, were advanced in the same manner. Of Cecropius 1193 , and him they called Auxentius, and of Epictetus 1194 the impostor, it were superfluous for me to speak, since it is manifest to all men, in what manner, on what pretexts, and by what enemies of ours these were promoted, that they might bring their false charges against the orthodox Bishops who were the objects of their designs. For although they resided at the distance of eighty posts, and were unknown to the people, yet on the ground of their impiety they purchased for themselves the title of Bishop. For the same reason also they have now 1195 hired one George of Cappadocia, whom they wish to impose upon you. But no respect is due to him any more than to the rest; for there is a report in these parts that he is not even a Christian, but is devoted to the worship of idols; and he has a hangman’s temper 1196 . And this person, such as he is described to be, they have taken into their ranks, that they may be able to injure, to plunder, and to slay; for in these things he is a great proficient, but is ignorant of the very principles of the Christian faith.

8. Words are bad, though Scriptural, which proceed from bad men.

Such are the machinations of these men against the truth: but their designs are manifest to all the world, though they attempt in ten thousand ways, like eels, to elude the grasp, and to escape detection as enemies of Christ. Wherefore I beseech you, let no one among you be deceived, no one seduced by them; rather, considering that a sort of judaical impiety is invading the Christian faith, be ye all zealous for the Lord; hold fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicæa recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavour to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps’ clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. For if he had indeed meant them as he used them, he would not have fallen from heaven; but now having fallen through his pride, he artfully dissembles in his speech, and oftentimes maliciously endeavours to lead men astray by the subtleties and sophistries of the Gentiles. Had these expositions of theirs proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus 1197 of Gaul, or his successor 1198 , or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius 1199 , Bishops of the East 1200 , or Julius and Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Mœsia 1201 , or Pistus and Aristæus of Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, or Cæcilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Constantinople, or Pæderos of Heraclea, or those great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus, and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James 1202 and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own blessed Alexander, with others of the same opinions as these;—there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements, for the character of apostolical men is sincere and incapable of fraud.

9. For such words do but serve as their cloak.

But when they proceed from those who are hired to advocate the cause of heresy, and since, according to the divine proverb, ‘The words of the wicked are to lie in wait,’ and ‘The mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things,’ and ‘The counsels of the wicked are deceit 1203 :’ it becomes us to watch and be sober, brethren, as the Lord has said, lest any deception arise from subtlety of speech and craftiness; lest any one come and pretend to say, ‘I preach Christ,’ and after a little while he be found to be Antichrist. These indeed are Antichrists, whosoever come to you in the cause of the Arian madness. For what defect is there among you, that any one need to come to you from without? Or, of what do the Churches of Egypt and Libya and Alexandria stand so much in need, that these men should make a purchase 1204 of the Episcopate instead of wood and goods, and intrude into Churches which do not belong to them? Who is not aware, who does not perceive clearly, that they do all this in order to support their impiety? Wherefore although they should make themselves dumb, or although they should bind on their garments larger borders than the Pharisees, and pour themselves forth in long speeches, and practise the tones of their voice 1205 , they ought not to be believed; for it is not the mode of speaking, but the intentions of the heart and a godly conversation that recommend the faithful Christian. And thus the Sadducees and Herodians, although they have the law in their mouths, were put to rebuke by our Saviour, who said unto them, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God 1206 :’ and all men witnessed the exposure of those who pretended to quote the words of the Law, as being in their minds heretics and enemies of God 1207 . Others indeed they deceived by these professions, but when our Lord became man they were not able to deceive Him; ‘for the Word was made Flesh,’ who ‘knoweth the thoughts of men that they are vain.’ Thus He exposed the carping of the Jews, saying, ‘If God were your Father, ye would love Me, for I proceeded forth from the Father, and am come to you 1208 .’ In like manner these men seem now to act; for they disguise their real sentiments, and then make use of the language of Scripture for their writings, which they hold forth as a bait for the ignorant, that they may inveigle them into their own wickedness.

10. They ought first to condemn Arius, if they are to be heard.

Consider, whether this be not so. If, when there is no reason for their doing so, they write confessions of faith, it is a superfluous, and perhaps also a mischievous proceeding, because, when there is no enquiry, they offer occasion for controversy of words, and unsettle the simple hearts of the brethren, disseminating among them such notions as have never entered into their minds. And if they are attempting to write a defence of themselves in regard to the Arian heresy, they ought first to have removed the seeds of those evils which have sprung up, and to have proscribed those who produced them, and then in the room of former statements to set forth others which are sound; or else let them openly vindicate the opinions of Arius, that they may no longer covertly but openly shew themselves enemies of Christ, and that all men may fly from them as from the face of a serpent. But now they keep back those opinions, and for a pretence write on other matters; just as if a surgeon, when summoned to attend a person wounded and suffering, should upon coming in to him say not a word concerning his wounds, but proceed to discourse about his sound limbs. Such an one would be chargeable with utter stupidity, for saying nothing on the matter for which he came, but discoursing on those other points in which he was not needed. Yet just in the same manner these men omit those matters which concern their heresy, and take upon themselves to write on other subjects; whereas if they had any regard for the Faith, or any love for Christ, they ought first to have removed out of the way those blasphemous expressions uttered against Him, and then in the room of them to speak and to write the sound words. But this they neither do themselves, nor permit those that desire to do so, whether it be from ignorance, or through craft and artifice.

11. No profit to do right in one way, if we do wrong in another.

If they do this from ignorance they must be charged with rashness, because they affirm positively concerning things that they know not; but if they dissemble knowingly, their condemnation is the greater, because while they overlook nothing in consulting for their own interests, in writing about faith in our Lord they make a mockery, and do anything rather than speak the truth; they keep back those particulars respecting which their heresy is accused, and merely bring forward the language of the Scriptures. Now this is a manifest theft of the truth, and a practice full of all iniquity; and so I am sure your piety will readily perceive it to be from the following illustrations. No person being accused of adultery defends himself as innocent of theft; nor would any one in prosecuting a charge of murder suffer the accused parties to defend themselves by saying, ‘We have not committed perjury, but have preserved the deposit which was entrusted to us.’ This would be mere child’s play, instead of a refutation of the charge and a demonstration of the truth. For what has murder to do with a deposit, or adultery with theft? The vices are indeed related to each other as proceeding from the same heart; yet in respect to the refutation of an alleged offence, they have no connection with each other. Accordingly as it is written in the Book of Joshua 1209 the son of Nun, when Achan was charged with theft, he did not excuse himself with the plea of his zeal in the wars; but being convicted of the offence was stoned by all the people. And when Saul was charged with negligence and a breach of the law, he did not benefit his cause by alleging his conduct on other matters 1210 . For a defence on one count will not operate to obtain an acquittal on another count; but if all things should be done according to law and justice, a man must defend himself in those particulars wherein he is accused, and must either disprove the past, or else confess it with the promise that he will desist, and do so no more. But if he is guilty of the crime, and will not confess, but in order to conceal the truth speaks on other points instead of the one in question, he shews plainly that he has acted amiss, nay, and is conscious of his delinquency. But what need of many words, seeing that these persons are themselves accusers of the Arian heresy? For since they have not the boldness to speak out, but conceal their blasphemous expressions, it is plain that they know that this heresy is separate and alien from the truth. But since they themselves conceal it and are afraid to speak, it is necessary for me to strip off the veil from their impiety, and to expose the heresy to public view, knowing as I do the statements which Arius and his fellows formerly made, and how they were cast out of the Church, and degraded from the Clergy. But here first I ask for pardon 1211 of the foul words which I am about to produce, since I use them, not because I thus think, but in order to convict the heretics.

Footnotes

223:1147

Acts i. 1.

223:1148

John iii. 17.

223:1149

Matt. 24:24, 25.

223:1150

Luke xxi. 8.

223:1151

βάλλεται, vid. p. 170, note 6.

224:1152

Is. x. 14. LXX., cf. p. 202, note 8.

224:1153

Vid. Job 41:5, Job 40:24. LXX.

224:1154

Isa. xi. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 3.

224:1155

Is. xiv. 14.

224:1156

Ezek. ix. 4. LXX.

224:1157

Gal. 1:8, 9.

224:1158

2 Cor. ii. 11.

224:1159

Ps. 1. 16; Ecclesiasticus 15.9.

224:1160

Job xli. 13, v. 4. LXX. and cf. Orat. i. 1, and Vit. Ant. supr. p. 197, note 15.

224:1161

Or sacred writers, ἁγίων.

224:1162

Matt. iv. 10.

224:1163

Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24.

224:1164

Matt. vii. 15.

224:1165

1 John iv. 1.

224:1166

Phil. ii. 9.

224:1167

Rom. i. 2.

224:1168

John v. 39.

224:1169

John i. 45.

224:1170

Vid. Prideaux, Conn. ii. 5. (vol. 3, p. 474. ed. 1725).

224:1171

John v. 46.

224:1172

See Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) a.

225:1173

See Orat. i. 49.

225:1174

Rom. i. 25.

225:1175

Prov. xiv. 15.

225:1176

John viii. 44.

225:1177

Matt. xxiv. 24.

225:1178

vid. Orat. ii. §18.

225:1179

Cf. p. 4, note 2.

225:1180

[Probably Cyrenaica, see above, Introd. sub. fin.]

225:1181

Cf. §23, and Apol. Const. 32.

225:1182

Cf. de Syn. 7.

226:1183

2 Tim. ii. 17.

226:1184

Cf. de Syn. §§3, 6.

226:1185

Jer. xiv. 10.

226:1186

Cf. de Syn. 5, note.

226:1187

Cf. de Syn. 12; Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1), &c.

226:1188

p. 104, note 3.

226:1189

Supr. p. 119.

226:1190

Supr. p. 107, note 9.

226:1191

Omitted supr. p. 123.

226:1192

De Syn. §9.

226:1193

Of Nicomedia, see D.C.B. s.v.

226:1194

Vid. Hist. Ar. §74 fin.

227:1195

Hist. Ar. 75.

227:1196

Cf. de Syn. 37.

227:1197

Supr. Apol. Ar. 50.

227:1198

Paulinus of Treveri, cf. supr. p. 130, note 10.

227:1199

At Nicæa, as most of the others.

227:1200

i.e. of Antioch.

227:1201

[Unknown.]

227:1202

[Of Nisibis. See D.C.B. iii. p. 325 and foll.]

227:1203

Prov. xii. 6; xv. 28; xii. 5.

227:1204

Ap. ad Const. §28. Hist. Arian. §73, supr.

227:1205

Vid. Basil. Ep. 223. 3.

227:1206

Matt. xxii. 29.

227:1207

θεομάχοι

228:1208

John i. 14; Ps. xciv. 11; John viii. 43, ἥκω, vid. Hipp. contr. Noet. 16. and de Syn. 16.

228:1209

Josh. vii. 20, & c.

228:1210

1 Sam. xv.

229:1211

Cf. Orat. i. §25 note.

Chapter II.

12. Arian statements.

Now the Bishop Alexander of blessed memory cast Arius out of the Church for holding and maintaining the following opinions: ‘God was not always a Father: The Son was not always: But whereas all things were made out of nothing, the Son of God also was made out of nothing: And since all things are creatures, He also is a creature and a thing made: And since all things once were not, but were afterwards made, there was a time when the Word of God Himself was not; and He was not before He was begotten, but He had a beginning of existence: For He has then originated when God has chosen to produce Him: For He also is one among the rest of His works. And since He is by nature changeable, and only continues good because He chooses by His own free will, He is capable of being changed, as are all other things, whenever He wishes. And therefore God, as foreknowing that He would be good, gave Him by anticipation that glory which He would have obtained afterwards by His virtue; and He is now become good by His works which God foreknew.’ Accordingly they say, that Christ is not truly God, but that He is called God on account of His participation in God’s nature, as are all other creatures. And they add, that He is not that Word which is by nature in the Father, and is proper to His Essence, nor is He His proper wisdom by which He made this world; but that there is another Word 1212 which is properly in the Father, and another Wisdom which is properly in the Father, by which Wisdom also He made this Word; and that the Lord Himself is called the Word (Reason) conceptually in regard of things endued with reason, and is called Wisdom conceptually in regard of things endued with wisdom. Nay, they say that as all things are in essence separate and alien from the Father, so He also is in all respects separate and alien from the essence of the Father, and properly belongs to things made and created, and is one of them; for He is a creature, and a thing made, and a work. Again, they say 1213 that God did not create us for His sake, but Him for our sakes. For they say, ‘God was alone, and the Word was not with Him, but afterwards when He would produce us, then He made Him; and from the time He was made, He called Him the Word, and the Son, and the Wisdom, in order that He might create us by Him. And as all things subsisted by the will of God, and did not exist before; so He also was made by the will of God, and did not exist before. For the Word is not the proper and natural Offspring of the Father, but has Himself originated by grace: for God who existed made by His will the Son who did not exist, by which will also He made all things, and produced, and created, and willed them to come into being.’ Moreover they say also, that Christ is not the natural and true power of God; but as the locust and the cankerworm are called a power 1214 , so also He is called the power of the Father. Furthermore he said, that the Father is secret from the Son, and that the Son can neither see nor know the Father perfectly and exactly. For having a beginning of existence, He cannot know Him that is without beginning; but what He knows and sees, He knows and sees in a measure proportionate to His own measure, as we also know and see in proportion to our powers. And he added also, that the Son not only does not know His own Father exactly, but that He does not even know His own essence.

13. Arguments from Scripture against Arian statements.

For maintaining these and the like opinions Arius was declared a heretic; for myself, while I have merely been writing them down, I have been cleansing myself by thinking of the contrary doctrines, and by holding fast the sense of the true faith. For the Bishops who all assembled from all parts at the Council of Nicæa, began to hold their ears at these statements, and all with one voice condemned this heresy on account of them, and anathematized it, declaring it to be alien and estranged from the faith of the Church. It was no compulsion which led the judges to this decision, but they all deliberately vindicated the truth 1215 : and they did so justly and rightly. For infidelity is coming in through these men, or rather a Judaism counter to the Scriptures, which has close upon it Gentile superstition, so that he who holds these opinions can no longer be even called a Christian, for they are all contrary to the Scriptures. John, for instance, saith, ‘In the beginning was the Word 1216 ;’ but these men say, ‘He was not, before He was begotten.’ And again he wrote, ‘And we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God, and eternal life 1217 ;’ but these men, as if in contradiction to this, allege that Christ is not the true God, but that He is only called God, as are other creatures, in regard of His participation in the divine nature. And the Apostle blames the Gentiles, because they worship the creatures, saying, ‘They served the creature more than’ God ‘the Creator 1218 .’ But if these men say that the Lord is a creature, and worship Him as a creature, how do they differ from the Gentiles? If they hold this opinion, is not this passage also against them; and does not the blessed Paul write as blaming them? The Lord also says, ‘I and My Father are One:’ and ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father 1219 ;’ and the Apostle who was sent by Him to preach, writes, ‘Who being the Brightness of His glory, and the express Image of His Person 1220 .’ But these men dare to separate them, and to say that He is alien from the essence and eternity of the Father; and impiously to represent Him as changeable, not perceiving, that by speaking thus, they make Him to be, not one with the Father, but one with created things. Who does not see, that the brightness cannot be separated from the light, but that it is by nature proper to it, and co-existent with it, and is not produced after it? Again, when the Father says, ‘This is My beloved Son 1221 ,’ and when the Scriptures say that ‘He is the Word’ of the Father, by whom ‘the heavens were established 1222 ,’ and in short, ‘All things were made by Him 1223 ;’ these inventors of new doctrines and fictions represent that there is another Word, and another Wisdom of the Father, and that He is only called the Word and the Wisdom conceptually on account of things endued with reason, while they perceive not the absurdity of this.

14. Arguments from Scripture against Arian statements.

But if He be styled the Word and the Wisdom by a fiction on our account, what He really is they cannot tell 1224 . For if the Scriptures affirm that the Lord is both these, and yet these men will not allow Him to be so, it is plain that in their godless opposition to the Scriptures they would deny His existence altogether. The faithful are able to conclude this truth both from the voice of the Father Himself, and from the Angels that worshipped Him, and from the Saints that have written concerning Him; but these men, as they have not a pure mind, and cannot bear to hear the words of divine men who teach of God, may be able to learn something even from the devils who resemble them, for they spoke of Him, not as if there were many besides, but, as knowing Him alone, they said, ‘Thou art the Holy One of God,’ and ‘the Son of God 1225 .’ He also who suggested to them this heresy, while tempting Him, in the mount, said not, ‘If Thou also be a Son of God,’ as though there were others besides Him, but, ‘If Thou be the 1226 Son of God,’ as being the only one. But as the Gentiles, having fallen from the notion of one God, have sunk into polytheism, so these wonderful men, not believing that the Word of the Father is one, have come to adopt the idea of many words, and they deny Him that is really God and the true Word, and have dared to conceive of Him as a creature, not perceiving how full of impiety is the thought. For if He be a creature, how is He at the same time the Creator of creatures? or how the Son and the Wisdom and the Word? For the Word is not created, but begotten; and a creature is not a Son, but a production. And if all creatures were made by Him, and He is also a creature, then by whom was He made? Things made must of necessity originate through some one; as in fact they have originated through the Word; because He was not Himself a thing made, but the Word of the Father. And again, if there be another wisdom in the Father beside the Lord, then Wisdom has originated in wisdom: and if the Word of God be the Wisdom of God, then the Word has originated in a word: and if the Son be the Word of God, then the Son must have been made in the Son.

15. Arguments from Scripture against Arian statements.

How is it that the Lord has said, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in Me 1227 ,’ if there be another in the Father, by whom the Lord Himself also was made? And how is it that John, passing over that other, relates of this One, saying, ‘All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made 1228 ?’ If all things that were made by the will of God were made by Him, how can He be Himself one of the things that were made? And when the Apostle says, ‘For whom are all things, and by whom are all things 1229 ,’ how can these men say, that we were not made for Him, but He for us? If it be so, He ought to have said, ‘For whom the Word was made;’ but He saith not so, but, ‘For whom are all things, and by whom are all things,’ thus proving these men to be heretical and false. But further, as they have had the boldness to say that there is another Word in God, and since they cannot bring any clear proof of this from the Scriptures, let them but shew one work of His, or one work of the Father that was done without this Word; so that they may seem to have some ground at least for their own idea. The works of the true Word are manifest to all, so as for Him to be contemplated by analogy from them. For as, when we see the creation, we conceive of God as the Creator of it; so when we see that nothing is without order therein, but that all things move and continue with order and providence, we infer a Word of God who is over all and governs all. This too the holy Scriptures testify, declaring that He is the Word of God, and that ‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made 1230 .’ But of that other Word, of whom they speak, there is neither word nor work that they have to shew. Nay, even the Father Himself, when He says, ‘This is My beloved Son 1231 ,’ signifies that besides Him there is none other

16. Arians parallel to the Manichees.

It appears then that so far as these doctrines are concerned, these wonderful men have now joined themselves to the Manichees. For these also confess the existence of a good God, so far as the mere name goes, but they are unable to point out any of His works either visible or invisible. But inasmuch as they deny Him who is truly and indeed God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things invisible, they are mere inventors of fables. And this appears to me to be the case with these evil-minded men. They see the works of the true Word who alone is in the Father, and yet they deny Him, and make to themselves another Word 1232 , whose existence they are unable to prove either by His Works or by the testimony of others. Unless it be that they have adopted a fabulous notion of God, that He is a composite being like man, speaking and then changing His words, and as a man exercising understanding and wisdom; not perceiving to what absurdities they are reduced by such an opinion. For if God has a succession of words 1233 , they certainly must consider Him as a man. And if those words proceed from Him and then vanish away, they are guilty of a greater impiety, because they resolve into nothing what proceeds from the self-existent God. If they conceive that God doth at all beget, it were surely better and more religious to say that He is the begetter of One Word, who is the fulness of His Godhead, in whom are hidden the treasures of all knowledge 1234 , and that He is co-existent with His Father, and that all things were made by Him; rather than to suppose God to be the Father of many words which are nowhere to be found, or to represent Him who is simple in His nature as compounded of many 1235 , and as being subject to human passions and variable. Next whereas the Apostle says, ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God 1236 ,’ these men reckon Him but as one among many powers; nay, worse than this, they compare Him, transgressors as they are, with the cankerworm and other irrational creatures which are sent by Him for the punishment of men. Next, whereas the Lord says, ‘No one knoweth the Father, save the Son 1237 ;’ and again, ‘Not that any man hath seen the Father save He which is of the Father 1238 ;’ are not these indeed enemies of God which say that the Father is neither seen nor known of the Son perfectly? If the Lord says, ‘As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father 1239 ,’ and if the Father knows not the Son partially, are they not mad to say idly that the Son knows the Father only partially, and not fully? Next, if the Son has a beginning of existence, and all things likewise have a beginning, let them say, which is prior to the other. But indeed they have nothing to say, neither can they with all their craft prove such a beginning of the Word. For He is the true and proper Offspring of the Father, and ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 1240 .’ For with regard to their assertion, that the Son knows not His own essence, it is superfluous to reply to it, except only so far as to condemn their madness; for how does not the Word know Himself, when He imparts to all men the knowledge of His Father and of Himself, and blames those who know not themselves?

17. Arguments from Scripture against Arian statements.

But it is written 1241 , say they, ‘The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works.’ O untaught and insensate that ye are! He is called also in the Scriptures, ‘servant 1242 ,’ and ‘son of a handmaid,’ and ‘lamb,’ and ‘sheep,’ and it is said that He suffered toil, and thirst, and was beaten, and has suffered pain. But there is plainly a reasonable ground and cause 1243 , why such representations as these are given of Him in the Scriptures; and it is because He became man and the Son of man, and took upon Him the form of a servant, which is the human flesh: for ‘the Word,’ says John, ‘was made flesh 1244 .’ And since He became man, no one ought to be offended at such expressions; for it is proper to man to be created, and born, and formed, to suffer toil and pain, to die and to rise again from the dead. And as, being Word and Wisdom of the Father, He has all the attributes of the Father, His eternity, and His unchangeableness, and the being like Him in all respects and in all things 1245 , and is neither before nor after, but co-existent with the Father, and is the very form 1246 of the Godhead, and is the Creator, and is not created: (for since He is in essence like 1247 the Father, He cannot be a creature, but must be the Creator, as Himself hath said, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work 1248 :’) so being made man, and bearing our flesh, He is necessarily said to be created and made, and that is proper to all flesh; however, these men, like Jewish vintners, who mix their wine with water 1249 , debase the Word, and subject His Godhead to their notions of created things. Wherefore the Fathers were with reason and justice indignant, and anathematized this most impious heresy; which these persons are now cautious of and keep back, as being easy to be disproved and unsound in every part of it. These that I have set down are but a few of the arguments which go to condemn their doctrines; but if any one desires to enter more at large into the proof against them, he will find that this heresy is not far removed from heathenism, and that it is the lowest and the very dregs of all the other heresies. These last are in error either concerning the body or the incarnation of the Lord, falsifying the truth, some in one way and some in another, or else they deny that the Lord has sojourned here at all, as the Jews erroneously suppose. But this one alone more madly than the rest has dared to assail the very Godhead, and to assert that the Word is not at all, and that the Father was not always a father; so that one might reasonably say that that Psalm was written against them; ‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God 1250 . Corrupt are they, and become abominable in their doings.’

18. If the Arians felt they were right, they would speak openly.

‘But,’ say they, ‘we are strong, and are able to defend our heresy by our many devices.’ They would have a better answer to give, if they were able to defend it, not by artifice nor by Gentile sophisms, but by the simplicity of their faith. If however they have confidence in it, and know it to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church, let them openly express their sentiments; for no man when he hath lighted a candle putteth it under the bushel 1251 , but on the candlestick, and so it gives light to all that come in. If therefore they are able to defend it, let them record in writing the opinions above imputed to them, and expose their heresy bare to the view of all men, as they would a candle, and let them openly accuse the Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, as having unjustly ejected 1252 Arius for professing these opinions; and let them blame the Council of Nicæa for putting forth a written confession of the true faith in place of their impiety. But they will not do this, I am sure, for they are not so ignorant of the evil nature of those notions which they have invented and are ambitious of sowing abroad; but they know well enough, that although they may at first lead astray the simple by vain deceit, yet their imaginations will soon be extinguished, ‘as the light of the ungodly 1253 ,’ and themselves branded everywhere as enemies of the Truth. Therefore although they do all things foolishly, and speak as fools, yet in this at least they have acted wisely, as ‘children of this world 1254 ,’ hiding their candle under the bushel, that it may be supposed to give light, and lest, if it appear, it be condemned and extinguished. Thus when Arius himself, the author of the heresy, and the associate of Eusebius, was summoned through the interest of Eusebius and his fellows to appear before Constantine Augustus of blessed memory 1255 , and was required to present a written declaration of his faith, the wily man wrote one, but kept out of sight the peculiar expressions of his impiety, and pretended, as the Devil did, to quote the simple words of Scripture, just as they are written. And when the blessed Constantine said to him, ‘If thou holdest no other opinions in thy mind besides these, take the Truth to witness for thee; the Lord is thy avenger if thou swear falsely:’ the unfortunate man swore that he held no other, and that he had never either spoken or thought otherwise than as he had now written. But as soon as he went out he dropped down, as if paying the penalty of his crime, and ‘falling headlong burst asunder in the midst 1256 .’

19. Significance of the death of Arius.

Death, it is true, is the common end of all men, and we ought not to insult the dead, though he be an enemy, for it is uncertain whether the same event may not happen to ourselves before evening. But the end of Arius was not after an ordinary manner, and therefore it deserves to be related. Eusebius and his fellows threatening to bring him into the Church, Alexander, the Bishop of Constantinople, resisted them; but Arius trusted to the violence and menace of Eusebius. It was the Sabbath, and he expected to join communion on the following day. There was therefore a great struggle between them; the others threatening, Alexander praying. But the Lord being judge of the case, decided against the unjust party: for the sun had not set, when the necessities of nature compelled him to that place, where he fell down, and was forthwith deprived of communion with the Church and of his life together. The blessed Constantine hearing of this at once, was struck with wonder to find him thus convicted of perjury. And indeed it was then evident to all that the threats of Eusebius and his fellows had proved of no avail and the hope of Arius had become vain. It was shewn too that the Arian madness was rejected from communion by our Saviour both here and in the Church of the first-born in heaven. Now who will not wonder to see the unrighteous ambition of these men, whom the Lord has condemned;—to see them vindicating the heresy which the Lord has pronounced excommunicate (since He did not suffer its author to enter into the Church), and not fearing that which is written, but attempting impossible things? ‘For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it 1257 ?’ and whom God hath condemned, who shall justify? Let them however in defence of their own imaginations write what they please; but do you, brethren, as ‘bearing the vessels of the Lord 1258 ,’ and vindicating the doctrines of the Church, examine this matter, I beseech you; and if they write in other terms than those above recorded as the language of Arius, then condemn them as hypocrites, who hide the poison of their opinions, and like the serpent flatter with the words of their lips. For, though they thus write, they have associated with them those who were formerly rejected with Arius, such as Secundus of Pentapolis, and the clergy who were convicted at Alexandria; and they write to them in Alexandria. But what is most astonishing, they have caused us and our friends to be persecuted, although the most religious Emperor Constantine sent us back in peace to our country and Church, and shewed his concern for the harmony of the people. But now they have caused the Churches to be given up to these men, thus proving to all that for their sake the whole conspiracy against us and the rest has been carried on from the beginning.

20. While they are friends of Arius, in vain their moderate words.

Now while such is their conduct, how can they claim credit for what they write? Had the opinions they have put in writing been orthodox, they would have expunged from their list of books the Thalia of Arius, and have rejected the scions of the heresy, viz. those disciples of Arius, and the partners of his impiety and his punishment. But since they do not renounce these, it is manifest to all that their sentiments are not orthodox, though they write them over ten thousand times 1259 . Wherefore it becomes us to watch, lest some deception be conveyed under the clothing of their phrases, and they lead away certain from the true faith. And if they venture to advance the opinions of Arius, when they see themselves proceeding in a prosperous course, nothing remains for us but to use great boldness of speech, remembering the predictions of the Apostle, which he wrote to forewarn us of such like heresies, and which it becomes us to repeat. For we know that, as it is written, ‘in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, that turn from the truth 1260 ;’ and, ‘as many as will live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.’ But none of these things shall prevail over us, nor ‘separate us from the love of Christ 1261 ,’ though the heretics threaten us with death. For we are Christians, not Arians 1262 ; would that they too, who have written these things, had not embraced the doctrines of Arius! Yea, brethren, there is need now of such boldness of speech; for we have not received ‘the spirit of bondage again to fear 1263 ,’ but God hath called us ‘to liberty 1264 .’ And it were indeed disgraceful to us, most disgraceful, were we, on account of Arius or of those who embrace and advocate his sentiments, to destroy the faith which we have received from our Saviour through His Apostles. Already very many in these parts, perceiving the craftiness of these writers, are ready even unto blood to oppose their wiles, especially since they have heard of your firmness. And seeing that the refutation of the heresy has gone forth from you 1265 , and it has been drawn forth from its concealment, like a serpent from his hole, the Child that Herod sought to destroy is preserved among you, and the Truth lives in you, and the Faith thrives among you.

21. To make a stand for the Faith equivalent to martyrdom.

Wherefore I exhort you, keeping in your hands the confession which was framed by the Fathers at Nicæa, and defending it with great zeal and confidence in the Lord, be ensamples to the brethren everywhere, and shew them that a struggle is now before us in support of the Truth against heresy, and that the wiles of the enemy are various. For the proof of a martyr lies 1266 not only in refusing to burn incense to idols; but to refuse to deny the Faith is also an illustrious testimony of a good conscience. And not only those who turned aside unto idols were condemned as aliens, but those also who betrayed the Truth. Thus Judas was degraded from the Apostolical office, not because he sacrificed to idols, but because he proved a traitor; and Hymenæus and Alexander fell away not by betaking themselves to the service of idols, but because they ‘made shipwreck concerning the faith 1267 .’ On the other hand, the Patriarch Abraham received the crown, not because he suffered death, but because he was faithful unto God; and the other Saints, of whom Paul speaks 1268 , Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David and Samuel, and the rest, were not made perfect by the shedding of their blood, but by faith they were justified; and to this day they are the objects of our admiration, as being ready even to suffer death for piety towards the Lord. And if one may add an instance from our own country, ye know how the blessed Alexander contended even unto death against this heresy, and what great afflictions and labours, old man as He was, he sustained, until in extreme age he also was gathered to his fathers. And how many beside have undergone great toil, in their teachings against this impiety, and now enjoy in Christ the glorious reward of their confession! Wherefore, let us also, considering that this struggle is for our all, and that the choice is now before us, either to deny or to preserve the faith, let us also make it our earnest care and aim to guard what we have received, taking as our instruction the Confession drawn up at Nicæa, and let us turn away from novelties, and teach our people not to give heed to ‘seducing spirits 1269 ,’ but altogether to withdraw from the impiety of the Arian madmen, and from the coalition which the Meletians have made with them.

22. Coalition of sordid Meletians with insane Arians.

For you perceive how, though they were formerly at variance with one another, they have now, like Herod and Pontius, agreed together in order to blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ. And for this they truly deserve the hatred of every man, because they were at enmity with one another on private grounds, but have now become friends and join hands, in their hostility to the Truth and their impiety towards God. Nay, they are content to do or suffer anything, however contrary to their principles, for the satisfaction of securing their several aims; the Meletians for the sake of pre-eminence and the mad love of money, and the Arian madmen for their own impiety. And thus by this coalition they are able to assist one another in their malicious designs, while the Meletians put on the impiety of the Arians, and the Arians from their own wickedness concur in their baseness, so that by thus mingling together their respective crimes, like the cup of Babylon 1270 , they may carry on their plots against the orthodox worshippers of our Lord Jesus Christ. The wickedness and falsehood of the Meletians were indeed even before this evident unto all men; so too the impiety and godless heresy of the Arians have long been known everywhere and to all; for the period of their existence has not been a short one. The former became schismatics five and fifty years ago, and it is thirty-six years since the latter were pronounced heretics 1271 , and they were rejected from the Church by the judgment of the whole Ecumenic Council. But by their present proceedings they have proved at length, even to those who seem openly to favour them, that they have carried on their designs against me and the rest of the orthodox Bishops from the very first solely for the sake of advancing their own impious heresy. For observe, that which was long ago the great object of Eusebius and his fellows is now brought about. They have caused the Churches to be snatched out of our hands, they have banished as they pleased, the Bishops and Presbyters who refused to communicate with them; and the people who withdrew from them they have excluded from the Churches, which they have given up into the hands of the Arians who were condemned so long ago, so that with the assistance of the hypocrisy of the Meletians they can without fear pour forth in them their impious language, and make ready, as they think, the way of deceit for Antichrist 1272 , who sowed among them the seeds of this heresy.

23. Conclusion.

Let them however thus dream and imagine vain things. We know that when our gracious Emperor shall hear of it, he will put a stop to their wickedness, and they will not continue long, but according to the words of Scripture, ‘the hearts of the impious shall quickly fail them 1273 .’ But let us, as it is written, ‘put on the words of holy Scripture 1274 ,’ and resist them as apostates who would set up fanaticism in the house of the Lord. And let us not fear the death of the body, nor let us emulate their ways; but let the word of Truth be preferred before all things. We also, as you all know, were formerly required 1275 by Eusebius and his fellows either to put on their impiety, or to expect their hostility; but we would not engage ourselves with them, but chose rather to be persecuted by them, than to imitate the conduct of Judas. And assuredly they have done what they threatened; for after the manner of Jezebel, they engaged the treacherous Meletians to assist them, knowing how the latter resisted the blessed martyr Peter, and after him the great Achillas, and then Alexander, of blessed memory, in order that, as being practised in such matters, the Meletians might pretend against us also whatever might be suggested to them, while Eusebius and his fellows gave them an opening for persecuting and for seeking to kill me. For this is what they thirst after; and they continue to this day to desire to shed my blood. But of these things I have no care; for I know and am persuaded that they who endure shall receive a reward from our Saviour; and that ye also, if ye endure as the Fathers did, and shew yourselves examples to the people, and overthrow these strange and alien devices of impious men, shall be able to glory, and say, We have ‘kept the Faith 1276 ;’ and ye shall receive the ‘crown of life,’ which God ‘hath promised to them that love Him 1277 .’ And God grant that I also together with you may inherit the promises, which, were given, not to Paul only, but also to all them that ‘have loved the appearing 1278 ’ of our Lord, and Saviour, and God, and universal King, Jesus Christ; through whom to the Father be glory and dominion in the Holy Spirit, both now and for ever, world without end 1279 . Amen.

Footnotes

229:1212

Cf. De Syn. §§15, 18.

229:1213

De Syn. 15–19.

229:1214

Joel ii. 25. [With this entire section, compare Socr. i. 5, de Decr. 6, de Syn. 15, Orat. i. 5. 6, ad Afros 5, Vit. Ant. 69, and the Depositio Arii.’]

229:1215

Cf. Ep. ad Jov. (Letter 56, below), §2. Theod. H. E. v. 9. p. 205, l. 17. vid. Keble on Primitive Trad. p. 122. 10. ‘Let each boldly set down his faith in writing, having the fear of God before his eyes.’ Conc. Chalced. Sess. 1. Hard. t. 2. 273. ‘Give diligence without fear, favour, or dislike, to set out the faith in its purity.’ ibid. p. 285.

230:1216

John i. 1.

230:1217

1 John v. 20.

230:1218

Rom. i. 25. supr. §4, and note on Or. i. 8, also Vit. Ant. 69.

230:1219

John x. 30; xiv. 9, and Or. i. 34, note.

230:1220

Heb. i. 3.

230:1221

Matt. xvii. 5.

230:1222

Ps. xxxiii. 6.

230:1223

John i. 3.

230:1224

Cf. de. Decr. 6, note 5.

230:1225

Mark i. 24; Matt. viii. 29.

230:1226

[Matt. 4:3, Luke 4:3. No existing text appears to bear out Athanasius in his insertion of the definite article.]

230:1227

John xiv. 10.

231:1228

John i. 3.

231:1229

Heb. ii. 10.

231:1230

Joh. i. 3.

231:1231

Matt. xvii. 5.

231:1232

Vid. passage in Orat. ii. 39 fin.

231:1233

de Decr. 16, note 4.

231:1234

Cf. Col. 2:3, 9.

231:1235

de Decr. 22 note 9.

231:1236

1 Cor. i. 24.

231:1237

Matt. xi. 27.

231:1238

John vi. 46.

231:1239

John x. 15.

231:1240

John i. 1.

232:1241

Orat. ii. 18–72; Prov. viii. 22.

232:1242

Ps. cxvi. 16, &c.

232:1243

de Decr. 14.

232:1244

John i. 14.

232:1245

De Syn. 26, and note.

232:1246

εἶδος, ibid. §52, note.

232:1247

Orat. i. 20, note.

232:1248

John v. 17.

232:1249

Isa. i. 22, cf. Orat. iii. §35, also de Decr. 10 end.

232:1250

Ps. liii. 1.

232:1251

Matt. v. 15.

232:1252

Infr. §21, note.

232:1253

Job xviii. 5.

232:1254

Luke xvi. 8.

232:1255

Vid. Letter 54.

233:1256

Acts i. 18.

233:1257

Is. xiv. 27.

233:1258

Is. lii. 11.

233:1259

Cf. De Syn. 6, 9.

233:1260

1 Tim. iv. 1; Tit. i. 14; 2 Tim. iii. 12

233:1261

Rom. viii. 35.

233:1262

Orat. i. 2, 10.

234:1263

Rom. viii. 15.

234:1264

Gal. v. 13.

234:1265

i.e. from Egypt.

234:1266

Vid. Suicer Thes. in voc. μαρτ. iii. [D.C.A. 1118 sqq.]

234:1267

1 Tim. i. 19.

234:1268

Heb. xi. 32, &c.

234:1269

1 Tim. iv. 1.

234:1270

Rev. xviii. 6.

234:1271

This ἀποδείξις or declaration is ascribed to S. Alexander (as Montfaucon would explain it, supr. introd. p. 222). Cf. Ap. Ar. 23, above, §§18, 19. It should be observed that an additional reason for assigning this Letter to the year 356, is its resemblance in parts to the Orations which were written not long after. [This is not a strong reason, there being no proof that the Orations were written early in the exile.]

235:1272

De Syn. 5, note 10.

235:1273

Prov. x. 20, LXX.

235:1274

2 Kings xvii. 9, LXX.

235:1275

Apol. Ar. §59.

235:1276

2 Tim. iv. 7.

235:1277

James i. 12.

235:1278

2 Tim. iv. 8.

235:1279

[Cf. the doxology at the end of Apol. pro Fuga, and (with a difference) that of Hist. Ar. 80, contrasting that in de Decr. 32. Dr. Bright observes that Athan. ‘felt himself free to use both forms, although at Antioch they became symbols respectively of the Arianisers and the Orthodox.’]

Introduction to Apologia Ad Constantium.

————————————

This address to the Emperor in defence against certain serious charges (see below) was completed about the time of the intrusion of George, who arrived at Alexandria on Feb. 24, 357. The main, or apologetic, part of the letter was probably composed before George’s actual arrival, in fact at about the same date as the encyclical letter which immediately precedes; §§27 and following (see 27, note 2) forming an added expostulation upon hearing of the general expulsion of Catholic Bishops, and of the outrages 1280 at Alexandria. It is quite uncertain whether it ever reached the emperor; whether it did so or not, his attitude toward Athanasius was in no way affected by it. It had probably been begun with the idea of its being actually delivered in the presence of Constantius (see §§3, 6, 8, 16 ‘I see you smile,’ 22), but, although by a rhetorical fiction the form of an oral defence is kept up to the end, the concluding sections (27, 32 init.) shew that any such idea had been renounced before the Apology was completed. The first 26 sections are directed to the refutation of four personal charges, quite different from those of the earlier period, rebutted in the Apology against the Arians. They were (1) that Athanasius had poisoned the mind of Constans against his brother (2–5). To this Ath. replies that he had never spoken to the deceased Augustus except in the presence of witnesses, and that the history of his own movements when in the West entirely precluded any such possibility. The third and fourth sections thus incidentally supply important details for the life of Athanasius. (2) That he had written letters to the ‘tyrant’ Magnentius (6–13), a charge absurd in itself, and only to be borne out by forgery, but also amply disproved by his known affection toward Constans, the victim of the ‘tyrant.’ (3) That he had (14–18) used the new church in the ‘Cæsareum,’ before it was completed or dedicated, for the Easter festival of 355 (Tillem. viii. 149). This Athanasius admits, but pleads necessity and precedent, adding that no disrespect was intended toward the donor, nor any anticipation of its formal consecration. (4) That he had disobeyed an imperial order to leave Alexandria and go to Italy (19–26, see esp. 19, n. 4, and Fest. Ind. xxvi. Constantius is at Milan July 21, 353—Gwatkin p. 292). This charge involves the whole history of the attempts to dislodge Athanasius from Alexandria, which culminated in the events of 356. He replies to the charge, that the summons in question had come in the form of an invitation in reply to an alleged letter of his own asking leave to go to Italy, a letter which, as his amanuenses would testify, he had never written. Of the later visit (355, Fest. Ind. xxvii.) of Diogenes, he merely says that Diogenes brought neither letter nor orders. Syrianus, he seems to allow, had verbally ordered him to Italy (Constantius was again at Milan,—Gwatkin ubi supra) but without written authority. As against these supposed orders, Ath. had a letter from the emperor (§23) exhorting him to remain at Alexandria, whatever reports he might hear. Syrianus had, at the urgent remonstrance of the clergy and people, consented to refer the matter back to Constantius (24), but without waiting to do this, he had suddenly made his famous night attack upon the bishop when holding a vigil service in the Church of Theonas. Thereupon Athanasius had set out for Italy to lay the matter before the emperor in person (27 init.). But on reaching, as it would seem, the Libyan portion of his Province, he was turned back by the news of the Council of Milan, and the wholesale banishment which followed. Here we pass to the second part of the Apology. He explains his return to the desert by the three reports which had reached him: first, that just mentioned; secondly, that of further military outrages, about Easter 356 (or possibly those of George in 357, see Apol. Fug. 6; the clear statements of Fest. Ind. and Hist. Aceph. compel us 1281 to place these in the latter year, although on à priori grounds we might have followed Tillem., Bright, &c., in placing them in 356), and of the nomination of George; thirdly, of the letters of Constantius to the Alexandrians and to the Princes of Abyssinia. He had accordingly gone into hiding, in fear, not of the Emperor, but of the violence of his officers, and as of bounden duty to all (32). He concludes with an outspoken denunciation of the treatment of the virgins, and by an urgent entreaty to Constantius ‘which supposes the imperial listener to be already more than half appeased’ (Bright). The Apology is the most carefully written work of Athanasius, and ‘has been justly praised for its artistic finish and its rhetorical skill’ as well as for the force and the sustained calmness and dignity of its diction. (So Montfaucon, Newman, Gwatkin, &c. Fialon, pp. 286, 292, gives some interesting examples of apparent imitation of Demosthenes in this and in the two following tracts.) But the violent contrast between its almost affectionate respectfulness and the chilly reserve of the Apol. pro Fuga, or still more the furious invective of the Arian History, is startling, and gives a prima facie justification to Gibbon, who (vol. 3, p. 87, Smith’s Ed.) charges the great bishop with simulating respect to the emperor’s face while denouncing him behind his back. But although the de Fuga (see introd. there) was written very soon after our present Apology, there is no ground for making them simultaneous, while its tone (see Ap. Fug. 26, note 7) is very different from that of the later Hist. Arian. Doubtless much of the material for the invectives of the latter was already ancient history when the tract before us was composed. But Constantius was the Emperor, the first personage in the Christian world, and Athanasius with the feeling of his age, with the memory of the solemn assurances he had received from the Emperor (§§23, 25, 27, Apol. Ar. 51–56, Hist. Ar. 21–24), would ‘hope all things,’ even ‘against hope,’ so long as there was any apparent chance of influencing Constantius for good; would hope in spite of all appearances that the outrages, banishments, and intrigues against the faith of Nicæa were the work of the officers, the Arian bishops, the eunuchs of the Court, and not of ‘Augustus’ himself (see Bright, Introd. to this Apology, pp. lxiii.–lxv.).

Footnotes

236:1280

See Apol. Fug. 6, note 5.

236:1281

See also note 1, supr., and the discussion Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1).

Defence Before Constantius.

————————————

1. Knowing that you have been a Christian for many years 1282 , most religious Augustus, and that you are godly by descent, I cheerfully undertake to answer for myself at this time;—for I will use the language of the blessed Paul, and make him my advocate before you, considering that he was a preacher of the truth, and that you are an attentive hearer of his words.

With respect to those ecclesiastical matters, which have been made the ground of a conspiracy against me, it is sufficient to refer your Piety to the testimony of the many Bishops who have written in my behalf 1283 ; enough too is the recantation of Ursacius and Valens 1284 to prove to all men, that none of the charges which they set up against me had any truth in them. For what evidence can others produce so strong, as what they declared in writing? ‘We lied, we invented these things; all the accusations against Athanasius are full of falsehood.’ To this clear proof may be added, if you will vouchsafe to hear it, this circumstance that the accusers brought no evidence against Macarius the presbyter while we were present; but in our absence 1285 , when they were by themselves, they managed the matter as they pleased. Now, the Divine Law first of all, and next our own Laws 1286 , have expressly declared, that such proceedings are of no force whatsoever. From these things your piety, as a lover of God and of the truth, will, I am sure, perceive that we are free from all suspicion, and will pronounce our opponents to be false accusers.

Footnotes

238:1282

[cf. Acts xxvi. 2.] Constantius, though here called a Christian, was not baptized till his last illness, a.d. 361, and then by the Arian Bishop of Antioch, Euzoius. At this time he was 39 years of age. Theodoret represents him making a speech to his whole army on one occasion, exhorting them to Baptism previous to going to war; and recommending all to go thence who could not make up their mind to the Sacrament. H. E. iii. 1. Constantius, his grandfather, had rejected idolatry and acknowledged the One God, according to Eusebius, V. Const. i. 14, though it does not appear that he had embraced Christianity.

238:1283

Supr. Apol. Ar. 1.

238:1284

Apol. Ar. 1, 58.

238:1285

ib. 13, 27, &c.

238:1286

Cf. Apol. Ar. ii. 51.

2. The first charge, of setting Constans against Constantius.

But as to the slanderous charge which has been preferred against me before your Grace, respecting correspondence with the most pious Augustus, your brother Constans 1287 , of blessed and everlasting memory (for my enemies report this of me, and have ventured to assert it in writing), the former events 1288 are sufficient to prove this also to be untrue. Had it been alleged by another set of persons, the matter would indeed have been a fit subject of enquiry, but it would have required strong evidence, and open proof in presence of both parties: but when the same persons who invented the former charge, are the authors also of this, is it not reasonable to conclude from the issue of the one, the falsehood of the other? For this cause they again conferred together in private, thinking to be able to deceive your Piety before I was aware. But in this they failed: you would not listen to them as they desired, but patiently gave me an opportunity to make my defence. And, in that you were not immediately moved to demand vengeance, you acted only as was righteous in a Prince, whose duty it is to wait for the defence of the injured party. Which if you will vouchsafe to hear, I am confident that in this matter also you will condemn those reckless men, who have no fear of that God, who has commanded us not to speak falsely before the king 1289 .

Footnotes

238:1287

Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (3); cf. Lucifer. Op. p. 91. (ed. Ven. 1778.) Theod. H. E. ii. 13; infr. Hist. Arian. §50.

238:1288

Vid. Apol. contr. Arian. passim.

238:1289

Vid. Ecclesiasticus 7.5.

3. He never saw Constans alone.

But in truth I am ashamed even to have to defend myself against charges such as these, which I do not suppose that even the accuser himself would venture to make mention of in my presence. For he knows full well that he speaks untruly, and that I was never so mad, so reft of my senses, as even to be open to the suspicion of having conceived any such thing. So that had I been questioned by any other on this subject, I would not even have answered, lest, while I was making my defence, my hearers should for a time have suspended their judgment concerning me. But to your Piety I answer with a loud and clear voice, and stretching forth my hand, as I have learned from the Apostle, ‘I call God for a record upon my soul 1290 ,’ and as it is written in the histories of the Kings (let me be allowed to say the same), ‘The Lord is witness, and His Anointed is witness 1291 ,’ I have never spoken evil of your Piety before your brother Constans, the most religious Augustus of blessed memory. I did not exasperate him against you, as these have falsely accused me. But whenever in my interviews with him he has mentioned your Grace (and he did mention you at the time that Thalassus 1292 came to Pitybion, and I was staying at Aquileia), the Lord is witness, how I spoke of your Piety in terms which I would that God would reveal unto your soul, that you might condemn the falsehood of these my calumniators. Bear with me, most gracious Augustus, and freely grant me your indulgence while I speak of this matter. Your most Christian brother was not a man of so light a temper, nor was I a person of such a character, that we should communicate together on a subject like this, or that I should slander a brother to a brother, or speak evil of an emperor before an emperor. I am not so mad, Sire, nor have I forgotten that divine utterance which says, ‘Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter 1293 .’ If then those things, which are spoken in secret against you that are kings, are not hidden, it is not incredible that I should have spoken against you in the presence of a king, and of so many bystanders? For I never saw your brother by myself, nor did he ever converse with me in private, but I was always introduced in company with the Bishop of the city where I happened to be, and with others that chanced to be there. We entered the presence together, and together we retired. Fortunatian 1294 , Bishop of Aquileia, can testify this, the father Hosius is able to say the same, as also are Crispinus, Bishop of Padua, Lucillus of a Verona, Dionysius of Lëis, and Vincentius of Campania. And although Maximinus of Treveri, and Protasius of Milan, are dead, yet Eugenius, who was Master of the Palace 1295 , can bear witness for me; for he stood before the veil 1296 , and heard what we requested of the Emperor, and what he vouchsafed to reply to us.

Footnotes

239:1290

2 Cor. i. 23.

239:1291

1 Sam. xii. 5.

239:1292

Hist. Arian. 22. vid. Apol. Ar. 51. [‘Pitybion’ is Patavia, now Padua.]

239:1293

Eccles. x. 20.

239:1294

All these names of Bishops occur among the subscriptions at Sardica. supr. Ap. Ar. 50. [See also D.C.B. s. vv.] Leis is Lauda, or Laus Pompeia, hodie Lodi Vecchio; Ughelli, Ital. Sacr. t. 4. p. 656.

239:1295

Or, master of the offices; one of the seven Ministers of the Court under the Empire; ‘He inspected the discipline of the civil and military schools, and received appeals from all parts of the Empire.’ Gibbon, ch. 17. [cf. Gwatkin, p. 285.]

239:1296

πρὸ τοῦ βήλου. The Veil, which in the first instance was an appendage to the images of pagan deities, formed at this time part of the ceremonial of the imperial Court. It hung over the entrance of the Emperor’s bedchamber, where he gave his audiences. It also hung before the secretarium of the Judges. vid. Hofman in voc. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. i. tit. vii. 1.

4. The movements of Athanasius refute this charge.

This certainly is sufficient for proof, yet suffer me nevertheless to lay before you an account of my travels, which will further lead you to condemn the unfounded calumnies of my opponents. When I left Alexandria 1297 , I did not go to your brother’s head-quarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in the public worship. I did not write to your brother, except when Eusebius and his fellows had written to him to accuse me, and I was compelled while yet at Alexandria to defend myself; and again when I sent to him volumes 1298 containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him. It behoves me, while I defend my conduct, to tell the truth to your Piety. When however three years had passed away, he wrote to me in the fourth year 1299 , commanding me to meet him (he was then at Milan); and upon enquiring the cause (for I was ignorant of it, the Lord is my witness), I learnt that certain Bishops 1300 had gone up and requested him to write to your Piety, desiring that a Council might be called. Believe me, Sire, this is the truth of the matter; I lie not. Accordingly I went down to Milan, and met with great kindness from him; for he condescended to see me, and to say that he had despatched letters to you, requesting that a Council might be called. And while I remained in that city, he sent for me again into Gaul (for the father Hosius was going thither), that we might travel from thence to Sardica. And after the Council, he wrote to me while I continued at Naissus 1301 , and I went up, and abode afterwards at Aquileia; where the letters of your Piety found me. And again, being invited thence by your departed brother, I returned into Gaul, and so came at length to your Piety.

Footnotes

239:1297

[a.d. 339.]

239:1298

πύκτια, a bound book, vid. Montf. Coll. Nov. infr. Tillemont (t. viii. p. 86.) considers that Athan. alludes in this passage to the Synopsis Scr. Sacr. which is among his works; but Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxviii. contends that a copy of the Gospels is spoken of. [cf. D.C.B. i. 651.]

239:1299

[a.d. 342.]

239:1300

Tillemont supposes that Constans was present at the Council of Milan [345], at which Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius, sent to the west with the Eusebian Creed, made their appearance to no purpose. [But this was long after the events related in the text, cf. Prolegg. ii. §6, sub. fin.]

239:1301

[Easter 344, see Fest. Ind. xvi.] Naissus was situated in Upper Dacia, and according to some was the birthplace of Constantine. The Bishop of the place, Gaudentius, whose name occurs among the subscriptions at Sardica, had protected S. Paul of Constantinople and incurred the anathemas of the Easterns at Philippopolis. Hil. Fragm. iii. 27.

5. No possible time or place for the alleged offence.

Now what place and time does my accuser specify, at which I made use of these expressions according to his slanderous imputation? In whose presence was I so mad as to give utterance to the words which he has falsely charged me with speaking? Who is there ready to support the charge, and to testify to the fact? What his own eyes have seen that ought he to speak 1302 , as holy Scripture enjoins. But no; he will find no witnesses of that which never took place. But I take your Piety to witness, together with the Truth, that I lie not. I request you, for I know you to be a person of excellent memory, to call to mind the conversation I had with you, when you condescended to see me, first at Viminacium 1303 , a second time at Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and a third 1304 time at Antioch. Did I speak evil before you even of Eusebius and his fellows who had persecuted me? Did I cast imputations upon any of those that have done me wrong? If then I imputed nothing to any of those against whom I had a right to speak, how could I be so possessed with madness as to slander an Emperor before an Emperor, and to set a brother at variance with a brother? I beseech you, either cause me to appear before you that the thing may be proved, or else condemn these calumnies, and follow the example of David, who says, ‘Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I destroy 1305 .’ As much as in them lies, they have slain me; for ‘the mouth that belieth, slayeth the soul 1306 .’ But your long-suffering has prevailed against them, and given me confidence to defend myself, that they may suffer condemnation, as contentious and slanderous persons. Concerning your most religious brother, of blessed memory, this may suffice: for you will be able, according to the wisdom which God has given you, to gather much from the little I have said, and to recognise the fictitious charge.

Footnotes

240:1302

Prov. xxv. 7, LXX.

240:1303

In Mœsia.

240:1304

[Prolegg. ch. ii. §5 fin., §6 (3).]

240:1305

Ps. ci. 5.

240:1306

Wisd. i. 11.

6. The second charge, of corresponding with Magnentius.

With regard to the second calumny, that I have written letters to the tyrant 1307 (his name I am unwilling to pronounce), I beseech you investigate and try the matter, in whatever way you please, and by whomsoever you may approve of. The extravagance of the charge so confounds me, that I am in utter uncertainty how to act. Believe me, most religious Prince, many times did I weigh the matter in my mind, but was unable to believe that any one could be so mad as to utter such a falsehood. But when this charge was published abroad by the Arians, as well as the former, and they boasted that they had delivered to you a copy of the letter, I was the more amazed, and I used to pass sleepless nights contending against the charge, as if in the presence of my accusers; and suddenly breaking forth into a loud cry, I would immediately fall to my prayers, desiring with groans and tears that I might obtain a favourable hearing from you. And now that by the grace of the Lord, I have obtained such a hearing, I am again at a loss how I shall begin my defence; for as often as I make an attempt to speak, I am prevented by my horror at the deed. In the case of your departed brother, the slanderers had indeed a plausible pretence for what they alleged; because I had been admitted to see him, and he had condescended to write to your brotherly affection concerning me; and he had often sent for me to come to him, and had honoured me when I came. But for the traitor Magnentius, ‘the Lord is witness, and His Anointed is witness 1308 ,’ I know him not, nor was ever acquainted with him. What correspondence then could there be between persons so entirely unacquainted with each other? What reason was there to induce me to write to such a man? How could I have commenced my letter, had I written to him? Could I have said, ‘You have done well to murder the man who honoured me, whose kindness I shall never forget?’ Or, ‘I approve of your conduct in destroying our Christian friends, and most faithful brethren?’ or, ‘I approve of your proceedings in butchering those who so kindly entertained me at Rome; for instance, your departed Aunt Eutropia 1309 , whose disposition answered to her name, that worthy man, Abuterius, the most faithful Spirantius, and many other excellent persons?’

Footnotes

240:1307

[On Magnentius, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §7 sub. fin.; Gwatkin, Studies, p. 143 sq.]

240:1308

1 Sam. xii. 5.

240:1309

Nepotian, the son of Eutropia, Constantine’s sister, had taken up arms against Magnentius, got possession of Rome, and enjoyed the title of Augustus for about a month. Magnentius put him to death, and his mother, and a number of his adherents, some of whom are here mentioned.

7. This charge utterly incredible and absurd.

Is it not mere madness in my accuser even to suspect me of such a thing? What, I ask again, could induce me to place confidence in this man? What trait did I perceive in his character on which I could rely? He had murdered his own master; he had proved faithless to his friends; he had violated his oath; he had blasphemed God, by consulting poisoners and sorcerers 1310 contrary to his Law. And with what conscience could I send greeting to such a man, whose madness and cruelty had afflicted not me only, but all the world around me? To be sure, I was very greatly indebted to him for his conduct, that when your departed brother had filled our churches with sacred offerings, he murdered him. For the wretch was not moved by the sight of these his gifts, nor did he stand in awe of the divine grace which had been given to him in baptism: but like an accursed and devilish spirit, he raged against him, till your blessed brother suffered martyrdom at his hands; while he, henceforth a criminal like Cain, was driven from place to place, ‘groaning and trembling 1311 ,’ to the end that he might follow the example of Judas in his death, by becoming his own executioner, and so bring upon himself a double weight of punishment in the judgment to come.

Footnotes

241:1310

Bingh. Antiqu. xvi. 5. §5, &c.

241:1311

Gen. iv. 12. LXX. vid. Hist. Ar. §7.

8. Disproof of It.

With such a man the slanderer thought that I had been on terms of friendship, or rather he did not think so, but like an enemy invented an incredible fiction: for he knows full well that he has lied. I would that, whoever he is, he were present here, that I might put the question to him on the word of Truth itself (for whatever we speak as in the presence of God, we Christians consider as an oath 1312 ); I say, that I might ask him this question, which of us rejoiced most in the well-being of the departed Constans? who prayed for him most earnestly? The facts of the foregoing charge prove this; indeed it is plain to every one how the case stands. But although he himself knows full well, that no one who was so disposed towards the departed Constans, and who truly loved him, could be a friend to his enemy, I fear that being possessed with other feelings towards him than I was, he has falsely attributed to me those sentiments of hatred which were entertained by himself.

Footnotes

241:1312

Vid. Chrys. in Eph. Nicene Lib., Series I. vol. xiii. p. 58.

9. Athanasius could not write to one who did not even know him.

For myself, I am so surprised at the enormity of the thing, that I am quite uncertain what I ought to say in my defence. I can only declare, that I condemn myself to die ten thousand deaths, if even the least suspicion attaches to me in this matter. And to you, Sire, as a lover of the truth, I confidently make my appeal. I beseech you, as I said before, investigate this affair, and especially with the testimony of those who were once sent by him as ambassadors to you. These are the Bishops Sarvatius 1313 and Maximus and the rest, with Clementius and Valens. Enquire of them, I beseech you, whether they brought letters to me. If they did, this would give me occasion to write to him. But if he did not write to me, if he did not even know me, how could I write to one with whom I had no acquaintance? Ask them whether, when I saw Clementius and his fellows, and spoke of your brother of blessed memory, I did not, in the language of Scripture, wet my garments with tears 1314 , when I remembered his kindness of disposition and his Christian spirit. Learn of them how anxious I was, on hearing of the cruelty of the beast, and finding that Valens and his company had come by way of Libya, lest he should attempt a passage also, and like a robber murder those who held in love and memory the departed Prince, among whom I account myself second to none.

Footnotes

241:1313

Sarbatius, or Servatius, and Maximus occur in the lists of Gallic subscriptions [supr. p. 127]. The former is supposed to be S. Servatius or Servatio of Tungri, concerning whom at Ariminum, vid. Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 59. vid. also Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc ii. 5. where however the Bened. Ed. prefers to read Aravatius, a Bishop, as he considers, of the fifth century.

241:1314

Ps. vi. 6.

10. His loyalty towards Constantius and his brother.

How with this apprehension of such a design on their part, was there not an additional probability of my praying for your Grace? Should I feel affection for his murderer, and entertain dislike towards you his brother who avenged his death? Should I remember his crime, and forget that kindness of yours which you vouchsafed to assure me by letter 1315 should remain the same towards me after your brother’s death of happy memory, as it had been during his lifetime? How could I have borne to look upon the murderer? Must I not have thought that the blessed Prince beheld me, when I prayed for your safety? For brothers are by nature mirrors of each other. Wherefore as seeing you in him, I never should have slandered you before him; and as seeing him in you, never should I have written to his enemy, instead of praying for your safety. Of this my witnesses are, first of all, the Lord who has heard and has given to you entire the kingdom of your forefathers: and next those persons who were present at the time, Felicissimus, who was Duke of Egypt, Rufinus, and Stephanus, the former of whom was Receiver-general, the latter, Master there; Count Asterius, and Palladius Master of the palace, Antiochus and Evagrius Official Agents 1316 . I had only to say, ‘Let us pray for the safety of the most religious Emperor, Constantius Augustus,’ and all the people immediately cried out with one voice, ‘O Christ send help to Constantius;’ and they continued praying thus for some time 1317 .

Footnotes

241:1315

Cf. §23.

242:1316

1. The Rationales or Receivers, in Greek writers Catholici (λογοθεταὶ being understood, Vales. ad Euseb. vii. 10.), were the same as the Procurators (Gibbon, Hist. ch. xvii. note 148.), who succeeded the Provincial Quæstors in the early times of the Empire. They were in the department of the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, or High Treasurer of the Revenue (Gothofr. Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 327). Both Gothofr. however and Pancirolus, p. 134. Ed. 1623, place Rationales also under the Comes Rerum Privatarum. Pancirolus, p. 120. mentions the Comes Rationalis Summarum Ægypti as distinct from other functionaries. Gibbon, ch. xvii. seems to say that there were in all 29, of whom 18 were counts. 2. Stephanus, μάγιστρος ἐκεῖ. Tillemont translates, ‘Master of the camp of Egypt,’ vol. viii. p. 137. 3. The Master of the offices or of the palace has been noticed above, p. 239, note 4. 4. ἀγεντισηρίβους, agentes in rebus. These were functionaries under the Master of the offices, whose business it was to announce the names of the consuls and the edicts or victories of the Empire. They at length became spies of the Court, vid. Gibbon, ch. xvii. Gothofr. Cod. Th. vi. 27.

242:1317

‘Presbyterurn Eraclium mihi successorem polo. A populo acclamatum est, Deo gratias, Christo laudes; dictum est vicies terties. Exaudi Christe, Augustino vita; dictum est sexies decies. Te patrem, te episcopum; dictum est octies.’ August. Ep. 213.

11. Challenge to the accusers as to the alleged letter.

Now I have already called upon God, and His Word, the Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, to witness for me, that I have never written to that man, nor received letters from him. And as to my accuser, give me leave to ask him a few short questions concerning this charge also. How did he come to the knowledge of this matter? Will he say that he has got copies of the letter? for this is what the Arians laboured to prove. Now in the first place, even if he can shew writing resembling mine, the thing is not yet certain; for there are forgers, who have often imitated the hand 1318 even of you who are Emperors. And the resemblance will not prove the genuineness of the letter, unless my customary amanuensis shall testify in its favour. I would then again ask my accusers, Who provided you with these copies? and whence were they obtained? I had my writers 1319 , and he his servants, who received his letters from the bearers, and gave them into his hand. My assistants are forthcoming; vouchsafe to summon the others (for they are most probably still living), and enquire concerning these letters. Search into the matter, as though Truth were the partner of your throne. She is the defence of Kings, and especially of Christian Kings; with her you will reign most securely, for holy Scripture says, ‘Mercy and truth preserve the king, and they will encircle his throne in righteousness 1320 .’ And the wise Zorobabel gained a victory over the others by setting forth the power of Truth, and all the people cried out, ‘Great is the truth, and mighty above all things 1321 .’

Footnotes

242:1318

Apol. Ar. 45.

242:1319

Vid. Rom. xvi. 22. Lucian is spoken of as the amanuensis of the Confessors who wrote to S. Cyprian, Ep. 16. Ed. Ben. Jader perhaps of Ep. 80. [Epp. 23, 79, Hartel.] S. Jerome was either secretary or amanuensis to Pope Damasus, vid. Ep. ad Ageruch. (123. n. 10. Ed. Vallars.) vid. Lami de Erud. 24, Ap. p. 258.

242:1320

Prov. xx. 28.

242:1321

1 Esdr. iv. 41.

12. Truth the defence of Thrones.

Had I been accused before any other, I should have appealed to your Piety; as once the Apostle appealed unto Cæsar, and put an end to the designs of his enemies against him. But since they have had the boldness to lay their charge before you, to whom shall I appeal from you? to the Father of Him who says, ‘I am the Truth 1322 ,’ that He may incline your heart into clemency:—

O Lord Almighty, and King of eternity, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Thy Word hast given this Kingdom to Thy servant Constantius; do Thou shine into his heart, that he, knowing the falsehood that is set against me, may both favourably receive this my defence; and may make known unto all men, that his ears are firmly set to hearken unto the Truth, according as it is written, ‘Righteous lips alone are acceptable unto the King 1323 .’ For Thou hast caused it to be said by Solomon, that thus the throne of the kingdom shall be established.

Wherefore at least enquire into this matter, and let the accusers understand that your desire is to learn the truth; and see, whether they will not shew their falsehood by their very looks; for the countenance is a test of the conscience as it is written, ‘A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance, but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken 1324 .’ Thus they who had conspired against Joseph 1325 were convicted by their own consciences; and the craft of Laban towards Jacob was shewn in his countenance 1326 . And thus you see the suspicious alarm of these persons, for they fly and hide themselves; but on our part frankness in making our defence. And the question between us is not one regarding worldly wealth, but concerning the honour of the Church. He that has been struck by a stone, applies to a physician; but sharper than a stone are the strokes of calumny; for as Solomon has said, ‘A false witness is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow 1327 ,’ and its wounds Truth alone is able to cure; and if Truth be set at nought, they grow worse and worse.

Footnotes

242:1322

John xiv. 6.

242:1323

Prov. xvi. 13, xxv. 5.

242:1324

Prov. xv. 13.

242:1325

Gen. xlii. 21; xxxi. 2.

242:1326

Vid. Vit. Ant. §67.

242:1327

Prov. xxv. 18.

13. This charge rests on forgery.

It is this that has thrown the Churches everywhere into such confusion; for pretences have been devised, and Bishops of great authority, and of advanced age 1328 , have been banished for holding communion with me. And if matters had stopped here, our prospect would be favourable through your gracious interposition. But that the evil may not extend itself, let Truth prevail before you; and leave not every Church under suspicion, as though Christian men, nay even Bishops, could be guilty of plotting and writing in this manner. Or if you are unwilling to investigate the matter, it is but right that we who offer our defence, should be believed, rather than our calumniators. They, like enemies, are occupied in wickedness; we, as earnestly contending for our cause, present to you our proofs. And truly I wonder how it comes to pass, that while we address you with fear and reverence, they are possessed of such an impudent spirit, that they dare even to lie before the Emperor. But I pray you, for the Truth’s sake, and as it is written 1329 , ‘search diligently’ in my presence, on what grounds they affirm these things, and whence these letters were obtained. But neither will any of my servants be proved guilty, nor will any of his people be able to tell whence they came; for they are forgeries. And perhaps one had better not enquire further. They do not wish it, lest the writer of the letters should be certain of detection. For the calumniators alone, and none besides, know who he is.

Footnotes

243:1328

Hist. Arian. 72, &c.

243:1329

Joel i. 7, LXX.

14. The third charge, of using an undedicated Church.

But forasmuch as they have informed against me in the matter of the great Church 1330 , that a communion was holden there before it was completed, I will answer to your Piety on this charge also; for the parties who are hostile towards me constrain me to do so. I confess this did so happen; for, as in what I have hitherto said, I have spoken no lie, I will not now deny this. But the facts are far otherwise than they have represented them. Suffer me to declare to you, most religious Augustus, that we kept no day of dedication (it would certainly have been unlawful to do so, before receiving orders from you), nor were we led to act as we did through premeditation. No Bishop or other Clergyman was invited to join in our proceedings; for much was yet wanting to complete the building. Nay the congregation was not held on a previous notice, which might give them a reason for informing against us. Every one knows how it happened; hear me, however, with your accustomed equity and patience. It was the feast of Easter 1331 , and the multitude assembled together was exceeding great, such as Christian kings would desire to see in all their cities. Now when the Churches were found to be too few to contain them, there was no little stir among the people, who desired that they might be allowed to meet together in the great Church, where they could all offer up their prayers for your safety. And this they did; for although I exhorted them to wait awhile, and to hold service in the other Churches, with whatever inconvenience to themselves, they would not listen to me; but were ready to go out of the city, and meet in desert places in the open air, thinking it better to endure the fatigue of the journey, than to keep the feast in such a state of discomfort.

Footnotes

243:1330

[In the Cæsareum, see Hist. Ar. 55, and Fest. Ind. xxxviii. xl. It had been begun by Gregory, and was built at the expense of Constantius (infr. end of §18).]

243:1331

a.d. 355.

15. Want of room the cause, precedent the justification.

Believe me, Sire, and let Truth be my witness in this also, when I declare that in the congregations held during the season of Lent, in consequence of the narrow limits of the places, and the vast multitude of people assembled, a great number of children, not a few of the younger and very many of the older women, besides several young men, suffered so much from the pressure of the crowd, that they were obliged to be carried home; though by the Providence of God, no one is dead. All however murmured, and demanded the use of the great Church. And if the pressure was so great during the days which preceded the feast, what would have been the case during the feast itself? Of course matters would have been far worse. It did not therefore become me to change the people’s joy into grief, their cheerfulness into sorrow, and to make the festival a season of lamentation.

And that the more, because I had a precedent in the conduct of our Fathers. For the blessed Alexander, when the other places were too small, and he was engaged in the erection of what was then considered a very large one, the Church of Theonas 1332 , held his congregations there on account of the number of the people, while at the same time he proceeded with the building. I have seen the same thing done at Treveri and at Aquileia, in both which places, while the building was proceeding, they assembled there during the feasts, on account of the number of the people and they never found any one to accuse them in this manner. Nay, your brother of blessed memory was present, when a communion was held under these circumstances at Aquileia. I also followed this course. There was no dedication, but only a service of prayer. You, at least I am sure, as a lover of God will approve of the people’s zeal, and will pardon me for being unwilling to hinder the prayers of so great a multitude.

Footnotes

243:1332

S. Epiphanius mentions nine Churches in Alexandria. Hær. 69. 2. Athan. mentions in addition that of Quirinus. Hist. Arian. §10. [See the plan of Larsow, appended to his Fest-briefe.] The Church mentioned in the text was built at the Emperor’s expense; and apparently upon the Emperor’s ground, as on the site was or had been a Basilica, which bore first the name of Hadrian, then of Licinius, Epiph. ibid. Hadrian had built in many cities temples without idols, which were popularly considered as intended by him for Christian worship, and went after his name. Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Sev. 43. The Church in question was built in the Cæsareum. Hist. Arian. 74. There was a magnificent Temple, dedicated to Augustus, as ἐπιβατήριος, on the harbour of Alexandria, Philon. Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1013, 4. ed. 1691, and called the Cæsareum. It was near the Emperor’s palace, vid. Acad. des. Inscript. vol. 9. p. 416. [Vid. supr. note 5b, and cf. Apol. de Fuga 24.]

16. Better to pray together than separately.

But here again I would ask my accuser, where was it right that the people should pray? in the deserts, or in a place which was in course of building for the purpose of prayer? Where was it becoming and pious that the people should answer, Amen 1333 ? in the deserts, or in what was already called the Lord’s house? Where would you, most religious Prince, have wished your people to stretch forth their hands, and to pray for you? Where Greeks, as they passed by, might stop and listen, or in a place named after yourself, which all men have long called the Lord’s house, even since the foundations of it were laid? I am sure that you prefer your own place; for you smile, and that tells me so. ‘But,’ says the accuser, ‘it ought to have been in the Churches. They were all, as I said before, too small and confined to admit the multitude. Then again, in which way was it most becoming that their prayers should be made? Should they meet together in parts and separate companies, with danger from the crowded state of the congregation? or, when there was now a place that would contain them all, should they assemble in it, and speak as with one and the same voice in perfect harmony? This was the better course, for this shewed the unanimity of the multitude: in this way God will readily hear prayer. For if, according to the promise of our Saviour Himself 1334 , where two shall agree together as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them, how shall it be when so great an assembly of people with one voice utter their Amen to God? Who indeed was there that did not marvel at the sight? Who but pronounced you happy when they saw so great a multitude met together in one place? How did the people themselves rejoice to see each other, having been accustomed heretofore to assemble in separate places! The circumstance was a source of pleasure to all; of vexation to the calumniator alone.

Footnotes

244:1333

Bingham, Antiqu. xv. 3. §25. [D.C.A. 75.] Suicer, Thesaur. in voc. ἀυὴν, Gavanti, Thesaur. vol. i. p. 89. ed. 1763.

244:1334

Matt. xviii. 19.

17. Better to pray in a building than in the desert.

Now then, I would also meet the other and only remaining objection of my accuser. He says, the building was not completed, and prayer ought not to have been made there. But the Lord said, ‘But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and shut the door 1335 .’ What then will the accuser answer? or rather what will all prudent and true Christians say? Let your Majesty ask the opinion of such: for it is written of the other, ‘The foolish person will speak foolishness 1336 ;’ but of these, ‘Ask counsel of all that are wise 1337 .’ When the Churches were too small, and the people so numerous as they were, and desirous to go forth into the deserts, what ought I to have done? The desert has no doors, and all who choose may pass through it, but the Lord’s house is enclosed with walls and doors, and marks the difference between the pious and the profane. Will not every wise person then, as well as your Piety, Sire, give the preference to the latter place? For they know that here prayer is lawfully offered, while a suspicion of irregularity attaches to it there. Unless indeed no place proper for it existed, and the worshippers dwelt only in the desert, as was the case with Israel; although after the tabernacle was built, they also had thenceforth a place set apart for prayer. O Christ, Lord and true King of kings, Only-begotten Son of God, Word and Wisdom of the Father, I am accused because the people prayed Thy gracious favour, and through Thee besought Thy Father, who is God over all, to save Thy servant, the most religious Constantius. But thanks be to Thy goodness, that it is for this that I am blamed, and for the keeping of Thy laws. Heavier had been the blame, and more true had been the charge, had we passed by the place which the Emperor was building, and gone forth into the desert to pray. How would the accuser then have vented his folly! With what apparent reason would he have said, ‘He despised the place which you are building; he does not approve of your undertaking; he passed it by in derision; he pointed to the desert to supply the want of room; he prevented the people when they wished to offer up their prayers.’ This is what he wished to say, and sought an occasion of saying it; and finding none he is vexed, and so forthwith invents a charge against me. Had he been able to say this, he would have confounded me with shame; as now he injures me, copying the accuser’s ways, and watching for an occasion against those that pray. Thus has he perverted to a wicked purpose his knowledge of Daniel’s 1338 history. But he has been deceived; for he ignorantly imagined, that Babylonian practices were in fashion with you, and knew not that you are a friend of the blessed Daniel, and worship the same God, and do not forbid, but wish all men to pray, knowing that the prayer of all is, that you may continue to reign in perpetual peace and safety.

Footnotes

244:1335

Matt. vi. 6.

244:1336

Is. xxxii. 6. Sept.

244:1337

Tob. iv. 18.

245:1338

Dan. vi. 11.

18. Prayers first do not interfere with dedication afterwards.

This is what I have to complain of on the part of my accuser. But may you, most religious Augustus, live through the course of many years to come, and celebrate the dedication of the Church. Surely the prayers which have been offered for your safety by all men, are no hindrance to this celebration. Let these unlearned persons cease such misrepresentations, but let them learn from the example of the Fathers; and let them read the Scriptures. Or rather let them learn of you, who are so well instructed in such histories, how that Joshua the son of Josedek the priest, and his brethren, and Zorobabel the wise, the son of Salathiel, and Ezra the priest and scribe of the law, when the temple was in course of building after the captivity, the feast of tabernacles being at hand (which was a great feast and time of assembly and prayer in Israel), gathered 1339 the people together with one accord in the great court within the first gate, which is toward the East, and prepared the altar to God, and there offered their gifts, and kept the feast. And so afterwards they brought hither their sacrifices, on the sabbaths and the new moons, and the people offered up their prayers. And yet the Scripture says expressly, that when these things were done, the temple of God was not yet built; but rather while they thus prayed, the building of the house was advancing. So that neither were their prayers deferred in expectation of the dedication, nor was the dedication prevented by the assemblies held for the sake of prayer. But the people thus continued to pray; and when the house was entirely finished, they celebrated the dedication, and brought their gifts for that purpose, and all kept the feast for the completion of the work. And thus also have the blessed Alexander, and the other Fathers done. They continued to assemble their people, and when they had completed the work they gave thanks unto the Lord, and celebrated the dedication. This also it befits you to do, O Prince, most careful in your inquiries. The place is ready, having been already sanctified by the prayers which have been offered in it, and requires only the presence of your Piety. This only is wanting to its perfect beauty. Do you then supply this deficiency, and there make your prayers unto the Lord, for whom you have built this house. That you may do so is the prayer of all men.

Footnotes

245:1339

Ezr. iii. 6; Neh. viii.

19. Fourth charge, of having disobeyed an Imperial order.

And now, if it please you, let us consider the remaining accusation, and permit me to answer it likewise. They have dared to charge me with resisting your commands, and refusing to leave my Church. Truly I wonder they are not weary of uttering their calumnies; I however am not yet weary of answering them, I rather rejoice to do so; for the more abundant my defence is, the more entirely must they be condemned. I did not resist the commands of your Piety, God forbid; I am not a man that would resist even the Quæstor 1340 of the city, much less so great a Prince. On this matter I need not many words, for the whole city will bear witness for me. Nevertheless, permit me again to relate the circumstances from the beginning; for when you hear them, I am sure you will be astonished at the presumption of my enemies. Montanus, the officer of the Palace 1341 , came and brought me a letter, which purported to be an answer to one from me, requesting that I might go into Italy, for the purpose of obtaining a supply of the deficiencies which I thought existed in the condition of our Churches. Now I desire to thank your Piety, which condescended to assent to my request, on the supposition that I had written to you, and has made provision 1342 for me to undertake the journey, and to accomplish it without trouble. But here again I am astonished at those who have spoken falsehood in your ears, that they were not afraid, seeing that lying belongs to the Devil, and that liars are alien from Him who says, ‘I am the Truth 1343 .’ For I never wrote to you, nor will my accuser be able to find any such letter; and though I ought to have written every day, if I might thereby behold your gracious countenance, yet it would neither have been pious to desert the Churches, nor right to be troublesome to your Piety, especially since you are willing to grant our requests in behalf of the Church, although we are not present to make them. Now may it please you to order me to read what Montanus commanded me to do. This is as follows 1344 .***

Footnotes

245:1340

λογιστῇ, auditor of accounts? vid. Demosth. de Corona, p. 290. ed. 1823. Arist. Polit. vi. 8.

245:1341

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

245:1342

Apol. Ar. 70, note 5.

245:1343

John xiv. 6.

246:1344

Lost, or never introduced.

20. History of his disobeying it.

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

Footnotes

246:1345

1 Sam. xxii. 9.

246:1346

1 Kings xxi. 10.

246:1347

Ps. ci. 5.

246:1348

Ex. xxiii. 1.

246:1349

Prov. xxx. 8.

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

Footnotes

246:1350

Prov. xx. 13, LXX.

22. Arrivals of Diogenes and of Syrianus.

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

Footnotes

246:1351

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

246:1352

[Jan. 5, 356.]

23. A copy 1353 of the letter as follows:

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

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

Footnotes

247:1353

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

247:1354

Spring of 350.

247:1355

κεχρεωστημένην vid. κρατούσῃ πίστει, infr. §31.

24. Why Athanasius did not obey the Imperial Order.

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

Footnotes

247:1356

The Mayor, Tillem. vol. viii. p. 152.

25. The irruption of Syrianus.

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

Footnotes

247:1357

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

26. How Athanasius acted when this took place.

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

Footnotes

248:1358

Ez. xxxiv. 2, &c.

248:1359

1 Tim. iv. 14.

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

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

Footnotes

248:1360

Prov. xvi. 13. quoted otherwise, supr. §12.

248:1361

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

248:1362

In this chapter he breaks off his Oratorical form, and ends his Apology much more in the form of a letter, vid. however τῶν λόγων καιρόν, infr. §§34, 35 init. προσφωνήσω, §35.

248:1363

Council of Milan 355, see Apol. Fug. 5.

248:1364

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

28. The news of the intrusion of George.

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

Footnotes

249:1365

Hist Ar. §73.

249:1366

Tit. i. 8.

249:1367

Rom. ii. 24.

29. Athanasius has heard of his own proscription.

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

Footnotes

249:1368

[Prolegg. ch. ii. §§4, 7, 8 (1).]

249:1369

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

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

Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus to the Alexandrians.

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

Footnotes

250:1370

On the reading, cf. infr. note 6.

250:1371

τῶν χαμαί, vid. contr. Euseb. H. E. vii. 27.

250:1372

Of Cappadocia, de Syn. 37, note 3.

31. Letter of Constantius to the Ethiopians against Frumentius.

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

Constantius Victor Maximus Augustus, to Æzanes and Sazanes.

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

Footnotes

250:1373

ἡ τοῦ κρείττονος γνῶσις, vid. τὸν κρείττονα, infr. And so in Arius’s Thalia, the Eternal Father, in contrast to the Son, is called ὁ κρείττων, τὸν κρείττονα, de Synod. §15. So again, θεὸν τὸν [ὄντα] συνιέντας, supr. §30, and συνετῶν θεοῦ in the Thalia, Orat. i. 5. Again, σοφίας ἐξηγητὰς, supr. §30 and τῶν σοφίας μεταχόντων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν in the Thalia, ibid. And τῶν ἐξηγητῶν τοὺς ἄκρους εἵλεσθε, supr. §30, and τούτων κατ᾽ ἴχνος ἦλθον in the Thalia.

251:1374

κρατούσῃ, supr. §23, note 6.

32. He defends his Flight.

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

Footnotes

251:1375

Supr. §29.

251:1376

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

251:1377

Hist. Ar. 72.

251:1378

Vid. Apol. de Fug. init.; Matt. x. 23.

252:1379

Exod. xx. 13.

33. Conduct of the Arians towards the consecrated Virgins.

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

Footnotes

252:1380

2 Tim. i. 10; Rom. viii. 21.

252:1381

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

252:1382

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

252:1383

A rack, or horse, Tillemont. vol. viii. p. 169.

252:1384

Vid. Hist. Ar. §§40, 64.

34. He expostulates with Constantius.

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

Footnotes

252:1385

Is. xxvi. 20, LXX.

252:1386

2 Cor. xi. 33.

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

Footnotes

253:1387

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

253:1388

John xviii. 9.

Introduction to Apologia de Fuga.

————————————

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

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

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

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

Defence of His Flight.

————————————

1. Athanasius charged with cowardice for escaping.

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

Footnotes

255:1389

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

255:1390

De Syn. 17.

255:1391

Apol. Ar. 48.

255:1392

John viii. 44; 1 Cor. vi. 10.

2. Insincerity of this charge.

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

Footnotes

255:1393

Matt. xv. 4.

255:1394

Luke vi. 1. sqq.

255:1395

Isa. 1:10, 11.

255:1396

περιβομβεῖν, Nic. Def. 14, note 1; Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. n. 2.

3. Outrages of the Arians against the Bishops.

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

Footnotes

256:1397

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

256:1398

Hist. Arian. 5.

256:1399

Tom. ad Ant.

256:1400

Berœa, Hist. Ar. 5.

256:1401

Tom. ad Ant.

256:1402

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

4. Proceedings after the Council of Milan.

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

Footnotes

256:1403

Hist. Arian. §65; Prov. xxx. 15.

256:1404

Of Treveri.

256:1405

Of Milan.

256:1406

Of Cagliari.

256:1407

Of Vercellæ.

256:1408

[Council of Milan, 355.]

5. In praise of Hosius.

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

Footnotes

256:1409

Hist. Ar. 42.

256:1410

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

256:1411

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

256:1412

Gal. ii. 5.

6. Outrages of George upon the Alexandrians.

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

Footnotes

257:1413

Apol. Const. 30, note 5, and reff.

257:1414

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

257:1415

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

7. Outrages of George.

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

Footnotes

257:1416

Hist. Arian. §72.

257:1417

Ibid. §72 fin. Apol. Const. 27.

257:1418

Ibid. and see Hist. Ar. §72.

257:1419

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

257:1420

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

257:1421

Letter 49.

257:1422

Letter 60.

257:1423

Letter 49. 10.

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

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

Footnotes

257:1424

Cited by Socrates iii. 8.

257:1425

Apol. Ar. §4.

258:1426

1 Sam. xxii. 2.

258:1427

Hist. Arian. §§34, 35.

9. The accusation shews the mind of the accusers.

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

Footnotes

258:1428

Matt. x. 29.

258:1429

Encyc. 5.

258:1430

Is. xlvii. 6; Ps. lxix. 26.

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

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

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

Footnotes

258:1431

John viii. 44.

258:1432

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

258:1433

1 Kings xviii. 15; Hist. Ar. §53.

11. Examples of Scripture Saints in defence of flight.

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

Footnotes

259:1434

Ex. xxi. 13.

259:1435

Matt. x. 23; xxiv. 15.

12. The Lord an example of timely flight.

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

Footnotes

259:1436

Matt. ii. 13.

259:1437

Matt. xii. 15.

259:1438

John 11:53, 54.

259:1439

John 8:58, 59.

259:1440

Luke iv. 30.

13. Example of Our Lord.

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

Footnotes

259:1441

Is. ix. 5.

259:1442

Matt. xiv. 13.

259:1443

Cf. Orat. i. 43.

259:1444

John vii. 30.

259:1445

John ii. 4.

259:1446

John vii. 6.

259:1447

Matt. xxvi. 45.

14. An hour and a time for all men.

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

Footnotes

260:1448

De Decr. 18, note 5.

260:1449

Eccles. iii. 2.

260:1450

Ex. xxiii. 26; Gen. xxv. 8.

260:1451

Ps. cii. 24.

260:1452

Job v. 26, LXX.

260:1453

Vid. Prov. x. 27

260:1454

Eccles. vii. 17.

15. The Lord’s hour and time.

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

Footnotes

260:1455

Ps. cii. 23, LXX.

260:1456

Luke xii. 20.

260:1457

Eccles. ix. 12.

260:1458

Gen. xxvii. 2.

260:1459

Luke iv. 30.

260:1460

John xvii. 1.

260:1461

John 18:4, 5.

260:1462

Matt. v. 36; x. 29.

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

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

Footnotes

260:1463

Ps. xxxi. 15.

260:1464

1 Sam. ii. 6.

260:1465

Heb. 11:37, 38.

261:1466

1 Sam. 26:10, 11.

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

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

Footnotes

261:1467

1 Kings xxi. 18.

261:1468

i.e. Jeroboam, 1 Kings xiii. 2.

261:1469

Matt. xix. 6.

261:1470

Prov. xiii. 3, LXX.

18. The Saints who fled were no cowards.

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

Footnotes

261:1471

Vid. Ex. iii. 10

261:1472

Deut. xxxii. 49.

261:1473

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

261:1474

Vid. Euseb. Hist. ii. 25.

261:1475

2 Tim. iv. 6.

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

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

Footnotes

262:1476

Matt. v. 10.

262:1477

Wisd. iii. 57.

20. Same Subject Continued.

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

Footnotes

262:1478

Ps. xlv. 1.

262:1479

Ps. l. 3, LXX.

262:1480

Ps. liv. 7.

262:1481

Ps. lvi. 11.

262:1482

Ps. lvii. 3.

262:1483

2 Kings i. 10.

262:1484

2 Tim. iii. 11.

262:1485

Rom. 8:35, 37.

262:1486

2 Cor. xii. 4.

262:1487

Rom. xv. 19.

21. The Saints fled for our sakes.

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

Footnotes

262:1488

2 Tim. iii. 12.

262:1489

Heb. xii. 1.

262:1490

Rom. v. 4.

262:1491

Is. xxvi. 20.

263:1492

Eccl. 5:8, 9. LXX.

263:1493

Ps. xxxi. 24.

263:1494

Ps. xxxvii. 40; xl. 1.

22. Same subject concluded.

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

Footnotes

263:1495

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

23. Persecution is from the Devil.

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

Footnotes

263:1496

Hist. Arian. §§33, 67.

263:1497

Ex. xv. 9.

263:1498

Is. v. 20.

263:1499

John vi. 68.

24. Irruption of Syrianus.

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

Footnotes

263:1500

Apol. Const. 25.

263:1501

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

25. Athanasius’s wonderful escape.

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

Footnotes

264:1502

Deut. vi. 16; Matt. iv. 7.

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

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

Footnotes

264:1503

Sent. Dion. 16. Hist. Ar. §§68. 72.

264:1504

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

264:1505

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

264:1506

De Syn. 17, &c.

264:1507

Apol. Ar. 8, note 3.

27. Conclusion.

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

Footnotes

265:1508

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

265:1509

Ps. xxvii. 1.

265:1510

Ps. 31:7, 8.

Introduction to Historia Arianorum.

————————————

(Written 358.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§9. Renewed intrigues against Athanasius.

§10. Gregory intruded by Constantius as bishop.

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

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

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

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

§16. Their flight from the Synod.

§17. Proceedings of the Synod.

§§18, 19. Continued persecution after it.

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

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

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

§25. Return of Athanasius (346).

§26. Recantation of Valens and Ursacius.

§27. Peace and joy of the Church.

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

§28. Renewed intrigues of the Arianising party.

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

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

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

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

Part V. Liberius (355–358).

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

§38. Concerning the eunuchs at the Court.

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

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

Part VI. Hosius (355–358).

§42. Intrigues against Hosius.

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

§44. Letter of Hosius remonstrating with the Emperor.

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

§47. Monstrosity of the above proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§55. Violence of Cataphronius, Prefect of Egypt.

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

§58. Scenes of persecution.

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

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

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

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

§65. Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§75. Arrival of George at Alexandria.

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

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

§80. Duty of separating from heretics.

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

Footnotes

266:1511

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

266:1512

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

268:1513

See Eichhorn, p. 61; Bright. p. lxxiv.

History of the Arians.

————————————

Part I.

Arian Persecution Under Constantine.

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

2. Arians sacrifice morality and integrity to party.

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

3. Recklessness of their proceedings.

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

4. Arians persecute Eustathius and others.

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

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

6. Case of Marcellus.

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

7. Martyrdom of Paul of Constantinople.

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

8. Restoration of the Catholics.

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

270:1514

§33.

270:1515

φθόνος.

270:1516

Is. v. 20.

270:1517

Infr. §76.

270:1518

Rom. viii. 35.

270:1519

1 Tim. iii. 2.

271:1520

Vid. Dan. 7:5, 7.

271:1521

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

271:1522

1 Tim. iii. 2.

271:1523

Apol. Fug. 3, note 9.

271:1524

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

271:1525

Below, §28, note.

271:1526

Ep. Æg. 7.

271:1527

Ap. Fug. 3.

271:1528

Julian’s mother.

271:1529

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

271:1530

Apol. Ar. 32.

272:1531

i.e. Constantia, Constantine’s sister.

272:1532

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

272:1533

[Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1) note 3.]

272:1534

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

272:1535

Gen. iv. 12, LXX. supr. p. 241.

272:1536

Given above, Apol. contr. Arian. §87.

Part II.

First Arian Persecution under Constantius.

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

10. Violent Intrusion of Gregory.

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

11. The Easterns decline the Council at Rome.

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

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

13. Cruelties of Gregory at Alexandria.

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

14. Profaneness of Gregory and death of Balacius.

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

Footnotes

272:1537

Apol. c. Ar. 3.

272:1538

Ib. 20.

273:1539

§7, note 1, Encycl. 3.

273:1540

Upon the Commission, Apol. Ar. 15.

273:1541

Cyrinus.

273:1542

Vid. infr. §63.

273:1543

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

273:1544

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

273:1545

Apol. Ar. 25, note 8.

273:1546

1 Pet. v. 8.

273:1547

Apol. Ar. 30 and foll.

274:1548

Cf. Apol. Const. §27 fin.

274:1549

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

274:1550

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

274:1551

Vid. Matt. xxv. 45.

274:1552

[Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.].

274:1553

Prov. 2:13, 14, LXX.

274:1554

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

Part III.

Restoration of the Catholics on the Council of Sardica

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

16. Secession of the Easterns at Sardica.

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

17. Proceedings of the Council of Sardica.

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

18. Arian Persecution after Sardica.

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

19. Tyrannical measures against the Alexandrians.

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

20. Plot against the Catholic Legates at Antioch.

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

21. Constantius’ change of mind.

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

22. Athanasius visits Constantius.

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

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

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

Another Letter.

From Constantius to the people of Alexandria.

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

Another Letter.

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

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

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

Constantius Augustus, the Conqueror, to Athanasius.

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

25. Return of Athanasius from second exile.

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

26. Recantation of Ursacius and Valens.

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

Translation from the Latin.

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

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

Translation from the Latin.

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

Having an opportunity of sending 1598 , &c.

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

27. Triumph of Athanasius.

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

Footnotes

274:1555

Apol. Ar. 1, note 1.

274:1556

Apol. Const. 4, note 8.

274:1557

Below, §50.

274:1558

Vid. supr. pp. 127, note 10, and 147.

274:1559

Apol. Ar. 36, notes 8, 9.

274:1560

Below, §18.

274:1561

[Cf. §21, note 5.]

275:1562

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

275:1563

Apol. Ar. §83, &c.

275:1564

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

276:1565

De Fabricis, vid. Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. x. 21.

276:1566

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

276:1567

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

276:1568

Apol. Ar. 45, Apol. Fug. 3.

276:1569

Of Tenedos, vid. Apol. Ar. 50, supr. §5.

276:1570

Apol. Ar. 45, note 2.

276:1571

Acacius, &c.

276:1572

This accounts for Ath.’s caution, Apol. Ar. 51, and below §21.

276:1573

Apol. Ar. 70, note 5.

276:1574

Ap. Const. 3, note 3.

276:1575

Cologne.

276:1576

Infr. §50.

276:1577

Bishop of Antioch, cf. §4, above.

277:1578

[Between Easter and Midsummer 344.]

277:1579

[Probably about August 344.]

277:1580

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

277:1581

Apol. Ar. 51.

277:1582

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

277:1583

Apol. Const. 3.

277:1584

At Ariminum.

277:1585

Apol. Ar. 54; Apol. Const. 5.

277:1586

Below, §44.

277:1587

Vid. Apol. contr. Arian. §54.

277:1588

Ib. §55.

278:1589

Or Acta Publica, vid. supr. Ap. Ar. 56.

278:1590

Another translation, Apol. Const. 23.

278:1591

Apol. Ar. 57.

278:1592

Oct. 21, 346.

278:1593

Apol. Ar. 53.

278:1594

1 Cor. vii. 5.

278:1595

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

278:1596

Paulinus, supr. pp. 130, 227.

278:1597

Vid. Apol. contr. Ar. §58.

278:1598

Ibid.

Part IV.

Second Arian Persecution under Constantius

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

29. Relapse of Ursacius and Valens.

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

30. Constantius changes sides again.

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

31. Constantius begins to persecute.

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

32. Persecution by Constantius.

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

33. Persecution is from the Devil.

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

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

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

Footnotes

279:1599

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

279:1600

Can. Ap. 17. but vid. Morin. de Pæn. p. 185.

279:1601

After Sardica, vid. Apol. Ar. 50, note 10.

279:1602

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

279:1603

Apol. Const. 19.

280:1604

[351 a.d.]

280:1605

[353 and 355.]

280:1606

De Syn. 12, note 11.

280:1607

Mark xiii. 9.

280:1608

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

281:1609

John xix. 15, and Orat. i. 8, note.

281:1610

ὅσον οὐδέπω, above, 13; Const. died Nov. 3, 361 aged 45.

281:1611

Jer. xvii. 11, LXX.

281:1612

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

281:1613

Vid. Ps. lxxiv. 6

281:1614

Matt. xvi. 24.

281:1615

Song of Sol. 5.2.

281:1616

1 Sam. xxvi. 9.

281:1617

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

281:1618

§26, and references there.

281:1619

διαταγῇ, cf. §36.

281:1620

Infr. §40, vid. Acts viii. 4; Phil. i. 13.

Part V.

Persecution and Lapse of Liberius

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

36. The Eunuch Eusebius attempts Liberius in vain.

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

37. Liberius refuses the Emperor’s offering.

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

38. The evil influence of Eunuchs at Court.

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

39. Liberius’s speech to Constantius.

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

40. Banishment of Liberius and others.

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

41. Lapse of Liberius.

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

Footnotes

282:1621

In contrast to date of his fall.

282:1622

τὴν μανίαν ἐξέτειναν; vid. ἐκτεῖναι τὴν μανίαν, §42. And so in the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo; which says that Dioscorus, κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀμπέλου τὴν φυλακὴν παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπιτετραμμένου τὴν μανίαν ἐξέτεινε, λέγομεν δὴ τῆς σῆς ὁσιότητος. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 656. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.]

282:1623

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

282:1624

At Alexandria.

282:1625

At Sardica.

282:1626

Vid. Apol. Ar. 29.

282:1627

παράδοσις, vid. §14.

282:1628

Apol. Ar. §35.

282:1629

τῶν ἀποστόλων διάταξις, cf. §34.

282:1630

Vid. Pallavicin. Conc. Trid. vi. 7. Sarpi. Hist. ii. 37.

283:1631

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

283:1632

Vid. Gibbon, Hist. ch. 19 init.

283:1633

Ostia, vid. Gibbon, Hist. ch. 31, p. 303.

283:1634

Acts viii. 27.

283:1635

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

283:1636

Can. Nic. 1.

283:1637

[356 a.d.]

284:1638

Cf. §34.

284:1639

Acts ix. 5.

284:1640

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

284:1641

Cf. infr. §60.

284:1642

§64 [a.d. 355].

284:1643

Cf. §47.

284:1644

2 Kings vi. 16.

284:1645

Cf. §34.

284:1646

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

284:1647

Isa. l. 6.

Part VI.

Persecution and Lapse of Hosius

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

43. Brave resistance of Hosius.

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

44. ‘Hosius to Constantius the Emperor sends health in the Lord.’

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

45. Lapse of Hosius, due to cruel persecution.

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

46. Arbitrary expulsion of so many bishops.

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

Footnotes

285:1648

ἐκτεῖναι τὴν μανίαν

285:1649

Ap. Fug. 5.

285:1650

Under Maximian.

285:1651

Luke xviii. 2.

285:1652

Of Nicæa and Sardica (Ap. Fug. 5).

285:1653

i.e. two years before his fall.

285:1654

Transferred by copyists hither.

285:1655

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

285:1656

Cf. §22.

286:1657

Apol. Const. 5.

286:1658

Apol. Ar. 58.

286:1659

§29.

286:1660

Matt. xxii. 21.

286:1661

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

286:1662

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

286:1663

ὁ ἀληθῶς ῞Οσιος. κατάσκοποι, οὐ γὰρ ἐπίσκοποι, supr. §3. infr. §§48, 76 fin. and so ἀληθῶς Εὐσέβιε, Theod. Hist. i. 4. ᾽Ονήσιμον, τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ εὔχρηστον, Philem. 10. De Syn. 26, note 6.

286:1664

Dan. vi. 5.

287:1665

§§9, 30, 54.

287:1666

οὔτε τὸν Θεὸν φοβηβεὶς ὁ ἄθεος, οὔτε τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν διάθεσιν αἰδεσθεὶς ὁ ἀνόσιος, οὔτε τὸ γῆρας αἰσχυνθεὶς ὁ ἄστοργος.

287:1667

Ez. xi. 13.

287:1668

Jer. v. 30; ii. 12.

287:1669

Cf. §15.

287:1670

Vid. in Apol. contr. Ar. and ad Const.

Part VII.

Persecution at Alexandria

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

48. Attacks upon the Alexandrian Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53. Despotic interference of Constantius.

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

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

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

55. Irruption into the great Church.

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

56. The great Church pillaged.

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

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

58. General Persecution at Alexandria.

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

59. Violence of Sebastianus.

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

60. Martyrdom of Eutychius.

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

61. Ill-treatment of the poor.

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

62. Ill-treatment of the poor.

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

63. Ill-treatment of the Presbyters and Deacons.

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

Footnotes

288:1671

Ap. Const. 22, 24, below, §81.

288:1672

§31, &c.

288:1673

Is. xxvi. 20.

288:1674

κατασκόπου, οὐκ ἐπίσκοπος, vid. §45, note 6.

288:1675

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

288:1676

Apol. Ar. 87.

288:1677

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

288:1678

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

288:1679

De Morte Arii 3, &c.

288:1680

Encycl. 2; Apol. Ar. 36.

289:1681

§7, note 1.

289:1682

The amanuensis here appears to speak for himself: but the Benedictines, with great probability, conjecture τότε καὶ for αὐτός τε καί.

289:1683

Ecclesiasticus 7.5 [Apol. Const. 2].

289:1684

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

289:1685

οἷς ἂν ἐθέλωσι, and just before ὧν ἂν ἐθέλοι. [And more strikingly just below, §53 fin. ἃ θέλουσι πράττει, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ἅπερ ἤθελεν ἤκουσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν.] This is a very familiar phrase with Athan. i.e. ὡς ἐθέλησεν, ἅπερ ἐθέλησαν, ὅταν θέλωσιν, οὒς ἐθέλησαν, &c. &c. Some instances are given supr. Apol. Ar. 2, note 3, and de Syn. 13, note 6.

290:1686

Cf. §§31, 63, note 6.

290:1687

Encycl. §5.

290:1688

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

290:1689

τῶν ἐργασιῶν,—trades, or workmen. vid. supr. Apol. Ar. 15. Montfaucon has a note upon the word in the Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxvi. where he corrects his Latin in loc. of the former passage very nearly in conformity to the rendering given of it above, p. 108. ‘In Onomastico monuimus, hic ἐργασίας “officinarum operas” commodius exprimere.’ And he quotes an inscription [C.I.G. i. 3924] τοῦτο τὸ ἡρῶον στεφανοι ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφέων.

290:1690

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

290:1691

Catholicus, ib. 10, note 4.

290:1692

τῶν ἀγοραίων, vid. Acts xvii. 5. ἀγορὰ has been used just above. vid. Suicer. Thesaur. in voc.

291:1693

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

291:1694

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

291:1695

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

291:1696

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

291:1697

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

291:1698

1 Sam. 5:0, 1 Sam. 6:0.

291:1699

Acts i. 18.

291:1700

[μετὰ θαλλῶν; φαλλῶν ‘pro vera lectione probabiliter haberi posse arbitror.’ Montf. Coll. Nov. t. ii.]

291:1701

ἀγοραῖον, see §§55, note 11, above.

291:1702

Cf. Ep. Æg. 17, and §31, note 8.

291:1703

Vid. Socr. Hist. iv. 13.

291:1704

Apol. Fug. 6.

292:1705

Cf. §55.

292:1706

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

292:1707

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

292:1708

Prov. xii. 10.

292:1709

῾Ερμείαν λούοντα τοὺς ἀνεξόδους, Inauspicato verterat Hermantius, ‘qui angiportos non pervios lavabat;’ Montfaucon, Coll. Nov. t. 2. p. xliii. who translates as above, yet not satisfactorily, especially as there is no article before λούοντα. Tillemont says, ‘qui avait “quelle charge” dans la police de la ville,’ understanding by ἀνέξοδοι, ‘inclusi sive incarcerati homines;’ whereas they are ‘ii qui ἀνὰ τὰς ἐξόδους in exitibus viarum, stipem cogunt.’ Montf. ibid. For the custom of washing the feet vid. Bingh. Antiqu. xii. 4. §10.

292:1710

Cf. §38.

293:1711

Luke xii. 33; Matt. 25:35, 40.

293:1712

Cf. §81.

293:1713

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

293:1714

Joh. ix.; Matt. ix. 3.

293:1715

Vid. de Decr. §1.

293:1716

Cf. note on Orat. i. §8.

293:1717

§59.

293:1718

στρατηγοῦ, infr. §81, note.

293:1719

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

293:1720

ἀσεβήματα

293:1721

p. 227, note 8, infr. §73.

Part VIII.

Persecution in Egypt.

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

65. Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.

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

66. Persecution the weapon of Arianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

70. Inconstancy of Constantius.

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

71. This wickedness unprecedented.

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

72. Banishment of Egyptian Bishops.

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

73. Character of Arian nominees.

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

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

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

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

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

76. Tyrannous banishment of Bishops by Constantius.

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

77. Constantius the precursor of Antichrist.

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

78. Alliance of Meletians with Arians.

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

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

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

80. Duty of separating from heretics.

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

81. The Second Protest 1806 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

293:1722

§§20, 29.

294:1723

[303 a.d.]

294:1724

Prov. xxx. 15.

294:1725

περιέρχεται, 1 Pet. v. 8. supr. §20, and ad Adelph. §2 fin.

294:1726

Ep. Æg. 7.

294:1727

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

294:1728

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

294:1729

Encyc. 4.

294:1730

Apol. Ar. 59.

294:1731

§45.

294:1732

Apol. Ar. 23.

294:1733

1 Tim. i. 4.

294:1734

Cf. §31.

295:1735

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

295:1736

Matt. xvi. 24.

295:1737

John vi. 67.

295:1738

Cf. De Syn. 5, note 10.

295:1739

1 Sam. xxii. 18, LXX.

295:1740

Apol. Ar. 23.

295:1741

1 Kings xxi. 20.

295:1742

A quotation from Homer, Od. xii. 118.

295:1743

Matt. xxvii. 24.

296:1744

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

296:1745

Cf. §60, note 6.

296:1746

Prov. xxix. 12.

296:1747

Cf. §51.

296:1748

Prov. vii. 22, LXX.

296:1749

Apol. Const. 27.

296:1750

§54.

296:1751

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

296:1752

§67, note 8.

296:1753

Cf. §3.

296:1754

Wisd. ii. 21.

297:1755

Cf. Dep. Ar.

297:1756

Cf. Ap. Fug. 7.

297:1757

Ap. Fug. 6.

297:1758

Ib. 7.

297:1759

Vid. Hallier, de Ordin. part 2. i. 1, art. 2.

297:1760

διγυναίοις, not διγάμοις. On the latter, vid. Suicer, Thess. in voc. διγαμία. Tertull. de Monogam.

297:1761

Prov. xxviii. 28, LXX.

298:1762

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

298:1763

Ap. Const. 14, supr. §55.

298:1764

Dan. vii. 25.

298:1765

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

298:1766

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

298:1767

Ep. Æg. 7.

298:1768

Encycl. 2.

298:1769

Cf. de Syn. §§1, 8, and Ep. Æg. 7.

298:1770

Cf. supr. §56, note 8.

298:1771

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

298:1772

The Greek is ᾽Επικτητόν τινα…νεώτερον…ἠγάπησεν, ὁρῶν, κ. τ. λ. So in the account of the νεανίσκος, ῾Ο δὲ ᾽Ιησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ, ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν. Mark x. 21.

298:1773

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

298:1774

§48, note 5.

298:1775

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

298:1776

Cf. Theod. Hist. ii. 17.

298:1777

§§44, 52.

299:1778

Cf. Apol. Ar. 58.

299:1779

§33.

299:1780

Dan. ix. 27.

299:1781

2 Thess. ii. 8.

299:1782

Prov. xxiii. 32.

299:1783

2 Thess. ii. 3.

299:1784

De Syn. 5, note 10.

299:1785

Cf. Titus 1:13, Titus 2:2.

299:1786

Cf. Ap. Ar. 56.

299:1787

Ib. 59, Ep. Æg. 22.

300:1788

Cf. Eph. iv. 14

300:1789

Ap. Ar. 59, 63.

300:1790

Cf. James ii. 7

300:1791

Cf. Apol. Ar. 52.

300:1792

Ctr. Gal. iv. 19

300:1793

Joel ii. 17.

300:1794

ἀνόμων, Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 8

300:1795

de Decr. 1, note 3.

300:1796

1 Cor. xv. 32.

300:1797

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

300:1798

Apol. Ar. 58.

300:1799

Cf. Rom. iv. 20

300:1800

Isa. i. 6.

301:1801

Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4.

301:1802

Is. lii. 11.

301:1803

[A somewhat characteristic phrase of Athanasius.]

301:1804

Ps. xliv. 20.

301:1805

Ep. Æg. 13 note 1.

301:1806

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

301:1807

Ap. Ar. 73, note.

301:1808

i.e. Prætorian.

301:1809

Febr. 9.

301:1810

Ap. Const. 25; Ap. Fug. 24.

301:1811

Friday vid. Encyc. 4, note 9.

301:1812

i.e. more than 5,000, Ap. Fug. 24.

302:1813

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

302:1814

302:1815

τὸν τῆς τάξεως, supr. §61, στρατιώτου

302:1816

Apol. Ar. 38.

302:1817

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

302:1818

Lollianus.

302:1819

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

Introduction to Four Discourses Against the Arians.

————————————

Written Between 356 And 360.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents of the Four Discourses.

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

Orat. i. 1–4. Introductory.

i. 5–7. a. The Arian doctrine as represented in the ‘Thalia.’

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

General Subject of the Discourses: The Sonship of Christ.

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

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

i. 17–21. (3) The true Sonship.

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

i. 30–34. (4) On the term ἀγένητος

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

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

i. 37–64. Texts bearing on the exaltation of the Son (viz. Phil. 2:9, Ps. 45:7, 8, Heb. 1:4).

(Excursus B. On the Arian formula πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν.)

ii. 1–82. b. Texts bearing on the ‘creation’ of the Son (viz. Heb. 3:2, Acts 2:36, Prov. 8:22; the latter occupying §§18–82).

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

iii. 26–58. d. Texts bearing more directly on the Incarnation (Matt. 28:18, John 3:35, Mark 13:32, Luke 2:52, human knowledge, &c., of Christ, §§42–53; Matt. xxvi. 39, &c.).

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

Footnotes

303:1820

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

Four Discourses Against the Arians.

Discourse I.

————————————

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

306:1821

ἐπινοήσασαι. This is almost a technical word, and has occurred again and again already, as descriptive of heretical teaching in opposition to the received traditionary doctrine. It is also found passim in other writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against Apollinaris; ‘for not originating, ἐπινοήσαντες, any novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.’ Hist. iii. 7. The sense of the word ἐπίνοια which will come into consideration below, is akin to this, being the view taken by the mind of an object independent of (whether or not correspondent to) the object itself. [But see Bigg. B. L. p. 168, sq.]

306:1822

τὸ γὰρ ἐξελθεῖν…δῆλον ἂν εἴη, i.e. τῷ and so infr. §43. τὸ δὲ καὶ προσκυνεῖσθαι…δῆλον ἂν εἴη.

306:1823

de Syn. 5.

306:1824

Vid. infr. §4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Præscr. 42, who warns Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of isolated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church. vid. also Vincentius, who specifies obiter Sabellius and Novation. Commonit. 2. Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies on this point, as in these two respects; (1.) they appealed to a secret tradition, unknown even to most of the Apostles, as the Gnostics, Iren. Hær. iii. 1 or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, de Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Orat. ii. §18. c. Epiph. Hær. 69. 15. Or rather they took some words of Scripture, and made their own deductions from them; viz. ‘Son,’ ‘made,’ ‘exalted,’ &c. ‘Making their private irreligiousness as if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it.’ Orat. i. §52. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their θρυλληταὶ φωναὶ, λέξεις, ἔπη, ῥητὰ, sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text. e.g. infr., §22, ‘amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about,’ &c. Also ἄνω καὶ κάτω περιφέροντες, de Decr. §13. τῷ ῥ& 208·τῳ τεθρυλλήκασι τὰ πανταχοῦ. Orat. 2. §18. τὸ πολυθρύλλητον σόφισμα, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 14. τὴν πολυθρύλλητον διαλεκτικήν, Nyssen. contr. Eun. iii. p. 125. τὴν θρυλλουμένην ἀποῤ& 191·οήν, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. τὴν πολυθρύλλητον φώνην, Socr. ii. 43.

306:1825

Job xli. 13 (v. 4. LXX).

306:1826

These Orations and Discourses seem written to shew the vital importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian character of the heresy, without reference to the word ὁμοούσιον. He has [elsewhere] insisted that the enforcement of the symbol was but the rejection of the heresy, and accordingly he is here content to bring out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, if persons understood and embraced it, they would not scruple at the word. He seems to allude to what may be called the liberal or indifferent feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. §7 fin. §9. §10 init. §15 fin. §17. §21. §23. He mentions in Apollin. i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says, it was ‘fearful to mention.’ S. Augustine tells us that this man taught that ‘all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth,’ ‘which,’ he adds, ‘is so absurd as to seem to me incredible.’ Hær 72. vid. also Philastr. Hær. 91.

306:1827

de Decr. §§2, 24, 27.

307:1828

de Syn. §1.

307:1829

Vid. Hil. de Trin. viii. 28; Rom. i. 25.

307:1830

He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians; vid. however next §. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title as applied to Catholics, and again to heretics, when they are taken by Catholics as a note against them. S. Augustine says, ‘Arians call Catholics Athanasians or Homoüsians, not other heretics too. But ye not only by Catholics but also by heretics, those who agree with you and those who disagree, are called Pelagians; as even by heresies are Arians called Arians. But ye, and ye only, call us Traducianists, as Arians call us Homoüsians, as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees Pharisees, and as the other heretics use various titles.’ Op. imp. i. 75. It may be added that the heretical name adheres, the Catholic dies away. S. Chrysostom draws a second distinction, ‘Are we divided from the Church? have we heresiarchs? are we called from man? is there any leader to us, as to one there is Marcion, to another Manichæus, to another Arius, to another some other author of heresy? for if we too have the name of any, still it is not those who began the heresy, but our superiors and governors of the Church. We have not “teachers upon earth,”’ &c. in Act. Ap. Hom. 33 fin.

307:1831

Vid. foregoing note. Also, ‘Let us become His disciples, and learn to live according to Christianity; for whoso is called by other name besides this, is not of God.’ Ignat. ad Magn. 10. Hegesippus speaks of ‘Menandrians, and Marcionites, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians,’ who ‘each in his own way and that a different one brought in his own doctrine.’ Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. ‘There are, and there have been, my friends, many who have taught atheistic and blasphemous words and deeds, coming in the name of Jesus; and they are called by us from the appellation of the men, whence each doctrine and opinion began.…Some are called Marcians, others Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Saturnilians,’ &c. Justin. Tryph. 35. Iren. Hær. i. 23. ‘When men are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or by any other name, they cease to be Christians; for they have lost Christ’s Name, and clothe themselves in human and foreign titles.’ Lact. Inst. iv. 30. ‘A. How are you a Christian, to whom it is not even granted to bear the name of Christian? for you are not called Christian but Marcionite. M. And you are called of the Catholic Church; therefore ye are not Christians either. A. Did we profess man’s name, you would have spoken to the point; but if we are called from being all over the world, what is there bad in this?’ Adamant. Dial. §1, p. 809. Epiph. Hær. 42. p. 366. ibid. 70. 15. vid. also Hær. 75. 6 fin. Cyril Cat. xviii. 26. ‘Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.’ Pacian. Ep. 1. ‘If you ever hear those who are called Christians, named, not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some one else, say Marcionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers, Campestrians, know that it is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist.’ Jerom. adv. Lucif. fin.

307:1832

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

308:1833

de Syn. 13, note 4. Manes also was called mad; ‘Thou must hate all heretics, but especially him who even in name is a maniac.’ Cyril. Catech. vi. 20, vid. also ibid. 24 fin.—a play upon the name, vid. de Syn. 26, ‘Scotinus.’

308:1834

Vid. Ecclesiasticus 4.24.

308:1835

It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of Arius. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §2.] Epiphanius’s account of Arius is as follows:—‘From elation of mind the old man swerved from the mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with manners like wily serpent, captivating to every guileless heart by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited in cloke and vest, he was pleasant of address, ever persuading souls and flattering; wherefore what was his very first work but to withdraw from the Church in one body as many as seven hundred women who professed virginity.?’ Hær. 69. 3, cf. ib. §9 for a strange description of Arius attributed to Constantine, also printed in the collections of councils: Hard. i. 457.

308:1836

John x. 30.

308:1837

§1, note 4.

308:1838

And so godless or atheist Aetius, de Syn. 6, note 3, cf. note on de Decr. 1, for an explanation of the word. In like manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says ‘that the Son is a creature, who is word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,’ he falls under the text, ‘Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.’ ‘Such a one,’ he continues, ‘will in no long time say, as the fool, There is no God.’ In like manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit as ‘without (ἔξω) the Holy Trinity, and atheists’ (Serap. iv. 6), because they really do not believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Serap. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as ἀνθρώπους ἀθέους, who were attempting κρατῆσαι τοῦ θείου. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen πολύθεος ἀθεΐα. Orat. 25. 15. and he calls faith and regeneration ‘a denial of atheism, ἀθεΐας, and a confession of godhead, θεότητος,’ Orat. 23. 12. He calls Lucius, the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruelties, ‘this second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, τῆς ἀθέου πηγῆς.’ Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is ἀνὴρ ἄθεος. ibid. 12.

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

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

‘According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones,

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

Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,

Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

308:1839

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

309:1840

de Syn. §18; Joel ii. 25.

309:1841

Ps. xxiv. 10.

309:1842

de Syn. 26, note 7, de Decr. 6, note 8.

309:1843

Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. κατάληψις was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ἴδεαι, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none ‘knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if κατάληψις be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the περιχώρησις, de Syn. 15, ἀνεπιμικτοί, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,’ so the Son, as being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ alone ‘hath declared Him.’ vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, ’If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour.” Orat. iii. 44.

309:1844

de Decr. 25, note 2.

309:1845

de Syn. 15.

309:1846

Ep. Encycl. 6; Epiph. Hær. 73. 1.

309:1847

Jer. ii. 12.

310:1848

Hos. vii. 13.

310:1849

Hos. 7.15. lxx.

310:1850

de Decr. 27, note 1.

310:1851

Ib. 3, note 1, §1, note 3.

310:1852

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

310:1853

de Syn. 33.

310:1854

Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judæis. ibid. xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord’s nativity, circumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. xxxii. 6.

310:1855

de Decr. 1, note 6.

310:1856

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

310:1857

Joh. xix. 15.

310:1858

de Decr. 7, note 2.

310:1859

δωροδόκοι, and so κέρδος τῆς φιλοχρηματίας, infr. §53. He mentions προστασίας φίλων, §10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10. And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa cædit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod H. E. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of φιλοχρύσους μᾶλλον ἢ φιλοχρίστους. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Æg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c. (2).]

310:1860

de Syn. §3 and 9.

310:1861

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

310:1862

Ib. 4, note 8.

310:1863

1 Tim. 4:1, 2; Tit. i. 14.

311:1864

This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. Hær. i. 25; Epiph. Hær. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Hær. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xx. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Hær. ii. præf. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901. Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Quæst. 22. vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, cf. Depos. Ar. supr. p. 71, note 29.

311:1865

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

311:1866

Ps. lxxxii. 6.

311:1867

de Decr. §14 fin.; de Syn. §51.

311:1868

John xiv. 9.

311:1869

de Decr. 15, note 6.

311:1870

That is, ‘Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to predicate that of God (of one who is God), for such is the Word, viz. that He was from eternity or was created,’ &c., &c.

311:1871

κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, vid. Orat. ii. §38.

311:1872

Rom. ix. 5.

311:1873

Prov. ix. 18. LXX.

311:1874

de Decr. 6. note 5; de Syn. 32.

311:1875

de Decr. 26, note 6.

312:1876

Job xviii. 5.

312:1877

Ep. Æg. 18.

312:1878

§8, note 5.

312:1879

Matt. iii. 17.

312:1880

de Decr. 2, note 6.

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

312:1881

Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word ‘time.’ vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,—‘There was,’ what ‘when the Son was not?’ or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is who was ‘when’ He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who ‘was’ before the Son? This was true, if ‘before’ was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John’s Gospel may be interpreted ‘In the Beginning,’ or Origin, i.e. in the Father ‘was the Word.’ Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

312:1882

Ps. ii. 1.

312:1883

John i. 1.

312:1884

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

312:1885

Rom. ix. 5.

312:1886

Rom. 1.20.

312:1887

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

312:1888

2 Cor. 3:16, 17. S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 4–7, that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply ‘Spirit’ without the addition ‘of God’ or ‘of the Father’ or ‘from Me’ or of the article, or of ‘Holy,’ or ‘Comforter,’ or ‘of truth,’ or unless He has been spoken of just before. Accordingly this text is understood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr. Cels. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 32; Pseudo-Athan. de comm. ess. 6. On the other hand, the word πνεῦμα, ‘Spirit, is used more or less distinctly for our Lord’s Divine Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rom. 1:4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63, &c. [But cf. also Milligan Resurr. 238 sq.] Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the ‘Holy Spirit,’ which came down upon S. Mary might be considered the Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, ‘If the Spirit of God did not descend into the womb “to partake in flesh from the womb,” why did He descend at all?’ de Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 26, Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren. Hær. v. 1. Cypr. Idol Van. 6. Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. ii. 27; Athan. λόγος ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἔπλαττε τὸ σῶμα. Serap. i. 31 fin. ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἦν τὸ πνεῦμα ibid. iii. 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, αὐτὸν ἀντὶ σπορᾶς συλλαβοῦσα τὸν λόγον, κεκύηκε, t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even though his date were a.d. 150), who also says plainly: Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est. Sim. v. 5, 2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of ‘Spirit’ for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Græc. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren. Hær. iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3, and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severian. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot. ad Marc. ii. 8; Bull, Def. F. N. i. 2, §5; Coustant. Præf. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init.]

313:1889

Col. i. 17.

313:1890

Vid. contr. Gent. 45–47.

313:1891

Matt. xi. 27.

313:1892

John 14:8, 9.

313:1893

Rom. i. 20.

313:1894

Heb. i. 2.

313:1895

Is. xl. 28.

313:1896

Hist. Sus. 42.

313:1897

Bar. 4:20, 22.

313:1898

Heb. i. 3.

313:1899

Ps. xc. 17; xxxvi. 9.

313:1900

de Decr. 12, 27.

313:1901

Ps. cxlv. 13.

313:1902

Vid. de Decr. 18, note 5. The subject is treated at length in Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 93–101. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8–11. As time measures the material creation, ‘ages’ were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timæus says εἰκών ἐστι χρόνος τῷ ἀγεννάτῳ χρόνῳ, ὃν αἰωνα ποταγορεύομες. vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. 1 prope fin., p. 501. Naz. Or. 38. 8.

313:1903

John xiv. 6; x. 14; viii. 12; xiii. 13

313:1904

Gen. ii. 5.

313:1905

Deut. xxxii. 8.

314:1906

John 14:28, 29.

314:1907

Prov. viii. 23.

314:1908

John viii. 58.

314:1909

Jer. i. 5.

314:1910

Ps. xc. 2.

314:1911

Hist. Sus. 42.

314:1912

de Decr. 23, note 4.

314:1913

John i. 3.

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

314:1914

This was an objection urged by Eunomius, cf. de Syn. 51, note 8. It is implied also in the Apology of the former, §24, and in Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alexandria with George of Cappadocia, a.d. 356–8, and Athan. wrote these Discourses in the latter year, as the de Syn. at the end of the next. It is probable then that he is alluding to the Anomœan arguments as he heard them reported, vid. de Syn. l.c. where he says, ‘they say, “as you have written,”’ §51. ᾽Ανόμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are ἀδελφοὶ, so did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third. vid. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2.

314:1915

Prov. xviii. 1.

314:1916

Vid. de Syn. §51.

314:1917

In other words, by the Divine γεννησις is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in the Divine Essence. Arius. not admitting this, objected at the outset of the controversy to the phrase ‘always Father, always Son,’ Theod. H. E. i. 4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, ‘if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never such in act, ἐνεργὸς, but was ἀργός.’ Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that ‘works,’ ἔργα, are made ἔξωθεν, ‘from without;’ but that our Lord, as S. Athanasius here says, is neither a ‘work’ nor ‘from without.’ And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are fathers first in posse then in act, God is δυνάμει τε καὶ ἐνεργεί& 139· πατήρ. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in æterna, Adv. Ar. i. p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And Arius scoffs at ἀειγεννής and ἀγεννητογενής. Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had said, ὁ σωτὴρ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, ἄναρχὸν καὶ ἀειγενές. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav. de Trin. ii. 5. n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara, ‘Since the Son’s generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (κυρίως) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is itself an end, τέλος, and is perfect, τέλειον.’ Opusc 26.

314:1918

de Decr. 22, note 9.

315:1919

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

315:1920

Vid. supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the objection; the Arians said, ‘How can God be ever perfect, who added to Himself a Son?’ Athan. answers, ‘How can the Son not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?’ vid. Greg. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the Son’s perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph. Hær. 76. pp. 925, 6, that growth and consequent accession from without were essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not ἀτελῆ πρότερον, εἶτα τέλειον, ὥσπερ νόμος τῆς ἡμετέρας γενέσεως, Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is τέλειος, because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a χαρακτὴρ, or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him perfect, without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16 fin.

315:1921

de Decr. 12, 15.

315:1922

Ib. 22, note 1, infr. §19.

315:1923

De Decr. §§10, 11.

315:1924

Infr. §23.

315:1925

De Syn. §45, 51.

315:1926

Nic. Def. 9, note 4.

315:1927

Matt. iii. 17.

315:1928

Here is taught us the strict unity of the Divine Essence. When it is said that the First Person of the Holy Trinity communicates divinity to the Second, it is meant that that one Essence which is the Father, also is the Son. Hence the force of the word ὁμοούσιον, which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was distinguished from it by the particle ὁμοῦ, ‘together,’ which implied a difference as well as unity; whereas ταὐτοούσιον or συνούσιον implied, with the Sabellians, an identity or a confusion. The Arians, on the other hand, as in the instance of Eusebius, &c., supr. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 26, note 3; considered the Father and the Son two οὐσίαι. The Catholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Essence is both the Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not itself ἀγέννητος or γεννητή; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph. Hær. 76. 10. Cf. de Decr. §30, Orat. iii. §36 fin., Expos. Fid. 2. vid. de Syn. 45, note 1. ‘Vera et æterna substantia in se tota permanens, totam se coæternæ veritati nativitatis indulsit.’ Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, ‘Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis naturæ perfectam nativitatem.’ Trin. vii. 31.

316:1929

De Decr. §31.

316:1930

2 Pet. i. 4.

316:1931

1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16.

316:1932

ἔννοια, vid. de Syn. §48 fin.

316:1933

de Decr. 17, 24.

316:1934

John x. 30.

316:1935

de Decr. 1, note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

316:1936

de Decr. 25, note 2.

316:1937

Vid. Orat. iv. §13.

316:1938

§8, note 8.

317:1939

De Decr. §31.

317:1940

Jer. ii. 13.

317:1941

Jer. 17:12, 13.

317:1942

Bar. iii. 12.

317:1943

John xiv. 6.

317:1944

Prov. viii. 12.

317:1945

Supr. §15.

317:1946

Isa. lviii. 11.

317:1947

Ps. civ. 24.

317:1948

Prov. iii. 19.

317:1949

John i. 3. See Westcott’s additional note on the passage.]

317:1950

1 Cor. viii. 6.

317:1951

Vid. Petav. de Trin. ii. 12, §4.

317:1952

De Decr. §30.

317:1953

De Decr. §17.

317:1954

ἄλογον. Vid. note on de Decr. §§1, 15, where other instances are given from Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; vid. also Orat. iv. 2, 4. Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Græc. 5. Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 10. Hipp. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat, Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145 (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 9). It must not be supposed from these instances that the Fathers meant that our Lord was literally what is called the attribute of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence, or in other words, that He was God merely viewed as He is wise; which would be a kind of Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute (vid. de Syn. 15, note), they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in nature with it, that whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son;—that the attribute was His symbol, and not His mere archetype; that our Lord was eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was, which was His title, vid. Ep. Æg. 14, that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom,—not by which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not wise;—not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but in fact. Or, whereas the Father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the necessary result of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a radiance implies a light; or, as Petavius remarks, l.c. quoting the words which follow shortly after in the text, the eternity of the Original implies the eternity of the Image; τῆς ὑποστάσεως ὑπαρχούσης, πάντως εὐθὺς εἶναι δεῖ τὸν χαρακτῆρα καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ταύτης, §20. vid. also infr. §31, de Decr. §13, p. 21, §§20, 23, pp. 35, 40. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 737.

318:1955

This was but the opposite aspect of the tenet of our Lord’s consubstantiality or eternal generation. For if He came into being at the will of God, by the same will He might cease to be; but if His existence is unconditional and necessary, as God’s attributes might be, then as He had no beginning, so can He have no end; for He is in, and one with, the Father, who has neither beginning nor end. On the question of the ‘will of God’ as it affects the doctrine, vid. Orat. iii. §59, &c.

318:1956

§29, note.

318:1957

De Decr. 22, note 9.

318:1958

John xiv. 6.

318:1959

Athan. argues from the very name Image for our Lord’s eternity. An Image, to be really such, must be an expression from the Original, not an external and detached imitation. vid. supr. note 10, infr. §26. Hence S. Basil, ‘He is an Image not made with the hand, or a work of art, but a living Image,’ &c. vid. also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. Epiph. Hær. 76. 3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on the contrary, is an example of an external or improper image of God. Periarch. i. 2. §6. It might have been more direct to have argued from the name of Image to our Lord’s consubstantiality rather than eternity, as, e.g. S. Gregory Naz. ‘He is Image as one in essence, ὁμοούσιον,…for this is the nature of an image, to be a copy of the archetype.’ Orat. 30. 20. vid. also de Decr. §§20, 23, but for whatever reason Athan. avoids the word ὁμοούσιον in these Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15.

318:1960

Prov. viii. 30.

318:1961

John xiv. 9.

318:1962

ὁμοίας οὐσίας. And so §20 init. ὅμοιον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, and ὅμοιος τῆς οὐσίας, §26. ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, iii. 26. and ὅμοιος κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρός. Ep. Æg. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. Considering what he says in the de Syn. §38, &c., in controversy with the semi-Arians a year or two later, this use of their formula, in preference to the ὁμοούσιον (vid. foregoing note), deserves our attention.

318:1963

De Decr. §16.

318:1964

De Syn. 27 (5) note 1, and infr. §40.

319:1965

The objection is this, that, if our Lord be the Father’s Image, He ought to resemble Him in being a Father. S. Athanasius answers that God is not as man; with us a son becomes a father because our nature is ῥευστὴ, transitive and without stay, ever shifting and passing on into new forms and relations; but that God is perfect and ever the same, what He is once that He continues to be; God the Father remains Father, and God the Son remains Son. Moreover men become fathers by detachment and transmission, and what is received is handed on in a succession; whereas the Father, by imparting Himself wholly, begets the Son: and a perfect nativity finds its termination in itself. The Son has not a Son, because the Father has not a Father. Thus the Father is the only true Father, and the Son alone true Son; the Father only a Father, the Son only a Son; being really in their Persons what human fathers are but by office, character, accident, and name; vid. De Decr. 11, note 6. And since the Father is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the Son more fulfil the idea of a perfect Image than in being unchangeable too. Thus S. Cyril also, Thesaur. 10. p. 124. And this perhaps may illustrate a strong and almost startling implication of some of the Greek Fathers, that the First Person in the Holy Trinity, is not God [in virtue of His Fatherhood]. E.g. εἰ δὲ θεὸς ὁ υἱ& 232·ς, οὐκ ἐπεὶ υἱ& 231·ς· ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, οὐκ ἐπεὶ πατὴρ, θεός· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὐσία τοιάδε, εἷς ἐστὶ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱ& 232·ς θεός. Nyssen. t. i. p. 915. vid. Petav. de Deo i. 9. §13. Should it be asked, ‘What is the Father if not God?’ it is enough to answer, ‘the Father.’ Men differ from each other as being individuals, but the characteristic difference between Father and Son is, not that they are individuals, but that they are Father and Son. In these extreme statements it must be ever borne in mind that we are contemplating divine things according to our notions. not in fact: i.e. speaking of the Almighty Father, as such; there being no real separation between His Person and His Substance. It may be added, that, though theologians differ in their decisions, it would appear that our Lord is not the Image of the Father’s person, but of the Father’s substance; in other words, not of the Father considered as Father, but considered as God. That is, God the Son is like and equal to God the Father, because they are both the same God. De Syn. 49. note 4, also next note.

319:1966

Ep. Eus. 7, de Decr. 11, note 8.

319:1967

κυρίως, de Decr. 11, note 6. Elsewhere Athan. says, ‘The Father being one and only is Father of a Son one and only; and in the instance of Godhead only have the names Father and Son stay, and are ever; for of men if any one be called father, yet he has been son of another; and if he be called son, yet is he called father of another; so that in the case of men the names father and son do not properly, κυρίως, hold.’ ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6. vid. also κυρίως, Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5. ἀληθῶς, Orat. 25, 16. ὄντως, Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

319:1968

This miserable procedure, of making sacred and mysterious subjects a matter of popular talk and debate, which is a sure mark of heresy, had received a great stimulus about this time by the rise of the Anomœans. Eusebius’s testimony to the profaneness which attended Arianism upon its rise will be given de Syn. 2, note 1. The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alexander speaks of the interference, even judicial, in its behalf against himself, of disobedient women, δι᾽ ἐντυχίας γυναικαρίων ἀτακτων ἃ ἠπάτησαν, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, ἐκ τοῦ περιτροχάζειν πᾶσαν ἀγυιὰν ἀσέμνως. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 730, also p. 747; also of the men’s buffoon conversation, p. 731. Socrates says that ‘in the Imperial Court, the officers of the bedchamber held disputes with the women, and in the city in every house there was a war of dialectics.’ Hist. ii. 2. This mania raged especially in Constantinople, and S. Gregory Naz. speaks of ‘Jezebels in as thick a crop as hemlock in a field.’ Orat. 35. 3, cf. de Syn. 13, n. 4. He speaks of the heretics as ‘aiming at one thing only, how to make good or refute points of argument,’ making ‘every market-place resound with their words, and spoiling every entertainment with their trifling and offensive talk.’ Orat. 27. 2. The most remarkable testimony of the kind though not concerning Constantinople, is given by S. Gregory Nyssen, and often quoted, ‘Men of yesterday and the day before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and slaves that have been flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn with us and philosophical about things incomprehensible.…With such the whole city is full; its smaller gates, forums, squares, thoroughfares; the clothes-venders, the money-lenders, the victuallers. Ask about pence, and he will discuss the Generate and Ingenerate; inquire the price of bread, he answers, Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject; say that a bath would suit you, and he defines that the Son is out of nothing.’ t. 2. p. 898.

320:1969

Matt. xii. 34.

320:1970

This objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. ὁ ὢν θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. Again, ὄντα γεγέννηκε ἢ οὐκ ὄντα. Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question πολυθρύλλητον, contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It will be seen to be but the Arian formula of ‘He was not before His generation,’ in another shape; being but this, that the very fact of His being begotten or a Son, implies a beginning, that is, a time when He was not: it being by the very force of the words absurd to say that ‘God begat Him that was,’ or to deny that ‘God begat Him that was not.’ For the symbol, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννήθῃ, vid. Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse.

320:1971

Rom. i. 23, and §2.

320:1972

De Decr. § 11, esp. note 6.

320:1973

De Decr. 31, note 5

320:1974

Eph. iii. 15.

321:1975

John i. 1.

321:1976

Heb. i. 3.

321:1977

Rom. ix. 5.

321:1978

Vid. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 17.

321:1979

This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S. Athanasius, ad Serap. i. 1. vid. ii. init. ad Epict. 13 fin. ad Max. init. contr. Apoll. i. init. ‘I must ask another question, bolder, yet with a religious intention; be propitious, O Lord, &c.’ Orat. iii. 63, cf. de Decr. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, de Syn. 51, note 4.

321:1980

De Decr. 25, note 2.

321:1981

John i. 14.

321:1982

ὄργανον, de Decr. 7, n. 6, de Syn. 27, note 11. This was alleged by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. i. 8. supr. Ep. Eus., and by the Anomœans, supr. de Decr. 7, note 1.

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

322:1983

Supr. de Decr. 6. The question was, What was that sense of Son which would apply to the Divine Nature? The Catholics said that its essential meaning could apply, viz. consubstantiality, whereas the point of posteriority to the Father depended on a condition, time, which could not exist in the instance of God. ib. 10. The Arians on the other hand said, that to suppose a true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as implying division, change, &c. The Catholics replied that the notion of materiality was quite as foreign from the Divine Essence as time, and as the Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it also clear both of imperfection or extension.

322:1984

It is from expressions such as this that the Greek Fathers have been accused of tritheism. The truth is, every illustration, as being incomplete on one or other side of it, taken by itself, tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. The truth, on the other hand, is a positive and comprehensive doctrine, and in consequence necessarily mysterious and open to misconception. vid. de Syn. 41, note 1. When Athan, implies that the Eternal Father is in the Son, though remaining what He is, as a man in his child, he is intent only upon the point of the Son’s connaturality and equality, which the Arians denied. Cf. Orat. iii. §5; Ps.-Ath. Dial. i. (Migne xxviii. 1144 C.). S. Cyril even seems to deny that each individual man may be considered a separate substance except as the Three Persons are such (Dial. i. p. 409); and S. Gregory Nyssen is led to say that, strictly speaking, the abstract man, which is predicated of separate individuals, is still one, and this with a view of illustrating the Divine Unity. ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449. vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9.

322:1985

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

322:1986

S. Athanasius’s doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself all perfection, whatever is excellent in one created thing above another, is found in its perfection in Him. If then such generation as radiance from light is more perfect than that of children from parents, that belongs, and transcendently, to the All-perfect God.

323:1987

This is a view familiar to the Fathers, viz. that in this consists our Lord’s Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S. Augustine says, Christum ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 120. 11. Cf. de Decr. §17. ‘If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring;’ Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. ‘The Word, the genuine Son of Mind;’ Clem. Protrept. p. 58. Petavius discusses this subject accurately with reference to the distinction between Divine Generation and Divine Procession. de Trin. vii. 14.

323:1988

Orat. iii. 67.

323:1989

Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause of their opposition to the Church; and if even Arius affected it, the plea may be expected in any other. ‘O stultos et impios metus,’ says S. Hilary, ‘et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.’ de Trin. iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in regard to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Acta Archelai [Routh. Rell. v. 169]. August. contr. Secund. 9, contr. Faust. xi. 3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence of reverence because, as they said, the soul was necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this their main argument, ὁ νοῦς ἁμαρτητικός ἐστι. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89; Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80. Athan., &c., call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichæan in consequence. vid. in Apoll. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, will not call our Lord man. Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, would call our Lord man, but refused to admit His human nature, and still with the same profession. Leon. Ep. 21. 1 fin. ‘Forbid it,’ he says at Constantinople, ‘that I should say that the Christ was of two natures, or should discuss the nature, φυσιολογεῖν, of my God.’ Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act. prima conc. Chalc. t. iv. 1001 ed. Col.] A modern argument for Universal Restitution takes a like form; ‘Do not we shrink from the notion of another’s being sentenced to eternal punishment; and are we more merciful than God?’ vid. Matt. 16:22, 23.

323:1990

Vid. Orat. iii. §59, &c.

323:1991

Rom. 11:34, Rom. 9:20Rom. xi. 34; ib. ix. 20.

323:1992

Athan.’s argument is as follows: that, as it is of the essence of a son to be ‘connatural’ with the father, so is it of the essence of a creature to be of ‘nothing,’ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων; therefore, while it was not impossible ‘from the nature of the case,’ for Almighty God to be always Father, it was impossible for the same reason that He should be always a Creator. vid. infr. §58: where he takes, ‘They shall perish,’ in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the definition of the nature of a creature. Also ii. §1, where he says, ‘It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων and οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ.’ vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra, Ep. Eus. 11 note 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

324:1993

The word ἀγγέν[ν]ητον was in the philosophical schools synonymous with ‘God;’ hence by asking whether there were two Unoriginates, the Arians implied that there were two Gods, if Christ was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, φάσκοντες, οὐ λέγομεν δύο ἀγένητα, λέγουσι δύο θεούς. Orat. iii. 16, also ii. 38. Plato used ἀγέννητον of the Supreme God [not so; he used ἀγένητον, see note 2 on de Decr. 28]; the Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph. Hær. 31. 10. S. Clement uses it, see de Syn. 47, note 7. [The earlier Arians apparently argued mainly, like Asterius, from ἀγένητος (cf. Epiph. 64. 8), the later (καινοί, Epiph. Hær. 73. 19) Anomœans rather from ἀγέννητος]; viz. that ἡ ἀγεννησία is the very οὐσία of God, not an attribute. So Aetius in Epiph. Hær. 76. S. Athanasius does not go into this question, but rather confines himself to the more popular form of it, viz. the Son is by His very name not ἀγένητος, but γενητὸς, but all γενητὰ are creatures; which he answers, as de Decr. §28, by saying that Christianity had brought in a new idea into theology, viz. the sacred doctrine of a true Son, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. This was what the Arians had originally denied ἓν τὸ ἀγέννητον ἓν δὲ τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀληθῶς, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γεγονός. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 6. When they were urged what according to them was the middle idea to which the Son answered, if they would not accept the Catholic, they would not define but merely said, γέννημα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὡς ἓν τῶν γεννημάτων. [See pp. 149, 169, and the reference there to Lightfoot.]

324:1994

De Decr. 18.

324:1995

1 Tim. i. 7.

324:1996

De Decr. 28, note 4.

324:1997

The two first senses here given answer to the two first mentioned, de Decr. §28. and, as he there says, are plainly irrelevant. The third in the de Decr. which, as he there observes, is ambiguous and used for a sophistical purpose, is here divided into third and fourth, answering to the two senses which alone are assigned in the de Syn. §46 [where see note 5], and on them the question turns. This is an instance, of which many occur, how Athan. used his former writings and worked over again his former ground, and simplified or cleared what he had said. In the de Decr. after 350, we have three senses of ἀγένητον, two irrelevant and the third ambiguous; here in Orat. i. (358), he divides the third into two; in the de Syn. (359), he rejects and omits the two first, leaving the two last, which are the critical senses.

325:1998

These two senses of ἀγέννητον unbegotten and unmade were afterwards [but see notes on de Decr. 28] expressed by the distinction of νν and ν, ἀγέννητον and ἀγένητον. vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien’s note.

325:1999

§20, note 5.

325:2000

De Syn. §18, infr. ii. 37.

325:2001

1 Cor. i. 24.

325:2002

Gal. v. 15.

325:2003

De Syn. 9, note 2.

325:2004

The passage which follows is written with his de Decr. before him. At first he but uses the same topics, but presently he incorporates into this Discourse an actual portion of his former work, with only such alterations as an author commonly makes in transcribing. This, which is not unfrequent with Athan., shews us the care with which he made his doctrinal statements, though they seem at first sight written off. It also accounts for the diffuseness and repetition which might be imputed to his composition, what seems superfluous being often only the insertion of an extract from a former work.

325:2005

De Syn. §47.

326:2006

John v. 23.

326:2007

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

326:2008

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

326:2009

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

326:2010

Luke xi. 2.

326:2011

De Syn. 28, note 5.

326:2012

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

326:2013

τρεπτὸς, not ‘changeable’ but of a moral nature capable of improvement. Arius maintained this in the strongest terms at starting. ‘On being asked whether the Word of God is capable of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, “Yea, He is capable.”’ Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11.

327:2014

Supr. §22. init.

327:2015

Heb. xiii. 8.

327:2016

Ps. cii. 26-28

327:2017

Deut. xxxii. 39; Mal. iii. 6.

327:2018

Heb. i. 12.

327:2019

§29, note.

327:2020

Nic. Def. 21. note 9.

327:2021

John xiv. 6.

327:2022

De Syn. §16 fin.

Chapter XI.—Texts Explained; And First, Phil. 2:9, 10 Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. 2:9, 10. Whether the words ‘Wherefore God hath highly exalted’ prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word ‘Son;’ which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of ‘highly exalted,’ and ‘gave,’ and ‘wherefore;’ viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord’s manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word’s ‘exaltation’ through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

327:2023

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

328:2024

Phil. 2:9, 10.

328:2025

Ps. xlv. 7.

328:2026

Of Nicomedia. vid. Theod. H. E. i. 5.

328:2027

§39 end.

328:2028

Is. i. 2. LXX.

328:2029

Phil. ii. 8.

328:2030

The Arians perhaps more than other heretics were remarkable for bringing objections against the received view, rather than forming a consistent theory of their own. Indeed the very vigour and success of their assault upon the truth lay in its being a mere assault, not a positive and substantive teaching. They therefore, even more than others, might fairly be urged on to the consequences of their positions. Now the text in question, as it must be interpreted if it is to serve as an objection, was an objection also to the received doctrine of the Arians. They considered that our Lord was above and before all creatures from the first, and their Creator; how then could He be exalted above all? They surely, as much as Catholics, were obliged to explain it of our Lord’s manhood. They could not then use it as a weapon against the Church, until they took the ground of Paul of Samosata.

328:2031

Prov. viii. 30.

328:2032

De Syn. 27 (15).

328:2033

John xvii. 5.

328:2034

Ps. 18:9, 13.

329:2035

[De Incar. 54, and note.]

329:2036

Ps. lxxxii. 1; Heb. LXX.

329:2037

Col. i. 15. vid. infr. ii. §62.

329:2038

In this passage Athan. considers that the participation of the Word is deification, as communion with the Son is adoption: also that the old Saints, inasmuch as they are called ‘gods’ and ‘sons,’ did partake of the Divine Word and Son, or in other words were gifted with the Spirit. He asserts the same doctrine very strongly in Orat. iv. §22. On the other hand, infr. 47, he says expressly that Christ received the Spirit in Baptism ‘that He might give it to man.’ There is no real contradiction in such statements; what was given in one way under the Law, was given in another and fuller under the Gospel.

329:2039

Matt. xi. 27.

329:2040

John x. 35.

329:2041

p. 157, note 6.

329:2042

ταῖς ἐννοίαις χρώμενοι, πρός τὰς ἐπινοίας ἀπηντήσαμεν. cf. οὐχὶ ἐπίνοια, παράνοια δὲ μᾶλλον, &c. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 6. init.

329:2043

Phil. ii. 5-11.

329:2044

ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, de Syn. 21, note 10.

329:2045

p. 162, note 3.

329:2046

Ps. liv. 1.

329:2047

Psa. 20.7.

330:2048

Heb. i. 6.

330:2049

Ps. 72:17, 5, LXX.

330:2050

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

330:2051

John 1:1, 14.

330:2052

Phil. ii. 6.

330:2053

Heb. vi. 20; ix. 24.

330:2054

When Scripture says that our Lord was exalted, it means in that sense in which He could be exalted; just as, in saying that a man walks or eats, we speak of him not as a spirit, but as in that system of things to which the ideas of walking and eating belong. Exaltation is not a word which can belong to God; it is unmeaning, and therefore is not applied to Him in the text in question. Thus, e.g. S. Ambrose: ‘Ubi humiliatus, ibi obediens. Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas et in eo desinit,’ &c. Ap. Dav. alt. n. 39.

330:2055

Ps. xxiv. 7.

330:2056

Ps. 89:17, 18, LXX.

330:2057

1 Cor. i. 30.

331:2058

Infr. §43.

331:2059

[De Incar. §§46, 51, &c.]

331:2060

ὄντως ἐν ὑμῖν ὁ θεός. 1 Cor. xiv. 25. Athan. interprets ἐν in not among; as also in 1 John iii. 24, just afterwards. Vid. ἐν ἐμοί. Gal. i. 24. ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, Luke xvii. 21, ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, John i. 14, on which text Hooker says, ‘It pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God to take to itself some one person among men, for then should that one have been advanced which was assumed and no more, but Wisdom, to the end she might save many, built her house of that Nature which is common unto all; she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us.’ Eccl. Pol. v. 52. §3. S. Basil in his proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit has a somewhat similar passage to the text, de Sp. S. c. 24.

331:2061

John i. 12.

331:2062

1 John iii. 24.

331:2063

Phil. iii. 21.

331:2064

It was usual to say against the Apollinarians, that, unless our Lord took on Him our nature, as it is, He had not purified and changed it, as it is, but another nature; ‘The Lord came not to save Adam as free from sin, that He should become like unto him; but as, in the net of sin and now fallen, that God’s mercy might raise him up with Christ.’ Leont. contr. Nestor. &c. ii. p. 996. Accordingly, Athan. says elsewhere, ‘Had not sinlessness appeared [cf. Rom. viii. 3, πέμψας] “in the nature which had sinned,” how was sin condemned in the flesh?’ in Apoll. ii. 6. ‘It was necessary for our salvation,’ says S. Cyril, ‘that the Word of God should become man, that human flesh “subject to corruption” and “sick with the lust of pleasures,” He might make His own; and, “whereas He is life and lifegiving,” He might “destroy the corruption,” &c.…For by this means, might sin in our flesh become dead.’ Ep. ad Success. i. p. 138. And S. Leo, ‘Non alterius naturæ erat ejus caro quam nostra, nec alio illi quam cæteris hominibus anima est inspirata principio, quæ excelleret, non diversitate generis, sed sublimitate virtutis.’ Ep. 35 fin. vid. also Ep. 28. 3. Ep. 31. 2. Ep. 165. 9. Serm. 22. 2. and 25. 5. It may be asked whether this doctrine does not interfere with that of the immaculate conception [i.e. that Christ was conceived sinless]; but that miracle was wrought in order that our Lord might not be born in original sin, and does not affect, or rather includes, His taking flesh of the substance of the Virgin, i.e. of a fallen nature. If indeed sin were ‘of the substance’ of our fallen nature, as some heretics have said, then He could not have taken our nature without partaking our sinfulness; but if sin be, as it is, a fault of the will, then the Divine Power of the Word could sanctify the human will, and keep it from swerving in the direction of evil. Hence ‘We say not that Christ by the felicity of a flesh separated from sense could not feel the desire of sin, but that by perfection of virtue, and by a flesh not begotten through concupiscence of the flesh, He had not the desire of sin;’ Aug. Op. Imperf. iv. 48. On the other hand, S. Athanasius expressly calls it Manichean doctrine to consider τὴν φύσιν of the flesh ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ οὐ τὴν πρᾶξιν. contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin. or φυσικὴν εἶναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. ibid. i. 14 fin. His argument in the next ch. is on the ground that all natures are from God, but God made man upright nor is the author of evil (vid. also Vit. Anton. 20); ‘not as if,’ he says, ‘the devil wrought in man a nature (God forbid!) for of a nature the evil cannot be maker (δημιουργὸς) as is the impiety of the Manichees, but he wrought a bias of nature by transgression, and ‘so death reigned over all men.’ Wherefore, saith he, ‘the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil;’ what works? that nature, which God made sinless, and the devil biassed to the transgression of God’s command and the finding out of sin which is death, did God the Word raise again, so as to be secure from the devil’s bias and the finding out of sin. And therefore the Lord said, “The prince of this world cometh and findeth nothing in Me.”’ vid. also §19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of the devil having ‘introduced the law of sin.’ vid. also §9.

331:2065

John i. 9.

331:2066

προκοπῆς ‘internal advance,’ Luke ii. 52.

331:2067

εὐγενοῦς

331:2068

ἐκκλησιαστικὸς, vid. Serap. iv. 15. contr. Gent. 6. 7. 33.

332:2069

Orat. ii. §8.

332:2070

Eph. iv. 10, but ἀναστάς for ἀναβὰς.

332:2071

John i. 14.

332:2072

In Apoll. i. 2.

332:2073

It was a point in controversy with the extreme Monophysites, that is, the Eutychians, whether our Lord’s body was naturally subject to death, the Catholics maintaining the affirmative, as Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted that our Lord had not a human nature, by which he meant among other things that His manhood was not subject to the laws of a body, but so far as He submitted to them, He did so by an act of will in each particular case; and this, lest it should seem that He was moved by the πάθη against His will ἀκουσίως; and consequently that His manhood was not subject to death. But the Catholics maintained that He had voluntarily placed Himself under those laws, and died naturally, vid. Athan. contr. Apol. i. 17, and that after the resurrection His body became incorruptible, not according to nature, but by grace. vid. Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. Hodeg. c. 23. To express their doctrine of the ὑπερφυές of our Lord’s manhood the Eutychians made use of the Catholic expression ‘ut voluit.’ vid. Athan. l.c. Eutyches ap. Leon. Ep. 21. ‘quomodo voluit et scit,’ twice. vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. ii. p. 105. Leont. contr. Nest. i. p. 967. Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Hær. §8. (t. 2. p. 570.)

332:2074

Acts ii. 24.

332:2075

ἐλάττωμα, ad Adelph. 4.

332:2076

At first sight it would seem as if S. Athanasius here used οὐσία essence for subsistence, or person; but this is not true except with an explanation. Its direct meaning is here, as usual, essence, though indirectly it comes to imply subsistence. He is speaking of that Divine Essence which, though also the Almighty Father’s, is as simply and entirely the Word’s as if it were only His. Nay, even when the Essence of the Father is spoken of in a sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in the phrase οὐσία ἐξ οὐσίας, harsh as such expressions are, it is not accurate to say that οὐσία is used for subsistence or person, or that two οὐσίαι are spoken of (vid. de Syn. 52, note 8), except, that is, by Arians, as Eusebius, supr. Ep. Eus. §6 [or by Origen, Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) a.] Just below we find φύσις τοῦ λόγου, §51 init.

332:2077

This was the question which came into discussion in the Nestorian controversy, when, as it was then expressed, all that took place in respect to the Eternal Word as man, belonged to His Person, and therefore might be predicated of Him; so that it was heretical not to confess the Word’s body (or the body of God in the Person of the Word), the Word’s death (as Athan, in the text), the Word’s exaltation, and the Word’s, or God’s, Mother, who was in consequence called θεοτόκος, which was the expression on which the controversy mainly turned. Cf. Orat. iii. 31, a passage as precise as if it had been written after the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, though without the technical words then adopted.

333:2078

τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

333:2079

τὴν πατρικὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεότητα, cf. de Syn. 45, note 1.

Chapter XII.—Texts Explained; Secondly, Ps. 45:7, 8. Whether the words ‘therefore,’ ‘anointed,’ &c., imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued against first from the word ‘fellows’ or ‘partakers.’ He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And He is said to sanctify Himself for us, and give us the glory He has received. The word ‘wherefore’ implies His divinity. ‘Thou hast loved righteousness,’ &c., do not imply trial or choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

333:2080

Ps. 45:7, 8.

333:2081

p. 156, note 4.

333:2082

It is here said that all things ‘originate’ partake the Son and are ‘sanctified’ by the Spirit. How a γέννησις or adoption through the Son is necessary for every creature in order to its consistence, life, or preservation, has been explained, p. 162, note 3. Sometimes the Son was considered as the special Principle of reason, as by Origen, ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. vid. himself. de Incarn. 11. These offices of the Son and the Spirit are contrasted by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. τὸν προστάττοντα κύριον, τὸν δημιουργοῦντα λόγον, τὸ στερεοῦν πνεῦμα, &c. c. 16. n. 38.

333:2083

John 17:18, 19, vid. Cyril, Thesaur. 20.

333:2084

1 Cor. iii. 16.

333:2085

Pusey on Baptism, 2nd Ed. pp. 275–293.

334:2086

Isa. 1:0, Isa. 61:1.

334:2087

Acts x. 38.

334:2088

John 16:14, 7; xx. 22.

334:2089

1 John ii. 20; Eph. i. 13.

334:2090

Elsewhere Athan. says that our Lord’s Godhead was the immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He assumed, in Apollin. ii. 3, Orat. iv. §36. vid. Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and from the same text as Athan. Orat. x. fin. Again, ‘This [the Godhead] is the anointing of the manhood, not sanctifying by an energy as the other Christs [anointed] but by a presence of Him whole who anointed, ὅλου τοῦ χρίοντος; whence it came to pass that what anointed was called man and what was anointed was made God.’ Orat. xxx. 20. Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. Dei Filius, sicut pluvia in vellus, toto divinitatis unguento nostram se fudit in carnem. Chrysolog. Serm. 60. It is more common, however, to consider that the anointing was the descent of the Spirit, as Athan. says at the beginning of this section, according to Luke iv. 18; Acts x. 38.

334:2091

Ps. xlv. 8. Our Lord’s manhood is spoken of as a garment; more distinctly afterwards, ‘As Aaron was himself, and did not change on putting round him the high priest’s garment, but remaining the same, was but clothed,’ &c, Orat. ii. 8. On the Apollinarian abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc.

334:2092

John xix. 39; Luke xxiv. 1.

334:2093

p. 159, note 8.

334:2094

Isa. 1:0, Isa. 40:8. λόγος but ῥῆμα. LXX.

334:2095

§39, note 4.

334:2096

Ps. li. 11.

334:2097

John xv. 26.

334:2098

Heb. xiii. 8.

334:2099

The word origin, ἀρχὴ, implies the doctrine, more fully brought out in other passages of the Fathers, that our Lord has deigned to become an instrumental cause, as it may be called, of the life of each individual Christian. For at first sight it may be objected to the whole course of Athan.’s argument thus;—What connection is there between the sanctification of Christ’s manhood and ours? how does it prove that human nature is sanctified because a particular specimen of it was sanctified in Him? S. Chrysostom explains, Hom. in Matt. lxxxii. 5. And just before, ‘It sufficed not for Him to be made man, to be scourged, to be sacrificed; but He assimilates us to Him (ἀναφύρει ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν), nor merely by faith, but really, has He made us His body.’ Again, ‘That we are commingled (ἀνακερασθῶμεν) into that flesh, not merely through love, but really, is brought about by means of that food which He has bestowed upon us.’ Hom. in Joann. 46. 3. And so S. Cyril writes against Nestorius: ‘Since we have proved that Christ is the Vine, and we branches as adhering to a communion with Him, not spiritual merely but bodily, why clamours he against us thus bootlessly, saying that, since we adhere to Him, not in a bodily way, but rather by faith and the affection of love according to the Law, therefore He has called, not His own flesh the vine, but rather the Godhead?’ in Joann. lib. 10. Cap. 2. pp. 863, 4. And Nyssen, Orat. Catech. 37. Decoctâ quasi per ollam carnis nostræ cruditate, sanctificavit in æternum nobis cibum carnem suam. Paulin. Ep. 23. Of course in such statements nothing material is implied; Hooker says, ‘The mixture of His bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of His flesh with ours they speak of, to signify what our very bodies through mystical conjunction receive from that vital efficacy which we know to be in His, and from bodily mixtures they borrow divers similitudes rather to declare the truth than the manner of coherence between His sacred and the sanctified bodies of saints.’ Eccl. Pol. v. 56. §10. But without some explanation of this nature, language such as S. Athanasius’s in the text seems a mere matter of words. vid. infr. §50 fin.

335:2100

John xvii. 22.

335:2101

Cyril, Thesaur. 20. p. 197.

335:2102

§51, note 1.

335:2103

ἀγγέλων μὲν παραβαντων, ἀνθρώπων δὲ παρακουσαντων. vid. infr. §51. init. Cf. ad Afr. 7. vid. de Decr. 19, note 3. infr. Orat. ii. iii. Cyril. in Joann. lib. v. 2. On the subject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. §16. Petav. Dogm. t. 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist. Æt. i. Diss. 7.

335:2104

De Decr. 10, note 4.

335:2105

Heb. i. 3.

335:2106

The word wherefore is here declared to denote the fitness why the Son of God should become the Son of man. His Throne, as God, is for ever; He has loved righteousness; therefore He is equal to the anointing of the Spirit, as man. And so S. Cyril on the same text, as in l. c. in the foregoing note. Cf. Leon Ep. 64. 2. vid. de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. In illud Omn. 2. Cyril. in Gen. i. p. 13.

335:2107

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

335:2108

Ps. xlv. 6.

335:2109

Psa. 45.7

335:2110

Matt. xii. 28.

336:2111

Matt. xii. 32; xiii. 55.

336:2112

[Cf. Prolegg. ch. iii. §1 (22).].

336:2113

John xx. 22; xvi. 13, 14.

336:2114

Is. lxi. 1.

336:2115

§48, note 7.

336:2116

John i. 16.

336:2117

Vid. de Incarn. 13. 14. vid. also Gent. 41 fin. and Nic. Def. 17, note 5. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra doctorem misit, quasi vivam legem. Lactant. Instit. iv. 25. ‘The Only-begotten was made man like us,…as if lending us His own stedfastness.’ Cyril. in Joann. lib. v. 2. p. 473; vid. also Thesaur. 20. p. 198. August. de Corr. et Grat. 10–12. Damasc. F. O. iv. 4. But the words of Athan. embrace too many subjects to illustrate distinctly in a note.

336:2118

2 Cor. ii. 11.

336:2119

§48, note 1.

336:2120

Rom. 8:3, 4Rom. viii. 3; ib. 4.

336:2121

Cf. de Incarn. 7, Orat. ii. 68.

336:2122

Rom. viii. 9.

336:2123

ἁπλῶς, οὐκ ἁπλῶς ὡρίσθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβῶς ἐξητάσθη. Socr. i. 9. p. 31.

336:2124

John xvii. 10, §35, note 2.

336:2125

Eunomius said that our Lord was utterly separate from the Father, ‘by natural law,’ νόμῳ φύσεως; S. Basil observes, ‘as if the God of all had not power over Himself, ἑαυτοῦ κύριος, but were in bondage under the decrees of necessity.’ contr. Eunom. ii. 30.

337:2126

Ps. xi. 7; v. 5.

337:2127

Psa. 87.2.

337:2128

Mal. 1:2, 3.

337:2129

Is. lxi. 8.

337:2130

ἐννοιῶν μᾶλλον δὲ παρανοιῶν, vid. §40, note 1.

337:2131

Instead of professing to examine Scripture or to acquiesce in what they had been taught, the Arians were remarkable for insisting on certain abstract positions or inferences on which they make the whole controversy turn. Vid. Socrates’ account of Arius’s commencement, ‘If God has a Son, he must have a beginning of existence,’ &c. &c., and so the word ἀγενητόν.

337:2132

Matt. xxii. 29.

337:2133

Matt. 22.21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

337:2134

Prov. viii. 22. vid. Orat. ii. §§19–72.

337:2135

Heb. i. 4; iii. 1.

337:2136

Vid. Orat. ii. §§2–11.

337:2137

Acts ii. 36. vid. Orat. ii. §§11–18.

337:2138

1 Cor. ii. 8.

337:2139

Zech. 2:10, 1 Kings 8:27, Bar. 3:37Zech. ii. 10; vid. 1 Kings viii. 27; Bar. iii. 37

337:2140

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

337:2141

§8, note 6.

338:2142

De Decr. 14, note 2.

338:2143

Acts viii. 34.

338:2144

Matt. xxiv. 3.

338:2145

Vid. 1 Thess. 4:13, 2 Thess. 2:1, &c.

338:2146

2 Tim. 2:17, 18; 1 Tim. i. 20.

338:2147

Is. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.

338:2148

Deut. xviii. 15.

338:2149

Is. liii. 7.

338:2150

The more common evasion on the part of the Jews was to interpret the prophecy of their own sufferings in captivity. It was an idea of Grotius that the prophecy received a first fulfilment in Jeremiah. vid. Justin Tryph. 72 et al., Iren. Hær. iv. 33. Tertull. in Jud. 9, Cyprian. Testim. in Jud. ii. 13, Euseb. Dem. iii. 2, &c. [cf. Driver and Neubauer Jewish commentaries on Is. lii. and Is. liii. and Introduction to English Translation of these pp. xxxvii. sq.]

338:2151

Heb. 1:1, 2.

338:2152

Heb. 1:3, 4.

338:2153

Ps. lxxxiv. 10.

338:2154

Prov. 8:10, 11.

339:2155

Isa. 56:4, 5.

339:2156

There is apparently much confusion in the arrangement of the paragraphs that follow; though the appearance may perhaps arise from Athan.’s incorporating some passage from a former work into his text, cf. note on §32. It is easy to suggest alterations, but not anything satisfactory. The same ideas are scattered about. Thus συγκριτικῶς occurs in (3) and (5). The Son’s seat on the right, and Angels in ministry, (3) fin. (10) (11). ‘Become’ interpreted as ‘is originated and is,’ (4) and (11). The explanation of ‘become,’ (4) (9) (11) (14). The Word’s ἐπιδημία is introduced in (7) and (8) παρουσία being the more common word; ἐπιδημία occurs Orat. ii. §67 init. Serap. i. 9. Vid. however, §61, notes. If a change must be suggested, it would be to transfer (4) after (8) and (10) after (3).

339:2157

ἀπολελυμένως. vid. also Orat. ii. 54. 62. iii. 22. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. p. 244. Cyril. Thesaur. 25, p. 236. διαλελυμένως. Orat. iv. 1.

339:2158

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

339:2159

John i. 3.

339:2160

Ps. civ. 24.

339:2161

Job i. 2.

339:2162

Gen. xxi. 5.

339:2163

Cf. Deut. xxi. 15.

339:2164

These tenets and similar ones were common to many branches of the Gnostics, who paid worship to the Angels, or ascribed to them the creation; the doctrine of their consubstantiality with our Lord arose from their belief in emanation. S. Athanasius here uses the word ὁμογενής, not ὁμοούσιος which was usual with them (vid. Bull. D. F. N. ii. 1, §2) as with the Manichees after them, Beausobre, Manich. iii. 8.

339:2165

Ps. lxxxix. 7.

339:2166

Psa. 86.8.

339:2167

Orat. ii. §20.

340:2168

Heb. i. 10.

340:2169

De Syn. 45, note 9.

340:2170

Heb. i. 7.

340:2171

§29, note 10.

340:2172

De Decr. 19, note 3.

340:2173

Here again is a remarkable avoidance of the word ὁμοούσιον. He says that the Son is ἑτερογενὴς καὶ ἑτεροούσιος τῶν γενητῶν, καὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἴδιος καὶ ὁμοφυής. vid. §§20, 21, notes.

340:2174

John xiv. 28.

340:2175

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

340:2176

§§60. 62. 64. ii. §18.

340:2177

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

340:2178

Heb. ii. 1-3.

341:2179

Part of this chapter, as for instance (7) (8) is much more finished in point of style than the general course of his Orations. It may be indeed only the natural consequence of his warming with his subject, but this beautiful passage looks very much like an insertion. Some words of it are found in Sent. D. 11. written few years sooner [cf. supr. 33, note 2.]

341:2180

Heb. vii. 19.

341:2181

Rom. v. 14.

341:2182

2 Tim. i. 10.

341:2183

1 Cor. xv. 22.

341:2184

Isa. 11:9, Ps. 76:1, Ps. 19:4Is. xi. 9; vid. Ps. lxxvi. 1, and xix. 4.

341:2185

Matt. xxviii. 19.

341:2186

John vi. 45; Is. liv. 13.

341:2187

Heb. vii. 22; viii. 6; vii. 19; ix. 23

341:2188

John i. 14.

341:2189

§45, note.

341:2190

Rom. viii. 3.

341:2191

John iii. 17.

341:2192

Vid. Incarn. passim. Theod. Eranist. iii. pp. 196–198, &c. &c. It was the tendency of all the heresies concerning the Person of Christ to explain away or deny the Atonement. The Arians, after the Platonists, insisted on the pre-existing Priesthood, as if the incarnation and crucifixion were not of its essence. The Apollinarians resolved the Incarnation into a manifestation, Theod. Eran. i. The Nestorians denied the Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. And the Eutychians, Leont. Ep. 28, 5.

341:2193

John i. 17.

341:2194

De Syn. 45, note 1.

341:2195

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

341:2196

δεξιόν

341:2197

John xvi. 15.

341:2198

Ps. xvi. 8.

342:2199

Heb. i. 6.

342:2200

Vid. John 17:3, Mark 10:45.

342:2201

John 14:10, 9.

342:2202

Of His divine nature, (4) (8).

342:2203

Of His human nature, and (10).

342:2204

Ps. xxx. 3.

342:2205

Psa. 9.9.

342:2206

Matt. xi. 28.

343:2207

Is. lviii. 9.

343:2208

John i. 14.

Excursus B. On §22 (Note 3).

On the Meaning of the Formula πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, in the Nicene Anathema.

It was observed on p. 75, note 4(b), that there were two clauses in the Nicene Anathema which required explanation. One of them, ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας, has been discussed in the Excursus, pp. 77–82; the other, πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, shall be considered now.

Bishop Bull has suggested a very ingenious interpretation of it, which is not obvious, but which, when stated, has much plausibility, as going to explain, or rather to sanction, certain modes of speech in some early Fathers of venerable authority, which have been urged by heterodox writers, and given up by Catholics of the Roman School, as savouring of Arianism. The foregoing pages have made it abundantly evident that the point of controversy between Catholics and Arians was, not whether our Lord was God, but whether He was Son of God; the solution of the former question being involved in that of the latter. The Arians maintained that the very word ‘Son’ implied a ‘beginning,’ or that our Lord was not Very God; the Catholics said that it implied ‘connaturality,’ or that He was Very God as one with God. Now five early writers, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, and Novatian, of whom the authority of Hippolytus is very great, not to speak of Theophilus and Athenagoras, whatever be thought of Tatian and of Novatian, seem to speak of the divine generation as taking place immediately before the creation of the world, that is, as if not eternal, though at the same time they teach that our Lord existed before that generation. In other words they seem to teach that He was the Word from eternity, and became the Son at the beginning of all things; some of them expressly considering Him, first as the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, or Reason, in the Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute; next, as the λόγος προφορικὸς, or Word, terms which are explained, note on de Syn. 26 (5). This doctrine, when divested of figure and put into literal statement, might appear nothing more or less than this,—that at the beginning of the world the Son was created after the likeness of the Divine attribute of Reason, as its image or expression, and thereby became the Divine Word, was made the instrument of creation, called the Son from that ineffable favour and adoption which God had bestowed on Him, and in due time sent into the world to manifest God’s perfections to mankind;—which, it is scarcely necessary to say, is the doctrine of Arianism.

Thus S. Hippolytus says,—

Τῶν δὲ γινομένων ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σύμβουλον καὶ ἐργατὴν ἐγέννα λόγον, ὃν λόγον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῶ ἀ& 231·ρατόν τε ὄντα τῷ κτιζομένῳ, κόσμῳ, ὁρατὸν ποιεῖ· προτέραν φωνὴν φθεγγόμενος, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς γεννῶν, προῆκεν τῇ κτίσει κύριον. contr. Noet. 10.

And S. Theophilus:—

῎Εχων οὖν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις, ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἐξερευξάμενος πρὸ τῶν ὅλων…ὁπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως. ad Autol. ii. 10–22.

Bishop Bull, Defens. F. N. iii. 5–8, meets this representation by maintaining that the γέννησις which S. Hippolytus and other writers spoke of, was but a metaphorical generation, the real and eternal truth being shadowed out by a succession of events in the economy of time, such as is the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33), nay, the Nativity; and that of these His going forth to create the worlds was one. And he maintains (ibid. Acts 3.9) that such is the mode of speaking adopted by the Fathers after the Nicene Council as well as before. And then he adds (which is our present point), that it is even alluded to and recognised in the Creed of the Council, which anathematizes those who say that ‘the Son was not before His generation,’ i.e. who deny that ‘the Son was before His generation,’ which statement accordingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth.

I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this great authority in this view 2209 . The more obvious mode of understanding the Arian formula is this, that it is an argument ex absurdo, drawn from the force of the word Son, in behalf of the Arian doctrine; it being, as they would say, a truism, that, ‘whereas He was begotten, He was not before He was begotten,’ and the denial of it a contradiction in terms. This certainly does seem to myself the true force of the formula; so much so, that if Bishop Bull’s explanation be admissible, it must, in order to its being so, first be shewn to be reducible to this sense, and to be included under it.

The point at issue between the two interpretations is this; whether the clause πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν is intended for a denial of the contrary proposition, ‘He was before His generation,’ as Bishop Bull says; or whether it is what Aristotle calls an enthymematic sentence, assuming the falsity, as confessed on all hands, of that contrary proposition, as self-contradictory, and directly denying, not it, but ‘He was from everlasting.’ Or, in other words, whether it opposes the position of the five writers, or the great Catholic doctrine itself; and whether in consequence the Nicene Fathers are in their anathema indirectly sanctioning that position, or stating that doctrine. Bull considers that both sides contemplated the proposition, ‘He was before His generation,’—and that the Catholics asserted or defended it; some reasons shall here be given for the contrary view.

1. Now first, let me repeat, what was just now observed by the way, that the formula in question, when taken as an enthymematic sentence, or reductio ad absurdum, exactly expresses the main argument of the Arians, which they brought forward in so many shapes, as feeling that their cause turned upon it, ‘He is a son, therefore He had a beginning.’ Thus Socrates records Arius’s words in the beginning of the controversy, (1) ‘If the Father begat the Son, He who is begotten has a beginning of existence; (2) therefore once the Son was not, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἔχει τὴν ὑπόστασιν.’ H. E. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first formulæ anathematized at Nicæa, two of which are indisputably the same as two of them; viz. ὅτι ἦν ποτὲ δτε οὐκ ἦν· & 234·τι πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν· & 234·τι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο. On the other hand, we hear nothing in the controversy of the position which Bull conceives to be opposed by Arius (‘He was before His generation’), that is, supposing the formula in question does not allude to it; unless indeed it is worth while to except the statement reprobated in the Letter of the Arians to Alexander, ὄντα πρότερον, γεννηθέντα εἰς υἱ& 231·ν, which is explained, de Syn. 16. note 12.

2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulæ here, as elsewhere, mentioned, are enthymematic also, or carry their argument with them, and that, an argument resolvable often into the original argument derived from the word ‘Son.’ Such are ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἢ τὸν ὄντα; and ἓν τὸ ἀγένητον ἢ δύο; and in like manner as regards the question of the τρεπτόν; ‘Has He free will’ (thus Athanasius states the Arian objection) ‘or has He not? is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved, and incline hither and thither?’ supr. §35. That is, they wished the word τρεπτὸς to carry with it its own self-evident application to our Lord, with the alternative of an absurdity; and so to prove His created nature.

3. In §32, S. Athanasius observes that the formula of the ἀγένητον was the later substitute for the original formulæ of Arius; ‘when they were no longer allowed to say, “out of nothing,” and “He was not before His generation,”’ they hit upon this word Unoriginate, that, by saying among the simple that the Son was originate, they might imply the very same phrases “out of nothing” and “He once was not.” Here he does not in so many words say that the argument from the ἀγένητον was a substitute for the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the ἀγένητον was brought forward merely to express by an appeal to philosophy and earlier Fathers, that to be a Son was to have a beginning and a creation, and not to be God. This therefore will be the sense of the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι. Nay, when the Arians asked, ‘Is the ἀγένητον one or two,’ they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only was ἀγένητος; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nicæa, as Bull says, that our Lord ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ; and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their own formula οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι was directed against this statement.

4. Again, it is plain that the οὐκ ἦν πρίν γεννηθῆναι is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος, &c. E.g. he says, ‘We might ask them in turn, God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not?’ or is He also before His generation? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing. &c., §25. Now the ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα, &c., is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying ὁ ὢν τὸν ὄντα. S. Alexander’s Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared with Arius’s original positions and the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three documents the formulæ agree together, except one; and that one, which in Arius’s language is ‘he who is begotten has a beginning of existence,’ is in the Nicene Anathema, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, but in S. Alexander’s circular, ὁ ὢν θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πεποίηκεν. The absence of the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formulæ are treated as synonymous by Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 9. Cyril, Thesaur. 4. p. 29 fin., and by Basil as quoted below. But indeed there is an internal correspondence between them, shewing that they have but one meaning. They are really but the same sentence in the active and in the passive voice.

5. A number of scattered passages in Athanasius lead us to the same conclusion. For instance, if the Arian formula had the sense which is here maintained, of being an argument against our Lord’s eternity, the Catholic answer would be, ‘He could not be before His generation because His generation is eternal, as being from the Father.’ Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when it occurs to him to introduce the words in question. Thus in Orat. ii. §57 he says, ‘The creatures began to come to be (γίνεσθαι); but the Word of God, not having beginning (ἀρχὴν) of being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was always. And the works have a beginning (ἀρχὴν) in the making, and the beginning precedes things which come to be; but the Word not being of such, rather Himself becomes the Framer of those things which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is measured by their becoming (ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι), and at some beginning (origin) doth God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their origination (πρίν γενέσθαι); but the Word hath His being in no other origin than the Father (vid. supr. §11, note 1), ‘whom they themselves allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unoriginately in the Father, being His offspring not His creature.’ We shall find that other Fathers say just the same. Again, we have already come to a passage where for ‘His generation,’ he substitutes ‘making,’ a word which Bull would not say that either the Nicene Council or S. Hippolytus would use; clearly shewing that the Arians were not quoting and denying a Catholic statement in the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν, &c., but laying down one of their own. ‘Who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, and says that “He was not ‘before He was made,’ πρὶν ποιηθῇ.”’ Orat. i. §10. Arius, who is surely the best explainer of his own words, says the same; that is, he interprets ‘generation’ by ‘making,’ or confesses that he is bringing forward an argument, not opposing a dogma; ‘Before His generation,’ he says, ‘or creation, or destination (ὁρισθῇ), Rom. i. 4), or founding (vid. Prov. viii. 23), He was not; for He was not ingenerate.’ Theod., Hist. i. 4. Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, says distinctly, ‘“It is plain to any one,” that what has been made was not before its generation; but what came to be has an origin of being.’ De Syn. §17.

6. If there are passages in Athanasius which seem to favour the opposite interpretation, that is, to imply that the Catholics held or allowed, as Bp. Bull considers, that ‘before His generation, He was,’ they admit of an explanation. E.g. “How is He not in the number of the creatures, if, as they say, He was not before His generation? for it is proper to the creatures and works, not to be before their generation.’ Orat. ii. §22. This might be taken to imply that the Arians said, ‘He was not,’ and Catholics ‘He was.’ But the real meaning is this, ‘How is He not a creature, if the formula be true, which they use, “He was not before His generation?” for it may indeed properly be said of creatures that “they were not before their generation.”’ And so again when he says, ‘if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God,’ supr. §20, he does not thereby imply that the Son was before His generation, but he means, ‘if it be true that, &c.,’ ‘if the formula holds,’ ‘if it can be said of the Son, “He was not, &c.”’ Accordingly, shortly afterwards, in a passage already cited, he says the same of the Almighty Father in the way of parallel; ‘God who is, hath He so become, whereas He was not, or “is He too before His generation?”’ (§25), not implying here any generation at all, but urging that the question is idle and irrelevant, that the formula is unmeaning and does not apply to, cannot be said of, Father or Son.

7. Such an explanation of these passages, as well as the view here taken of the formula itself, receive abundant confirmation from S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary. What has been maintained is, that when S. Athanasius says, ‘if the Son is not before His generation, then, &c.,’ he does but mean, ‘if it can be said,’ ‘if the words can be used or applied in this case.’ Now the two Fathers just mentioned both decide that it is not true, either that the Son was before His generation, or that He was not; in other words, that the question is unmeaning and irrelevant, which is just the interpretation which has been here given to Athanasius. But again, in thus speaking, they thereby assert also that they did not hold, that they do not allow, that formula which Bull considers the Nicene Fathers defended and sanctioned, as being Catholic and in use both before the Council and after, viz. ‘He was before His generation.’ Thus S. Gregory in the passage in which he speaks of ‘did He that is make Him that is not, &c.,’ and ‘before His generation, &c.,’ as one and the same, expressly says, ‘In His case, to be begotten is concurrent with existence and is from the beginning,’ and that in contrast to the instance of men; who he says, do fulfil in a manner ‘He who is, &c.’ (Levi being in the loins of Abraham), i.e. fulfil Bull’s proposition, ‘He was before generation.’ He proceeds, ‘I say that the question is irrelevant, not the answer difficult.’ And presently after, mentioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, ‘more ill-instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated from the beginning was or was not before generation, πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως.’ Orat. 29. 9.

8. S. Hilary, on the other hand, is so full on the subject in his de Trin. xii., and so entirely to the point for which I would adduce him, that but a few extracts of what might be made are either necessary or practicable. He states and argues on the formula expressly as an objection; Adjiciant hæc arguta satis atque auditu placentia; Si, inquit, natus est, cœpit; et cum cœpit, non fuit; et cum non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco piæ intelligentiæ, sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quam nasceretur, quia ut esset, qui non erat, natus est.’ n. 18. He answers the objection in the same way. ‘Unigenitus Deus neque non fuit aliquando non filius, neque fuit aliquid ante quam filius, neque quidquam aliquid ipse nisi filius,’ n. 15, which is in express words to deny, ‘He was before His generation.’ Again, as Gregory, ‘Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; et vero ubi auctor æternus est, ibi et nativitatis æternitas est,’ n. 21. And he substitutes ‘being always born’ for ‘being before birth;’ ‘Numquid ante tempora æterna esse, id ipsum sit quod est, eum qui erat nasci? quia nasci quod erat, jam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo.…Non est itaque id ipsum, natum ante tempora æterna semper esse, et esse antequam nasci.’ n. 30. And he concludes, in accordance with the above explanation of the passages of Athanasius which I brought as if objections, thus: ‘Cum itaque natum semper esse, nihil aliud sit confitendum esse, quam natum, id sensui, antequam nascitur vel fuisse, vel non fuisse non subjacet. n. 31.’

9. It may seem superfluous to proceed, but as Bishop Bull is an authority not lightly to be set aside, a passage from S. Basil shall be added. Eunomius objects, ‘God begat the Son either being or not being, &c.…to him that is, there needs not generation.’ He replies that Eunomius, ‘because animals first are not, and then are generated, and he who is born to-day, yesterday did not exist, transfers this conception to the subsistence of the Only-begotten; and says, since He has been generated, He was not before His generation, πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως,’ contr. Eunom. ii. 14. And he solves the objection as the other Fathers, by saying that our Lord is from everlasting, speaking of S. John, in the first words of his Gospel, as τῇ ἀ& 187·διότητι τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ μονογενοῦς συνάπτων τὴν γέννησιν. §15.

These then being the explanations which the contemporary and next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was anathematized at Nicæa, it must be observed that the line of argument which Bishop Bull is pursuing, does not lead him to assign any direct reasons for the substitution of a different interpretation in their place. He is engaged, not in commenting on the Nicene Anathema, but in proving that the Post-Nicene Fathers admitted that view or statement of doctrine which he conceives also implied in that anathema; and thus the sense of the anathema, instead of being the subject of proof, is, as he believes, one of the proofs of the point which he is establishing. However, since these other collateral evidences which he adduces, may be taken to be some sort of indirect comment upon the words of the Anathema, the principal of them in point of authority, and that which most concerns us, shall here be noticed: it is a passage from the second Oration of Athanasius.

While commenting on the words, ἀρχὴ ὁδῶν εἰς τὰ ἔργα in the text, ‘The Lord has created me the beginning of His ways unto the works,’ S. Athanasius is led to consider the text ‘first born of every creature,’ πρωτότοκος πασῆς κτίσεως: and he says that He who was μονογενὴς from eternity, became by a συγκατάβασις at the creation of the world πρωτότοκος. This doctrine Bp. Bull considers declaratory of a going forth, προέλευσις, or figurative birth from the Father, at the beginning of all things.

It will be observed that the very point to be proved is this, viz. not that there was a συγκατάβασις merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a γέννησις or proceeding from the Father, and that the word πρωτότοκος marks it. Bull’s words are, that ‘Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt,…illam τοῦ λόγου.…ex Patre progressionem (quod et συγκατάβασιν, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt), ad condendum hæc universa agnovere; atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu ipsum τὸν λόγον a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis creaturæ primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt.’ D. F. N. iii. 9. §1. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord was ‘progressionis respectu a Deo Patre quasi natus.’ He does not seem to me to speak of a generation or birth of the Son at all, though figurative, but of the birth of all things, and that in Him.

That Athanasius does not call the συγκατάβασις of the Word a birth, as denoted by the term πρωτότοκος, is plain from his own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. ‘Nowhere in the Scriptures,’ he says, ‘is He called πρωτότοκος τοῦ Θεοῦ, first-born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper to Him.’ ii. 62. Here surely he expressly denies Bull’s statement that ‘first-born’ means ‘a Deo natus,’ ‘born of God.’ Such additions as παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς, he says, are reserved for μονογενὴς and λόγος.

He goes on to say what the term πρωτότοκος does mean; viz. instead of having any reference to a προέλευσις from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not called πρωτότοκος, because His προέλευσις is a ‘type of His eternal generation,’ but because by that προέλευσις He became the ‘Prototype of all creation.’ He, as it were, stamped His image, His Sonship, upon creation, and became the first-born in the sense of being the Archetypal Son. If this is borne out by the passage, Athanasius, it is plain, does not speak of any γέννησις whatever at the era of creation, though figurative; πρωτότοκος does but mean μονογενὴς πρωτεύων ἐν τῇ κτίσει, or ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως, or πρωτότυπον γέννημα, or μόνος γεννητὸς ἐν τοῖς γενητοῖς; and no warrant is given, however indirect, to the idea that in the Nicene Anathema, the Fathers implied an allowance of the proposition, ‘He was before His generation.’

As the whole passage occurs in the Discourse which immediately follows, it is not necessary to enter formally into the proof of this view of it, when the reader will soon be able to judge of it for himself. But it may be well to add two passages, one from Athenagoras, the other from S. Cyril, not in elucidation of the words of Athanasius, but of the meaning which I would put upon them.

The passage from Athenagoras is quoted by Bull himself, who of course is far from denying the doctrine of our Lord’s Archetypal office; and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius the doctrine of a γέννησις. Athenagoras says that the Son is ‘the first offspring, πρῶτον γέννημα, of the Father, not as come to be, γενόμενον (for God being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as having Reason eternally, λογικὸς ὢν), but that while as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together’ (the passage is corrupt here), ‘He went forth, προελθὼν, as an idea and energy’, i.e. as an Agent to create, and a Form and Rule to create by. And then he goes on to quote the very text on which Athanasius is employed when he explains πρωτότοκος. ‘And the Prophetic Spirit confirms this doctrine, saying, The Lord hath created me a beginning (origin) of His ways, for His works.’ Leg. 10.

And so S. Cyril, ‘He is Only-begotten according to nature, as being alone from the Father, God from God, Light kindled from Light; and He is First-born for our sakes, that, as if to some immortal root the whole creation might be ingrafted and might bud forth from the Everlasting. For all things were made by Him, and consist for ever and are preserved in Him.’ Thesaur. 25 p. 238.

In conclusion it may be suggested whether the same explanation which has here been given of Athanasius’s use of πρωτότοκος does not avail more exactly to the defence of two of the five writers from the charge of inaccurate doctrine, than that which Bull has preferred.

As to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he does not speak of a γέννησις at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son πρῶτον γέννημα, i.e. πρωτότυπον γέννημα.

Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a γέννησις. He says that at the creation the Word ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν. ad Græc. 5. Here the word ἔργον, which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain both himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word became, γίνεται, not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to the parties whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great condescension, συγκατάβασις, to be accounted the first of the works, as being their type; that as they were to be raised to an adoption and called sons, so He for that purpose might stoop to creation, and be called a work. As Tatian uses the word ἀρχὴ in the concluding clause, there is great reason to think that he is alluding to the very text which Athanasius and Athenagoras expressly quote, in which Wisdom is said to be ‘created a beginning, ἀρχὴ, of ways, unto the works, εἰς τὰ ἔργα.’

As to Novatian, Bishop Bull himself observes that it is a question whether he need be understood to speak of any generation but that which is eternal; nor does Pamelius otherwise explain him.

Footnotes

344:2209

Waterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop Bull’s; vol. i. p. 114. Bull’s language, on the other hand, is very strong: ‘Sæpe olim, ut verum ingenue fateai, animum meum subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, ‘Filius priusquam nasceretur, non erat,’ sibi voluerint Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatissima Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat.…Itaque de nativitate Filii loquuntur, quæ hujus universi creationem antecessit. Quis vero, inquam, sensus dicti hujus “Filius non erat, sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante conditum mundum?” Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententiæ, qui docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplicabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum universa, &c. D. F. N. iii. 9. §2.

Discourse II.

————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

348:2210

κυλιόμενοι, Orat. iii. 16.

348:2211

Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i. 53 and infr. 19–72.

348:2212

Heb. iii. 2.

348:2213

Vid. infr. note on 35.

348:2214

Cf. Rom. xi. 32

348:2215

τῶν νῦν ᾽Ιουδαίων, means literally ‘the Jews of this day,’ as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.

348:2216

ἐρωτῶντες ἐμανθάνον; and so μαθὼν ἐδιδάσκεν, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p. 13, note a.

348:2217

John i. 14.

348:2218

Acts ii. 36.

348:2219

Prov. viii. 22.

348:2220

Heb. i. 4.

348:2221

Phil. ii. 7.

348:2222

Heb. 3:1, 2; Sent. D. 11.

348:2223

By λαυβάνοντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ λῆμμα, ‘accepting the proposition they offer,’ he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32–34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18–43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, τούτῳ [τῷ σκοπῷ, the general drift of Scripture doctrine] ὥσπερ κανόνι χρησάμενοι προσέχωμεν τῇ ἀνάγνωσει τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφὴς, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a ‘good,’ ‘pious,’ ‘orthodox’ sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58.

349:2224

§22, note.

349:2225

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

349:2226

For καρπογόνος ἡ οὐσία, de Decr. 15. n. 9. γεννητικὸς, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. ἄγονος. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. ἡ φυσικὴ γονιμότης, Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 133. ἄκαρπος, Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Hær. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the γέννησις and the κτίσις contrasted together Orat. i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Orat. iv. 4 fin. εἰ ἄγονος καὶ ἀνενέργητος

349:2227

Orat. iii. 59, &c.

349:2228

Orat. iii. 63. c.

349:2229

ἐνούσιος, infr. 28.

349:2230

§1, note 13.

350:2231

1 Kings i. 19.

350:2232

1 Kings 1.26.

350:2233

Ps. cxvi. 16.

350:2234

πολλάκις ἀπολωλέναι δίκαιοι, vid. infr. §28.

350:2235

Prov. xx. 23.

350:2236

Apol. c. Ar. 36.

350:2237

Is. xxxviii. 19, LXX.

350:2238

2 Kings xx. 18; Is. xxxix. 7.

350:2239

Gen. iv. 1, and infr. 44. note on Qanâ.

350:2240

Gen. xlviii. 5, LXX.

350:2241

Job i. 2, LXX.

350:2242

Cf. Deut. 21:15, Lev. 25:21Deut. xxi. 15; vid. Lev. xxv. 21, LXX.

350:2243

Serap. ii. 6. b.

350:2244

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

351:2245

λεξείδια, Orat. iii. 59. a Sent. D. 4. c.

351:2246

Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. §22, note.

351:2247

Ps. civ. 24; John i. 3.

351:2248

Eccles. xii. 14.

351:2249

Combines Greek of Deut. 32:4, Exod. 34:6, Rev. 3:14Deut. xxxii. 4 and Ex. xxxiv. 6; cf. Rev. iii. 14.

351:2250

1 Cor. x. 13.

351:2251

Ps. cxlv. 14. LXX.

351:2252

1 Tim. v. 16.

351:2253

Tit. iii. 8, &c.

351:2254

ἄτρεπτος καὶ μὴ ἀλλοιούμενος; vid. supr. de Decr. 14. it was the tendency of Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such change actually was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first maintained in the abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature τρεπτὸς, He was in fact ἀλλοιούμενος. This was implied in the doctrine that His superhuman nature supplied the place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the semi-Arian Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who said, τὸν λόγον τροπὴν ὑπομεμενηκοτα, vid. De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue ῎Ατρεπτος

352:2255

Exod. xxix. 5.

352:2256

ἀνεργάστου γῆς is an allusion to Adam’s formation from the ground; and so Irenæus, Hær. iii. 21. fin. and many later fathers.

352:2257

This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as περιτιθέμενος τὴν ἐσθῆτα, ἐκαλύπτετο, ἐνδυσάμενος σῶμα, were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Hær. v. 11. p. 422. to the word προκάλυμμα, 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. παραπέτασμα is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has παραπεπετασμένην and κάλυμμα, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros. καταπέτασμα, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. x. 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. παραπέτασμα, Eran. i. p. 22. and προκάλυμμα, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and στολή, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen, Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22. p. 70. Serm. 25. p. 84.

352:2258

ᾗ λόγος ἐστι. cf. i. 43. Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f.

352:2259

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

352:2260

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

353:2261

Heb. ii. 14-18; iii. 2.

353:2262

Or, answer, vid. infr. iii. 27.

353:2263

1 Pet. iv. 19.

353:2264

Vid. Jer. 9:3, Jer. 15:18, Deut. 32:20, 39, Mal. 3:6Jer. ix. 3. and xv. 18; Deut. xxxii. 20, LXX.; ib. xxxii. 39; Mal. iii. 6.

353:2265

1 Thess. v. 24.

353:2266

2 Tim. ii. 13.

353:2267

Heb. xiii. 8.

353:2268

Heb. 3:5, 6.

353:2269

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

353:2270

θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ, vid. λόγος ἐν σ. iii. 54. a. θ. ἐν σωματι, ii. 12. c. 15. a. λ. ἐν σώμ. Sent. D. 8 fin.

354:2271

κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν Orat.iii. 64. init.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

354:2272

Brucker de Zenon. §7. n. 14.

354:2273

§1, note 13.

354:2274

ἁπλῶς.

354:2275

μετὰ παρατηρήσεως. vid. infr. 44. e. 59. b. 71. e. Orat. iii. 52. b.

354:2276

Acts ii. 22.

355:2277

John 5:16, 18.

355:2278

John x. 38. not to the letter.

355:2279

Gen. xix. 24.

355:2280

Ps. cx. 1.

355:2281

Ps. xlv. 6.

355:2282

Ps. cxlv. 13.

355:2283

§62, cf. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 1.

355:2284

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

355:2285

Gal. iv. 8.

355:2286

James i. 21.

355:2287

Rom. viii. 26.

355:2288

Is. xxvi. 13. LXX.

355:2289

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

356:2290

Ps. cx. 1.

356:2291

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

356:2292

John xii. 34, not to the letter.

356:2293

John x. 36.

356:2294

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

356:2295

Ps. cx. 1.

356:2296

Ps. xvi. 10.

356:2297

Is. liii. 7.

356:2298

Is. xxv. 8.

356:2299

1 Cor. i. 21.

357:2300

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

357:2301

Infr. iii. 32 fin.

357:2302

οἱ πλεῖστοι. [An exaggeration, cf. Rom. xi. 7, &c.]

357:2303

§22, note.

357:2304

Gen. 27:29, 37.

357:2305

Alluding to the temptation.

357:2306

Matt. xvi. 16.

357:2307

θεοῦ δῶρον. And so more distinctly S. Basil, δῶρον τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα. de Sp. S. 57, and more frequently the later Latins, as in the Hymn, ‘Altissimi Donum Dei;’ and the earlier, e.g. Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. and August. Trin. xv. 29. v. 15, Petav. Trin. vii. 13, §20.

357:2308

Supr. ch. xii.

357:2309

ὅμοιος κατὰ παντα. vid. infr. §22, note 4.

357:2310

Vid. infr. note on Orat. iii. 1.

357:2311

Vid. John xvi. 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the Son were creature or work, but not as one of the creatures, because of His excelling them in glory, it were natural that Scripture should describe and display Him by a comparison in His favour with the other works; for instance, that it should say that He is greater than Archangels, and more honourable than the Thrones, and both brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But he is not in fact thus referred to; but the Father shews Him to be His own proper and only Son, saying, ‘Thou art My Son,’ and ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2348 ’ Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him, as being one beyond themselves; and they worship Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being some one beyond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the Father’s proper Son according to essence 2349 . For if He was worshipped as excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought to worship what excels itself. But this is not the case 2350 ; for creature does not worship creature, but servant Lord, and creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders Cornelius who would worship him, saying, ‘I myself also am a man 2351 .’ And an Angel, when John would worship him in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, ‘See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God 2352 .’ Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped 2353 , but worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, saying, ‘Offer not to me, but to God 2354 .’ On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the Angels; for it is written, ‘Let all the Angels of God worship Him 2355 ;’ and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, ‘The labour of Egypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thy servants;’ and then, ‘they shall fall down unto thee, and shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God 2356 .’ And He accepts His disciples’ worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, ‘Call ye Me not Lord and Master? and ye say well, for so I am.’ And when Thomas said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God 2357 ,’ He allows his words, or rather accepts him instead of hindering him. For He is, as the other Prophets declare, and David says in the Psalm, ‘the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth,’ which is interpreted, ‘the Lord of Armies,’ and God True and Almighty, though the Arians burst 2358 at the tidings.

24. But He had not been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He a creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the proper offspring of the Essence of that God who is worshipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said Himself, ‘All things that the Father hath, are Mine 2359 .’ For it is proper to the Son, to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes to pass and consists in Him.

Footnotes

357:2312

Prov. viii. 22. [This text, which had been immemorially applied to the Λόγος (supr. p. 168, note 7), and which in the false rendering of the LXX. strongly favoured the Arian side], is presently explained at greater length than any other of the texts he handles, forming the chief subject of the Oration henceforth, after an introduction which extends down to 44.

358:2313

From the methodical manner in which the successive portions of his foregoing Oration are here referred to, it would almost seem as if he were answering in course some Arian work. vid. also supr. Orat. i. 37, 53. infr. Orat. iii. 26. He does not seem to be tracing the controversy historically.

358:2314

Supr. ch. vii.

358:2315

Ch. viii.

358:2316

Ch. ix.

358:2317

Ch. x.

358:2318

Ch. xiii.

358:2319

Ch. xiv. and xv.

358:2320

Ch. xiv. Heb. iii. 2

358:2321

Vid. Arius’s letter, de Syn. 16. This was the sophism by means of which Valens succeeded with the Fathers of Arminium. vid. S. Jerome in Luciferian. 18. vid. also in Eusebius, supr. Ep. Eus. 6.

358:2322

De Syn. 32.

358:2323

υἵον χρηματίζειν. The question between Catholics and Arians was whether our Lord was a true Son, or only called Son. ‘Since they whisper something about Word and Wisdom as only names of the Son, &c.’ ὀνόματα μόνον, supr. i. 26, note 1, and de Decr. 16, note 10. And so ‘the title of Image is not a token of a similar substance, but His name only,’ supr. i. 21, and so infr. 38. where τοῖς ὀνόμασι is synonymous with κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, as Sent. D. 22. f. a. Vid. also 39. Orat. iii. 11. 18. ‘not named Son, but ever Son,’ iv. 24. fin. Ep. Æg. 16. ‘We call Him so, and mean truly what we say; they say it, but do not confess it.’ Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 33. 4. vid. also νόθοις ὥσπερ ὀνόμασι, Cyril. de Trin. ii. p. 418. Non hæc nuda nomina, Ambros. de Fid. i. 17. Yet, since the Sabellians equally failed here, also considering the Sonship as only a notion or title, vid. Orat. iv. 2. (where in contrast, ‘The Father is Father, and the Son Son,’ vid. supr. p. 319, note 1.) 12. 23. 25. the word ‘real’ was used as against them, and in opposition to ἀνυπόστατος λόγος by the Arians, and in consequence failed as a test of orthodox teaching; e.g. by Arius, supr. p. 97. by Euseb. in Marc. pp. 19, d. 35, b. 161, c. by Asterius, infr. 37. by Palladius and Secundus in the Council of Aquileia ap. Ambros. Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. Bened.) by Maximinus ap. August. contr. Max. i. 6.

358:2324

Matt. xxiii. 19.

358:2325

And so S. Ambrose, Quæ enim creatura non sicut alia creatura non est? Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut cœlum. de Fid. i. n. 130, and a similar passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p. 132, 3.

358:2326

ἐξαίρετον. vid. infr. Orat. iii. 3. init. iv. 28. init. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. pp. 47. b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129. c. Theodor. H. E. p. 732. Nyss. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 133. a. Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 970. Cyril. Thes. p. 160.

358:2327

Rom. i. 20.

359:2328

γεννηθέντα ἢ ποιηθέντα; as if they were synonymous; in opposition to which the Nicene Creed says, γεννηθέντα ἢ ποιηθέντα. In like manner Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the words, πρὶν γεννηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ, ἢ ὀρισθῇ, ἢ θεμελιωθῇ, Theodor. H. E. p. 750. And to Alexander, ἀχρόνως γεννηθεὶς καὶ πρὸ αἰ& 240·νων κτισθεὶς καὶ θεμελιωθείς· de Syn. 16. And Eusebius to Paulinus, κτιστὸν καὶ θεμελιωτὸν καὶ γεννητόν Theod. p. 752. The different words profess to be Scriptural, and to explain each other; ‘created’ being in Prov. viii. 22. ‘made’ in the passages considered in the last two chapters, ‘appointed’ or ‘declared’ in Rom. i. 4. and ‘founded’ or ‘established’ in Prov. viii. 23. which is discussed infr. 22, &c. vid. also 52.

359:2329

21, note 2.

359:2330

Ps. xix. 1.

359:2331

1 Esdr. iv. 36.

359:2332

John xiv. 6.

359:2333

Prov. viii. 30, LXX.

359:2334

John v. 17.

359:2335

Orat. iii. 11. note.

359:2336

ποιητικὸν αἴτιον, also, infr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and contr. Gent. 9 init. No creature can create, vid. e.g. about Angels, August. de Civ. Dei xii. 24. de Trin. iii. 13–18. Damasc. F. O. ii. 3. Cyril in Julian, ii. p. 62. ‘Our reason rejects the idea that the Creator should be a creature, for creation is by the Creator.’ Hil. Trin. xii. 5. πῶς δύναται τὸ κτιζόμενον κτίζειν; ἢ πῶς ὁ κτίζων κτίζεται; Athan. ad Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. i. 24, 6. iii. 4, e. The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are alluded to infr. Orat. iii. 12. Epiph. Hær. 52. 53, 163, &c. Theodor. Hær. i. 1 and 3.

359:2337

De Decr. 11.

359:2338

προσταττόμενος καὶ ὑπουργῶν. It is not quite clear that Athan. accepts these words in his own person, as has been assumed de Decr. 9. note 2, de Syn. 27 (3). Vid. de Decr. 7. and infr. 24. and 31, which, as far as they go, are against the use of the word. Also S. Basil objects to ὑποῦργος contr. Eunom. ii. 21. and S. Cyril in Joan. p. 48. though S. Basil speaks of τὸν προστάττοντα κύριον. i. 46, note 3. and S. Cyril of the Son’s ὑποταγή, Thesaur. p. 255. Vid. ‘ministering, ὑπηρετοῦντα, to the Father of all.’ Just. Tryph. p. 72. ‘The Word become minister, ὑπηρέτης, of the Creator,’ Origen Hom. in Joan. p. 61. also Constit. Ap. viii. 12. but Pseudo-Athan. objects to ὑπηρετῶν, de Comm. Essent. 30. and Athan. apparently, infr. 28. Again, ‘Whom did He order, præcepit?’ Iren. Hær. iii. 8. n. 3. ‘The Father bids, ἐντέλλεται (allusion to Ps. xxxiii. 9. vid. infr. 31), the Word accomplishes.…He who commands, κελεύων, is the Father, He who obeys, ὑπακούων, the Son.…The Father willed, ἠθέλησεν, the Son did it.’ Hippol. contr. Noet. 14. on which Fabricius’s note. S. Hilary speaks of the Son as ‘subditus per obedientiæ obsequelam.’ de Syn. 51. Vid. below, on §31. In note 8 there the principle is laid down for the use of these expressions. [Supr. p. 87, note 2.]

360:2339

Cf. Ep. Æg. 14. vid. also supr. p. 155. and Orat. iii. 2. 64. Aug. in Joan. Tract. i. 11. Vid. a parallel argument with reference to the Holy Spirit. Serap. i. 25. b.

360:2340

Vid. John 14:9, 10.

360:2341

τὴν κατὰ πάντα ὁμοιότητα: vid. parallel instances, de Syn. 26 (5) note 1, which add, ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, Orat. i. 40. κατὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, Ep. Æg. 17, c. τοῦ πατρὸς ὅμοιος, Orat. ii. 17. Orat. iii. 20, a. ‘not ὅμοιος, as the Church preaches, but ὡς αὐτοὶ θέλουσι᾽ (vid. p. 289, note 4), also de Syn. 53, note 9.

360:2342

As Sonship is implied in ‘Image’ (supr. §2, note 2), so it is implied in ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom.’ Orat. iv. 15. Orat. iii. 29 init. de Decr. 17. And still more pointedly, Orat. iv. 24 fin. vid. also supr. i. 28, note 5. And so ‘Image is implied in Sonship: ‘being Son of God He must be like Him,’ supr. 17. And so ‘Image’ is implied in Word;’ ἐν τῇ ἰδί& 139· εἰκόνι, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, infr. 82, d. also 34, c. On the contrary, the very root of heretical error was the denial that these titles implied each other, vid. supr. 27, de Decr. 17, 24, notes.

360:2343

Vid. Ex. xxxiii. 20.

360:2344

Matt. xi. 27.

360:2345

John vi. 46, not to the letter.

360:2346

Vid. supr. 1. and Exc. B.

360:2347

Greek text dislocated.

360:2348

Ps. ii. 7; Matt. iii. 17.

360:2349

De Decr. 10.

360:2350

Vid. Orat. iii. 12.

360:2351

Acts x. 26.

360:2352

Rev. xxii. 9.

360:2353

[A note, to the effect that ‘worship’ is an ambiguous term, is omitted here.]

361:2354

Vid. Judg. xiii. 16.

361:2355

Heb. i. 6.

361:2356

Is. xlv. 14.

361:2357

John xiii. 13; xx. 28.

361:2358

διαῤ& 191·ηγνύωσιν ἑαυτούς· also ad Adelph. 8. and vid. supr. note on de Decr. 17. vid. also διαῤ& 191·ηγνύωνται, de Syn. 54, καὶ διαῤ& 191·αγοῖεν, Marcell. ap. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 116. also p. 40 τρίζωσι τοὺς ὀδόντως, de Fug. 26. init. τριζέτωσαν, ad Adelph. 8. Hist. Ar. 68. fin. and literally 72. a. κόπτουσιν ἑαυτούς. In illud Omnia 5.

361:2359

John xvi. 15.

Chapter XVII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God’s immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God’s hand, and an infinite series of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moses was not the Agent in creation:—again, that unity is found in created ministrations, but all such ministrations are defective and dependent:—again, that He learned to create, yet could God’s Wisdom need teaching? and why should He learn, if the Father worketh hitherto? If the Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not we for His.

24 (continued). And here it were well to ask them also this question 2360 , for a still clearer refutation of their heresy;—Wherefore, when all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He made ‘all things through Him’ alone, ‘and without Him was made not one thing 2361 ?’ or why is it, when ‘all things’ are spoken of, that no one thinks the Son is signified in the number, but only things originate; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not understand Him as being in the number of ‘all,’ but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom Providence and salvation for ‘all’ are wrought and effected by the Father, though all things surely might at the same command have come to be, at which He was brought into being by God alone? For God is not wearied by commanding 2362 , nor is His strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the only Son 2363 , and need His ministry and aid for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, which He wills to be done; but He willed only 2364 , and all things subsisted, and no one ‘hath resisted His will 2365 .’ Why then were not all things brought into being by God alone at that same command, at which the Son came into being? Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him come to be, who was Himself but originate? How void of reason! however, they say concerning Him, that ‘God willing to create originate nature, when He saw that it could not endure the untempered hand of the Father, and to be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only, and calls Him Son and Word, that, through Him as a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to be 2366 .’ This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed 2367 .

25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they blush not to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Isaiah too who has said in Scripture, ‘The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His understanding 2368 .’ And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to make the rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, this on the other hand is unworthy of God, for in Him there is no pride. Nay the Lord reproves the thought, when He says, ‘Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?’ and ‘one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father which is in heaven.’ And again, ‘Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them; are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought, can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith 2369 ?’ If then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His Providence, even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow, and the grass of the field, also it was not unworthy of Him to make them. For what things are the subjects of His Providence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak; for they distinguish 2370 between the creatures and the framing; and consider the latter the work of the Father, the creatures the work of the Son; whereas either all things must be brought to be by the Father with the Son, or if all that is originate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the originated things.

26. Next, their folly may be exposed thus:—if even the Word be of originated nature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble to be God’s own handywork, could He alone of all endure to be made by the unoriginate and unmitigated Essence of God, as ye say? for it follows either that, if He could endure it, all could endure it, or, it being endurable by none, it was not endurable by the Word, for you say that He is one of originate things. And again, if because originate nature could not endure to be God’s own handywork, there arose need of a mediator 2371 , it must follow, that, the Word being originate and a creature, there is need of medium in His framing also, since He too is of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God, but needs a medium. But if some being as a medium be found for Him, then again a fresh mediator is needed for that second, and thus tracing back and following out, we shall invent a vast crowd of accumulating mediators; and thus it will be impossible that the creation should subsist, as ever wanting a mediator, and that medium not coming into being without another mediator; for all of them will be of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God alone, as ye say. How abundant is that folly, which obliges them to hold that what has already come into being, admits not of coming! Or perhaps they opine that they have not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on the ground of their so irreligious and futile notion 2372 , what is would not have subsistence, for want of the medium.

27. But again they allege this:—‘Behold, through Moses too did He lead the people from Egypt, and through him He gave the Law, yet he was a man; so that it is possible for like to be brought into being by like.’ They should veil their face when they say this, to save their much shame. For Moses was not sent to frame the world, nor to call into being things which were not, or to fashion men like himself, but only to be the minister of words to the people, and to King Pharaoh. And this is a very different thing, for to minister is of things originate as of servants, but to frame and to create is of God alone, and of His proper Word and His Wisdom. Wherefore, in the matter of framing, we shall find none but God’s Word; for ‘all things are made in Wisdom,’ and ‘without the Word was made not one thing.’ But as regards ministrations there are, not one only, but man out of their whole number, whomever the Lord will send. For there are many Archangels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and Dominions, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, standing before Him 2373 , ministering and ready to be sent. And many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul. And Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron with him, and next other seventy were filled with the Holy Ghost. And Moses was succeeded by Joshua the son of Nun, and he by the Judges, and they not by one, but by a number of Kings. If then the Son were a creature and one of things originate, there must have been many such sons, that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude of those others. But if this is not to be seen, but while the creatures are many, the Word is one, any one will collect from this, that the Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but proper to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the one God 2374 . ‘But behold,’ they say, ‘there is one sun only 2375 , and one earth.’ Let them maintain, senseless as they are, that there is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that everything that is brought to be, is one in its own essence; but for the ministry and service committed to it, by itself it is not adequate nor sufficient alone. For God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth and to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.’ And then he says, ‘And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night 2376 .’

28. Behold there are many lights, and not the sun only, nor the moon only, but each is one in essence, and yet the service of all is one and common; and what each lacks, is supplied by the other, and the office of lighting is performed by all 2377 . Thus the sun has authority to shine throughout the day and no more; and the moon through the night; and the stars together with them accomplish the seasons and years, and become for signs, each according to the need that calls for it. Thus too the earth is not for all things, but for the fruits only, and to be a ground to tread on for the living things that inhabit it. And the firmament is to divide between waters and waters, and to be a place to set the stars in. So also fire and water, with other things, have been brought into being to be the constituent parts of bodies; and in short no one thing is alone, but all things that are made, as if members of each other, make up as it were one body, namely, the world. If then they thus conceive of the Son, let all men throw stones 2378 at them, considering the Word to be a part of this universe, and a part insufficient without the rest for the service committed to Him. But if this be manifestly irreligious, let them acknowledge that the Word is not in the number of things originate, but the sole and proper Word of the Father, and their Framer. ‘But,’ say they, ‘though He is a creature and of things originate; yet as from a master and artificer has He 2379 learned to frame, and thus ministered 2380 to God who taught Him.’ For thus the Sophist Asterius, on the strength of having learned to deny the Lord, has dared to write, not observing the absurdity which follows. For if framing be a thing to be taught, let them beware lest they say that God Himself be a Framer not by nature but by science, so as to admit of His losing the power. Besides, if the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He still Wisdom, when He needs to learn? and what was He before He learned? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed teaching; it was surely but some empty thing, and not essential Wisdom 2381 , but from advancement it had the name of Wisdom, and will be only so long Wisdom as it can keep what it has learned. For what has accrued not by any nature, but from learning, admits of being one time unlearned. But to speak thus of the Word of God, is not the part of Christians but of Greeks.

29. For if the power of framing accrues to anyone from teaching, these insensate men are ascribing jealousy and weakness 2382 to God;—jealousy, in that He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be around Him, as Archangels and Angels many, so framers many; and weakness, in that He could not make by Himself, but needed a fellow-worker, or under-worker; and that, though it has been already shewn that created nature admits of being made by God alone, since they consider the Son to be of such a nature and so made. But God is deficient in nothing: perish the thought! for He has said Himself, ‘I am full 2383 .’ Nor did the Word become Framer of all from teaching; but being the Image and Wisdom of the Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor hath He made the Son for the making of things created; for behold, though the Son exists, still 2384 the Father is seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, ‘My Father worketh hitherto and I work 2385 .’ If however, as you say, the Son came into being for the purpose of making the things after Him, and yet the Father is seen to work even after the Son, you must hold even in this light the making of such a Son to be superfluous. Besides, why, when He would create us, does He seek for a mediator at all, as if His will did not suffice to constitute whatever seemed good to Him? Yet the Scriptures say, ‘He hath done whatsoever pleased Him 2386 ,’ and ‘Who hath resisted His will 2387 ?’ And if His mere will 2388 is sufficient for the framing of all things, you make the office of a mediator superfluous; for your instance of Moses, and the sun and the moon has been shewn not to hold. And here again is an argument to silence you. You say that God, willing the creation of originated nature, and deliberating concerning it, designs and creates the Son, that through Him He may frame us; now, if so, consider how great an irreligion 2389 you have dared to utter.

30. First, the Son appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than we for Him; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for us 2390 ; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. ‘For the man,’ says Scripture, ‘was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.’ Therefore, as ‘the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man 2391 ,’ so we are made God’s image and to His glory; but the Son is our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being that we might be; but God’s Word was made, as you must hold, not that He might be 2392 ; but as an instrument 2393 for our need, so that not we from Him, but He is constituted from our need. Are not men who even conceive such thoughts, more than insensate? For if for us the Word was made, He has not precedence 2394 of us with God; for He did not take counsel about us having Him within Him, but having us in Himself, counselled, as they say, concerning His own Word. But if so, perchance the Father had not even a will for the Son at all; for not as having a will for Him, did He create Him, but with a will for us, He formed Him for our sake; for He designed Him after designing us; so that, according to these irreligious men, henceforth the Son, who was made as an instrument, is superfluous, now that they are made for whom He was created. But if the Son alone was made by God alone, because He could endure it, but we, because we could not, were made by the Word, why does He not first take counsel about the Word, who could endure His making, instead of taking counsel about us? or why does He not make more of Him who was strong, than of us who were weak? or why making Him first, does He not counsel about Him first? or why counselling about us first, does He not make us first, His will being sufficient for the constitution of all things? But He creates Him first, yet counsels first about us; and He wills us before the Mediator; and when He wills to create us, and counsels about us, He calls us creatures; but Him, whom He frames for us, He calls Son and proper Heir. But we, for whose sake He made Him, ought rather to be called sons; or certainly He, who is His Son, is rather the object of His previous thoughts and of His will, for whom He makes all us. Such the sickness, such the vomit 2395 of the heretics.

Footnotes

361:2360

These sections 24–26 are very similar to de Decr. 7, 8, yet not in wording or order, as is the case with other passages.

361:2361

John i. 3.

361:2362

De Decr. 7.

361:2363

μόνος μόνον, also infr. 30. this phrase is synonymous with ‘not as one of the creatures,’ vid. μόνος ὑπὸ μόνου, supr. p. 12. also p. 75. note 6. vid. μόνως, de Syn. 26, fin. note 2, though that term is somewhat otherwise explained by S. Greg. Naz. μόνως οὐχ ὡς τὰ σώματα, Orat. 25, 16. Eunomius understood by μονογενής, not μόνος γεννηθεὶς but παρὰ μόνου. It should be observed, however, that this is a sense in which some of the Greek Fathers understand the term, thus contrasting generation with procession. vid. Petav. Trin. vii. 11. §3.

361:2364

§§29, 31.

361:2365

Rom. ix. 19.

361:2366

Vid. de Decr. §8. supr. p. 2. also Cyril. Thesaur. pp. 150, 241. de Trin. p. 523. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. vid. also infr. 29. Orat. iv. 11, 12.

361:2367

De Decr. 8.

362:2368

Is. xl. 28.

362:2369

Matt. x. 29; vi. 25–30

362:2370

διαίρουσιν, as supr. de Decr. 7.

362:2371

Vid. ib. 8. vid. also a similar argument in Epiphanius Hær. 76. p. 951. but the arguments of Ath. in these Orations are so generally adopted by the succeeding Fathers, that it is impossible and needless to enumerate the instances of agreement.

362:2372

And so de Decr. 8.

362:2373

i. 62. and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 106.

363:2374

§36, note 4.

363:2375

Vid. Euseb. Demon. iv. 5 fin.

363:2376

Gen. i. 14-18

363:2377

§48.

363:2378

§4, note 2.

363:2379

Cyril. in Joan. p. 47, c.

363:2380

§22, note 1.

363:2381

οὐσιωδὴς σοφία. vid. Orat. iv. 1.

363:2382

i. 27.

363:2383

Is. i. 11.

363:2384

vid. p. 315, note 6. Serap. ii. 2. fin.

363:2385

John v. 17.

364:2386

Ps. cxv. 3.

364:2387

Rom. ix. 19.

364:2388

§24, note 5.

364:2389

Notes on §58, and de Decr. 1.

364:2390

Vid. Orat. iv. 11.

364:2391

1 Cor. 11:7, 9.

364:2392

Cf. infr. ch. 20.

364:2393

ὄργανον, supr. i. 26, n. 5.

364:2394

πρῶτος ἡμῶν, §63, note.

364:2395

ἔμετοι καὶ ναυτίαὶ ναυτίαι sea-sickness; Epictetus, in a somewhat similar sense, ‘There is great danger of pouring forth straightway, what one has not digested.’ Enchirid. 46.

Chapter XVIII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Contrast between the Father’s operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these illustrations; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God’s Word and man’s word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Unoriginates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than other heresies.

31. But the sentiment of Truth 2396 in this matter must not be hidden, but must have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and ‘in Him all things were created 2397 .’ Nor for that we were weak, was He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of Him as an instrument; perish the thought! it is not so. For though it had seemed good to God not to make things originate, still had the Word been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things originate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through Him,—and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His essence, and is from Him, and in Him 2398 , as He said Himself, the creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand 2399 , in the Word wrought all things, and without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as Moses relates, ‘Let there be light,’ and ‘Let the waters be gathered together,’ and ‘let the dry land appear,’ and ‘Let Us make man 2400 ;’ as also Holy David in the Psalm, ‘He spake and they were made; He commanded and they were created 2401 .’ And He spoke 2402 , not that, as in the case of men, some under-worker might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father’s Will 2403 . Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things which He wished made; but God only said, ‘Let it become,’ and he adds, ‘And it became;’ for what He thought good and counselled, that forthwith the Word began to do and to finish. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says, ‘Whereby shall I know 2404 ?’ and the other, ‘Send some one else 2405 ;’ and again, ‘If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them 2406 ?’ and the Angel said to Zacharias, ‘Thus saith the Lord 2407 ;’ and he asked the Lord, ‘O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?’ and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator 2408 Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word ‘He said’ is a token of the will for our sake, and ‘It was so,’ denotes the work which is done through the Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And ‘God said’ is explained in ‘the Word,’ for, he says, ‘Thou hast made all things in Wisdom;’ and ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast;’ and ‘There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him 2409 .’

32. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with us about their heresy; but while they pretend us, their real fight is against the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours which says, ‘This it My Son 2410 ,’ small were our complaint of them; but if it is the Father’s voice, and the disciples heard it, and the Son too says of Himself, ‘Before all the mountains He begat me 2411 ,’ are they not fighting against God, as the giants 2412 in story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword 2413 for irreligion? For they neither feared the voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour’s words, nor trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, ‘Who being the Brightness of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence,’ and ‘Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God 2414 ;’ and another says in the Psalm, ‘With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light,’ and ‘Thou madest all things in Wisdom 2415 ;’ and the Prophets say, ‘And the Word of the Lord came to me 2416 ;’ and John, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ and Luke, ‘As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word 2417 ;’ and as David again says, ‘He sent His Word and healed them 2418 .’ All these passages proscribe in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper to the Father’s Essence. For when saw any one light without radiance? or who dares to say that the expression can be different from the subsistence? or has not a man himself lost his mind 2419 who even entertains the thought that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? For such illustrations and such images has Scripture proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these however poorly and dimly, and as far as is attainable 2420 . And as the creation contains abundant matter for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence (‘for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen 2421 ’), and we learn from them without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and surveying the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His marvellous Providence and governance over all things; so in like manner about the Son’s Godhead, what has been above said is sufficient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather it is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in an heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? or how can He be from the Father’s Essence, yet not a part? since what is said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, is not whole.

33. These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox; yet, though we have already shewn their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these illustrations will serve to shew the baseless nature of their loathsome tenet. For we see that reason is ever, and is from him and proper to his essence, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and an after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the sun’s essence is not divided or impaired; but its essence is whole and its radiance perfect and whole 2422 , yet without impairing the essence of light, but as a true offspring from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father’s likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, ‘The Father who dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works 2423 ’ which I do; and ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me 2424 .’ Therefore let this Christ—opposing heresy attempt first to divide 2425 the examples found in things originate, and say, ‘Once the sun was without his radiance,’ or, ‘Radiance is not proper to the essence of light,’ or ‘It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division; and then let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or that it was not proper to its essence, or that it is by division a part of mind.’ And so of His Expression and the Light and the Power, let it do violence to these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead let it imagine what it will 2426 . But if such extravagance be impossible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding into what is higher than things originate and their own nature, and essaying impossibilities 2427 ?

34. For if in the case of these originate and irrational things offsprings are found which are not parts of the essences from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the essences of their originals, are they not mad again in seeking and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change, thereby to perplex the ears of the simple 2428 and to pervert them from the Truth? for who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper to the father’s essence? who heard, in his first catechising 2429 , that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange 2430 , and a second sowing, besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second sowing 2431 , of ‘He is a creature,’ and ‘There was once when He was not,’ and ‘How can it be?’ thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ’s enemies rose as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every right thought, they meddle 2432 like robbers, and venture to say, ‘How can the Son always exist with the Father?’ for men come of men and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being begotten; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he was not before his generation. And again they whisper, ‘How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God’s Image? for the word of men is composed of syllables 2433 , and only signifies the speaker’s will, and then is over 2434 and is lost.’

35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have been already urged against them, ‘pierce themselves through 2435 ’ with these bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth 2436 confutes them as follows:—if they were disputing concerning any man, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if of God who created man, no longer let them entertain human thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is the Word’s Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time 2437 also himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word 2438 also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing 2439 and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light. And man’s word is composed of syllables, and neither lives nor operates anything, but is only significant of the speaker’s intention, and does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not at all before it was spoken; wherefore the word of man neither lives nor operates anything, nor in short is man. And this happens to it, as I said before, because man who begets it, has his nature out of nothing. But God’s Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by His Son is meant His command 2440 ; but as radiance of light, so is He perfect offspring from perfect 2441 . Hence He is God also, as being God’s Image; for ‘the Word was God 2442 ’ says Scripture. And man’s words avail not for operation; hence man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and man’s word subsists not. But the ‘Word of God,’ as the Apostle says, ‘is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. 2443 ’ He is then Framer of all, ‘and without Him was made not one thing 2444 ,’ nor can anything be made without Him.

36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before said; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, or how He is God’s radiance, or how God begets, and what is the manner of His begetting 2445 . For a man must be beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and proper to God’s nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son, this he demands to be explained in words. It is all one as if they sought where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is. But as to ask such questions is irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy 2446 , because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is unworthy of God, such daring recurs a sentence without mercy. For in such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief, so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an illustration; that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work external to us, so also God’s Word is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work; and yet is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. For observe, many and various are men’s words which pass away day by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors are men, and have seasons which pass away, and ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases, and his word forthwith is spent. But God’s Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, ‘The Word of God endureth for ever 2447 ,’ not changed, not before or after other, but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One and One His Wisdom 2448 .

37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after their private notions, many images and wisdoms and words 2449 , and say that the Father’s proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son 2450 and that He who is really Son is but notionally 2451 called Word, as vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called Wisdom also in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which coexist ingenerately 2452 with Him, being other than the Son, by which He even made the Son, and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it. This they have not confined to words, but Arius composed in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius wrote, what we have stated above, as follows: ‘Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God,’ but without the addition of the article, ‘God’s power’ and ‘God’s wisdom 2453 ,’ thus preaching that the proper Power of God Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus,—‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead 2454 .’ For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, ‘His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat Him 2455 .’ And he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ. And shortly after the same Asterius says, ‘However His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all however equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are rightly called His who created and uses them:—as the Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God.’

38. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering this? for if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten of the Father and proper to His Essence, but that He is called Word only because of things rational 2456 , and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing, He has even His existence 2457 , in our notions only 2458 . And then after all what is He? for He is none of these Himself, if they are but His names 2459 : and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names from us. Rather this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God’s Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom coexists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us say that the Word coexists with the Father, forthwith murmur out, ‘Are you not speaking of two Unoriginates?’ yet in speaking themselves of ‘His Unoriginate Wisdom,’ do not see that they have already incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against us 2460 ? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is God Himself! for what coexists does not coexist with itself, but with some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples;—unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Essence, unoriginate as well as Himself 2461 , which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.

39. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, ‘Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces 2462 ?’ and in the Proverbs, ‘I will make known My words unto you 2463 ;’ but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the saints through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, ‘I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Thy words 2464 .’ Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, ‘The words which I have spoken unto you 2465 .’ For certainly such words are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God was He preached by John, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ and ‘all things were made by Him 2466 .’ Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and ‘without Him was made not one thing 2467 .’ But concerning another or any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise, and they make the most 2468 of the name of the Word and the Wisdom; and framing to themselves others, they deny the true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves another, whom they can shew neither by work, nor in any testimony drawn from the divine oracles.

40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers 2469 have we heard of any such, yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father unoriginately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them is eternally coexistent with the Father. For He is Framer of all, as it is written, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all 2470 .’ Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas’s 2471 fashion, involuntarily, when urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words;—‘God the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the essence and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful.’ And soon afterwards he says again:—‘Who are they whom they honour with the title of God’s children? for they will not say that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Essence of the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom.’ It is not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is unoriginate, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also. And they battle with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom coexists with God unoriginately 2472 . So dizzied 2473 are they in all these matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which is not, as the Manichees who make to themselves another God, after denying Him that is.

41. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario-maniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One, being the only Son proper and genuine from His Essence, and having with His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible, as we said many times, being taught it by the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and illuminate them? or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious 2474 , but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? For what fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? for if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature? but if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature 2475 , since all 2476 need grace from God. We said a few words just now on the fitness that all things should be made by Him; but since the course of the discussion has led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God’s Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father worketh, He worketh through the Son 2477 , and the Lord Himself says, ‘What I see the Father do, that do I also;’ so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost 2478 . And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him 2479 .

42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke; ‘I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;’ and again, ‘that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one in Us.’ And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, ‘Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ 2480 .’ For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the Father either; for, as having left the ‘Fountain of Wisdom 2481 ,’ as Baruch reproaches them, they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for ‘Christ,’ says the Apostle, is ‘God’s power and God’s wisdom 2482 ),’ when they said, ‘We have no king but Cæsar 2483 .’ The Jews then have the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work 2484 . And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, ‘O Lord,’ gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith 2485 . On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, ‘Teach;’ then thus: ‘Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;’ that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.

43. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith 2486 , and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled 2487 by them is rather polluted 2488 by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism 2489 , because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians 2490 , and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord’s Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about 2491 with them the phrase, ‘He was not,’ as mud in a wallet 2492 , and spit it forth as serpents 2493 their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human 2494 patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help, and believing in one unlike 2495 and foreign to the Father in essence, to the Father they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His Father’s throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion.

Footnotes

364:2396

§35, note 2.

364:2397

Col. i. 16.

364:2398

De Syn. 42, note 1.

365:2399

ὡς διὰ χειρός. vid. supr. p. 155, note 6. And so in Orat. iv. 26, a. de Incarn. contr. Arian. 12. a. κραταιὰ χεὶρ τοῦ πατρός. Method. de Creat. ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Iren. Hær. iv. 20. n. 1. v. 1 fin. and. 5. n. 2. and 6. n. 1. Clement. Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog. 45. Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm cviii. 27. Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. Clement. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril. Alex. frequently, e.g. in Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur. p. 154. Pseudo-Basil. χεῖρ δημιουργικὴ, contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 582. and August. in Joann. 48, 7. though he prefers another use of the word.

365:2400

Gen. 1:3, 9, 26.

365:2401

Ps. clxviii. 5.

365:2402

Vid. de Decr. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hær. iii. 8. n. 3. Origen contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12. fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routh t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. vid. supr. §22, note. Didym. de Sp. S. 36. August. de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. Petav. Trin. vi. 4.

365:2403

βουλή. And so βούλησις presently; and ζῶσα βουλή, supr. 2. and Orat. iii. 63. fin. and so Cyril Thes. p. 54, who uses it expressly (as it is always used by implication), in contrast to the κατὰ βούλησιν of the Arians, though Athan. uses κατὰ τὸ βούλημα, e.g. Orat. iii. 31. where vid. note; αὐτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς θέλημα. Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the use of such words is this; that we must ever speak of the Father’s will, command, &c., and the Son’s fulfilment, assent, &c., as one act. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 11 and 15. infr. [Cf. p. 87. note 2.]

365:2404

Gen. xv. 8.

365:2405

Ex. iv. 13.

365:2406

Ex. 3.13.

365:2407

Zech. 1:3, 12.

365:2408

§16, note 7.

365:2409

Ps. civ. 24; xxxiii. 6; 1 Cor. viii. 6

365:2410

Vid. Matt. xvii. 5.

365:2411

Prov. viii. 25, LXX.

365:2412

τοὺς μυθευομένους γίγαντας, vid. supr. de Decr. fin. Also ὡς τοὺς γίγαντας Orat.iii. 42. In Hist. Arian. 74. he calls Constantius a γίγας. The same idea is implied in the word θεομάχος so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this sentence.

365:2413

Ps. lvii. 4.

365:2414

Heb. i. 3; 1 Cor. i. 24.

365:2415

Ps. xxxvi. 9; civ. 24.

365:2416

Jer. ii. 1.

365:2417

John i. 1; Luke i. 2.

365:2418

Ps. cvii. 20.

365:2419

Vid. p. 150, n. 6, also Gent. 40 fin. where what is here, as commonly, applied to the Arians, is, before the rise of Arianism, applied to unbelievers.

365:2420

Vid. de Decr. 12, 16, notes i. 26, n. 2, ii. 36, n. 1. de Syn. 41, n. 1. In illud Omnia 3 fin. vid. also 6. Aug. Confess. xiii. 11. And again, Trin. xv. 39. And S. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 17.

366:2421

Wisd. xiii. 5.

366:2422

The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality of attribute or relation, but the One Eternal Substance; not a part of the First Person, but whole or entire God; nor does the generation impair the Father’s Substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole and entire God. Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, Each being wholly one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely separate aspects of the Same, Each being God as absolutely as if there were no other Divine Person but Himself. Such a statement indeed is not only a contradiction in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not therefore a contradiction in fact; unless indeed any one will say that human words can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one idea, the unknown and infinite God. Basil. contr. Eun. i. 10. vid. infr. §38, n. 3.

366:2423

John xiv. 10.

366:2424

John x. 30.

366:2425

διελεῖν, vid. §25, note 3.

366:2426

Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4.

366:2427

In illud. Omn. 6. init.

366:2428

Cf. p. 69, notes 7 and 8.

366:2429

De Decr. 7, n. 2; De Syn. 3, n. 2; Or. i. 8.

366:2430

He here makes the test of the truth of explicit doctrinal statements to lie in their not shocking, or their answering to the religious sense of the Christian.

366:2431

Vid. supr. de Decr. 2. n. 6. Tertullian de Carn. Christ. 17. S. Leo, as Athan. makes ‘seed’ in the parable apply peculiarly to faith in distinction to obedience. Serm. 69. 5 init.

367:2432

περιεργάζονται. This can scarcely be, as Newman suggests, an error of the press for περιέρχονται. The Latin translates ‘circumire cœperunt.

367:2433

Orat. iv. 1.

367:2434

πέπαυται, Orat. iv. 2.

367:2435

Vid. 1 Tim. vi. 10.

367:2436

ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐλέγχει. This and the like are usual forms of speech with Athan. and others. In some instances the words ἀλήθεια, λόγος, &c., are almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid. παρὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, infr. 36. and Origen de Princ. Præf. 1. and 2.

367:2437

Orat. i. 21.

367:2438

For this contrast between the Divine Word and the human which is Its shadow, vid. also Orat. iv. 1. circ. fin. Iren. Hær. ii. 13. n. 8. Origen. in Joan. i. p. 25. e. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 230. Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil, Hom. xvi. 3. Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii. p. 350. Orat. Cat. i. p. 478. Damasc. F. O. i. 6. August. in Psalm xliv. 5.

367:2439

Vid. Serap. i. 28, a.

367:2440

§31, n. 7.

367:2441

De Syn. 24, n. 9; infr. 36. note.

367:2442

John i. 1.

367:2443

Heb. 4:12, 13.

367:2444

John i. 3.

367:2445

Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject. As, he says, we do not know how God can create out of nothing, so we are utterly ignorant of the Divine Generation. It is written, He who believes, not he who knows, has eternal life. The sun’s radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no true idea of that which is above all images. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. So has S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 8. vid. also Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril, Cat. xi. 11. and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante Const. p 619. And instances in Petav. de Trin. v. 6. §2. and 3.

367:2446

Cf. August. Ep. 43. init. vid. also de Bapt. contr. Don. iv. 23.

368:2447

Vid. Ps. cxix. 89

368:2448

Vid. supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also presently, ‘He is likeness and image of the sole and true God, being Himself also,’ 49. μόνος ἐν μόνῳ, Orat. iii. 21. ὅλος ὅλου εἰκών. Serap. i. 16, a. ‘The Offspring of the Ingenerate,’ says S. Hilary, ‘is One from One, True from True, Living from Living, Perfect from Perfect, Power of Power, Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory.’ de Trin. ii. 8. τέλειος τέλειον γεγέννηκεν, πνεῦμα πνεῦμα. Epiph. Hær. p. 495. ‘As Light from Light, and Life from Life, and Good from Good; so from Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 164. App.

368:2449

πολλοὶ λόγοι, vid. de Decr. 16, n. 4. infr. 39 init. and οὐδ᾽ ἐκ πολλῶν εἷς, Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Æg. 14. c. Origen in Joan. tom. ii. 3. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Marc. p. 4 fin. contr. Sabell. init. August. in Joan. Tract. i. 8. also vid. Philo’s use of λόγοι for Angels as commented on by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called Mercury by the name of λόγος. vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin, Ap. i. 21.

368:2450

This was the point in which Arians and [Marcellus] agreed, vid infr. Orat. iv. init. also §§22, 40, and de Decr. 24, n. 9, also Sent D. 25. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. Epiph. Hær. 72. p. 835. b.

368:2451

That is, they allowed Him to be ‘really Son,’ and argued that He was but ‘notionally Word.’ vid. §19, n. 3.

368:2452

ἀγεννήτως, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 106. d.

368:2453

1 Cor. i. 24.

368:2454

Rom. i. 20.

368:2455

Or. i. 11, n. 7.

368:2456

λογικά, vid. Ep. Æg. 13 fin.

368:2457

Of course this line of thought consistently followed, leads to a kind of Pantheism; for what is the Supreme Being, according to it, but an ideal standard of perfection, the sum total of all that we see excellent in the world in the highest degree, a creation of our minds, without real objective existence? The true view of our Lord’s titles, on the other hand, is that He is That properly and in perfection, of which in measure and degree the creatures partake from and in Him. Vid. supr. de Decr. 17, n. 5.

368:2458

κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above, and de Syn. 15. Or. i. 9, also Orat. iv. 2, 3. de Sent. D. 2, Ep. Æg 12, 13, 14. It denotes our idea or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus, the sun is to a savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a ‘rational animal,’ according to a certain process of abstraction; a herb may be medicine upon one division, food in another; virtue may be called a mean; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion, to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manner, the Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded, without parts, passions, attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is infinite and incomprehensible. That is, He is κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν holy or merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as one indivisible perfection; which is too great for us to conceive as It is.

368:2459

§19.

369:2460

The Anomœan in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic that, if the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. next note.

369:2461

On this subject vid. Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and [Marcellus] in Orat. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature as compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open to such a charge. Nor are they; though in avoiding it, they are led to enunciate the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. §33, n. 1. The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son; They do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is ὅλος Θεός. This is not ditheism or tritheism, for they are the same God; nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and substantive Persons; but it is a depth and height beyond our intellect, how what is Two in so full a sense can also in so full a sense be One, or how the Divine Nature does not come under number. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27 and 36. Thus, ‘being uncompounded in nature,’ says Athan. ‘He is Father of One Only Son.’ de Decr. 11. In truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, ‘avails especially towards the unity and simplicity of God.’ vid. de Deo, ii. 4, 8.

369:2462

Jer. xxiii. 29.

369:2463

Prov. i. 23.

369:2464

Ps. cxix. 101.

369:2465

Joh. vi. 63.

369:2466

John 1:14, 3.

369:2467

Cf. Orat. i. 19, note 5.

369:2468

καταχρῶνται, vid. supr. p. 154, note 3.

369:2469

Ib. note 2.

369:2470

Ps. civ. 24.

369:2471

Vid. John xi. 50

370:2472

Asterius held, 1. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute; or 1. that Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms, words, powers many, of which the Son was one.

370:2473

σκοτοδινιῶσι, Orat. iii. 42. init.

370:2474

He says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to His creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in saying that the Son was created for creation, illumination, &c.; whereas in the Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person who in the Economy of grace is creator, enlightener, &c. God is represented all-perfect but acting according to a certain divine order. This is explained just below. Here the remark is in point about the right and wrong sense of the words ‘commanding,’ ‘obeying,’ &c. supr. §31, note 7.

370:2475

§16, note 7.

370:2476

Supr. p. 162, note 3.

370:2477

Vid. notes on Orat. iii. 1–15. e.g. and 11 and 15.

370:2478

Orat. iii. 15. note.

370:2479

Vid. supr. 33, note 1. and notes on iii. 3–6. ‘When the Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.’ ad Serap. i. 14. and vid. Hil. Trin. vii. 31. Passages like these are distinct from such as the one quoted from Athan. supr. p. 76, note 3, where it is said that in ‘Father’ is implied ‘Son,’ i.e. argumentatively as a correlative. vid. Sent. D. 17. de Decr. 19, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to admit in Sabell. i. ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8, a. ‘Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium, &c.;’ for here no περιχώρησις is implied, which is the doctrine of the text, and is not the doctrine of an Arian who considered the Son an instrument. Yet Petavius observes as to the very word περιχ. that one of its first senses in ecclesiastical writers was this which Arians would not disclaim; its use to express the Catholic doctrine here spoken of was later. vid. de Trin. iv. 16.

371:2480

Vid. John 14:23, John 17:21, Rom. 1:7John xiv. 23, and John xvii. 21; Rom. i. 7, &c.

371:2481

Bar. iii. 12.

371:2482

1 Cor. i. 24.

371:2483

John xix. 15.

371:2484

De Decr. 31; Or. i. 34.

371:2485

The prima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism; vid. Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 19 and 20. Forbes Instruct. Theol. x. 2, 3, and 12. Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. v. 62. §5–11. On Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski’s Diss. Opusc. t. iv. p. 113. [And, in violent contrast to Athan., Siricius (bishop of Rome) letter to Himerius, a.d. 385. (Coust. 623.)]

371:2486

τὴν π. ὑγιαινούσαν. Dep. Ar. 5, note 6.

371:2487

ῥαντιζόμενον, Bingh. Antiqu. xi. 11. §5.

371:2488

Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 76 fin. (ed. Ben.) and Ep. 71 cir. init. Optatus ad Parmen. i. 12.

371:2489

ἀθεότητος. vid. supr. de Decr. 1, note 1, Or. i. 4, note 1. ‘Atheist’ or rather ‘godless’ was the title given by pagans to those who denied, and by the Fathers to those who professed, polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred ‘atheism to godliness.’ vid. Suicer Thes. in voc.

371:2490

Montanists.

371:2491

περιφέρουσι, §34. n. 5.

371:2492

Instead of provisions.

371:2493

Cf. Ep. Æg. 19. Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs (with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Decr. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 11. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. Æg. 7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init. Orat. iii. 59. init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4. [swine, Or. ii. 1.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum bestialitatis hereticæ ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompæus of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applications infr. Orat. iii. 18.

371:2494

Orat. i. 9.

371:2495

Orat. iii. 4. note.

Chapter XIX.—Texts explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22. Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. ‘He created me’ not equivalent to ‘I am a creature.’ Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, if He is a creature, it is as ‘a beginning of ways,’ an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is ‘for the works,’ which implied the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was created. Also ‘the Lord’ not the Father ‘created’ Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant.

44. We have gone through thus much before the passage in the Proverbs, resisting the insensate fables which their hearts have invented, that they may know that the Son of God ought not to be called a creature, and may learn lightly to read what admits in truth of a right 2496 explanation. For it is written, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works 2497 ;’ since, however, these are proverbs, and it is expressed in the way of proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly in their first sense, but we must inquire into the person, and thus religiously put the sense on it. For what is said in proverbs, is not said plainly, but is put forth latently 2498 , as the Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel according to John, saying, ‘These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but openly 2499 .’ Therefore it is necessary to unfold the sense 2500 of what is said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not nakedly to expound as if the meaning were spoken ‘plainly,’ lest by a false interpretation we wander from the truth. If then what is written be about Angel, or any other of things originate, as concerning one of us who are works, let it be said, ‘created me;’ but if it be the Wisdom of God, in whom all things originate have been framed, that speaks concerning Itself, what ought we to understand but that ‘He created’ means nothing contrary to ‘He begat?’ Nor, as forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It number Itself among the creatures; but It signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not ‘plainly,’ but latent; which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy, while soon after It doth Itself give the meaning of ‘He created’ in other but parallel expressions, saying, ‘Wisdom made herself a house 2501 .’ Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom’s house 2502 , which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently does John say, ‘The Word was made flesh 2503 ;’ and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness 2504 , not ‘I am a creature,’ but only ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works 2505 ,’ yet not ‘created me that I might have being,’ nor ‘because I have a creature’s beginning and origin.’

45. For in this passage, not as signifying the Essence of His Godhead, nor His own everlasting and genuine generation from the Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but on the other hand His manhood and Economy towards us. And, as I said before, He has not said ‘I am a creature,’ or ‘I became a creature,’ but only ‘He created 2506 .’ For the creatures, having a created essence, are originate, and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created: but this mere term ‘He created’ does not necessarily signify the essence or the generation, but indicates something else as coming to pass in Him of whom it speaks, and not simply that He who is said to be created, is at once in His Nature and Essence a creature 2507 . And this difference divine Scripture recognises, saying concerning the creatures, ‘The earth is full of Thy creation,’ and ‘the creation itself groaneth together and travaileth together 2508 ;’ and in the Apocalypse it says, ‘And the third part of the creatures in the sea died which had life;’ as also Paul says, ‘Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving 2509 ;’ and in the book of Wisdom it is written, ‘Having ordained man through Thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which Thou hast made 2510 .’ And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from the Lord, who says, ‘He who created them, made them male and female 2511 ;’ and from Moses in the Song, who writes, ‘Ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other 2512 .’ And Paul in Colossians, ‘Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him, and He is before all 2513 .’

46. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created belongs to things which have by nature a created essence, these passages are sufficient to remind us, though Scripture is full of the like; on the other hand that the single word ‘He created’ does not simply denote the essence and mode of generation, David shews in the Psalm, ‘This shall be written for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Lord 2514 ;’ and again, ‘Create in me a clean heart, O God 2515 ;’ and Paul in Ephesians says, ‘Having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to create in Himself of two one new man 2516 ;’ and again, ‘Put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness 2517 .’ For neither David spoke of any people created in essence, nor prayed to have another heart than that he had, but meant renovation according to God and renewal; nor did Paul signify two persons created in essence in the Lord, nor again did he counsel us to put on any other man; but he called the life according to virtue the ‘man after God,’ and by the ‘created’ in Christ he meant the two people who are renewed in Him. Such too is the language of the book of Jeremiah; ‘The Lord created a new salvation for a planting, in which salvation men shall walk to and fro 2518 ;’ and in thus speaking, he does not mean any essence of a creature, but prophesies of the renewal of salvation among men, which has taken place in Christ for us. Such then being the difference between ‘the creatures’ and the single word ‘He created,’ if you find anywhere in divine Scripture the Lord called ‘creature,’ produce it and fight; but if it is nowhere written that He is a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me,’ shame upon you, both on the ground of the distinction aforesaid and for that the diction is like that of proverbs; and accordingly let ‘He created’ be understood, not of His being a creature, but of that human nature which became His, for to this belongs creation. Indeed is it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul say ‘He created,’ then indeed not to understand it of the essence and the generation, but the renewal; yet, when the Lord says ‘He created’ to number His essence with the creatures? and again when Scripture says, ‘Wisdom built her an house, she set it upon seven pillars 2519 ,’ to understand ‘house’ allegorically, but to take ‘He created’ as it stands, and to fasten on it the idea of creature? and neither His being Framer of all has had any weight with you, nor have you feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the Father, but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, do ye fight, and think less of Him than of men.

47. For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ as if to say, ‘My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.’ For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh 2520 ,’ we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh 2521 , but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin 2522 ,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood 2523 ’); so, if it is said in the Proverbs ‘He created,’ we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body 2524 and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. What then deceived you, O senseless, to call the Creator a creature? or whence did you purchase for you this new thought, to parade it 2525 ? For the Proverbs say ‘He created,’ but they call not the Son creature, but Offspring; and, according to the distinction in Scripture aforesaid of ‘He created’ and ‘creature,’ they acknowledge, what is by nature proper to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the creatures, and when they say ‘He created,’ they say it not in respect of His Essence, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that ‘He created’ is in contrast to ‘Offspring,’ and His being called the ‘Beginning of ways 2526 ’ to His being the Only-begotten Word.

48. For if He is Offspring, how call ye Him creature? for no one says that He begets what He creates, nor calls His proper offspring creatures; and again, if He is Only-begotten, how becomes He ‘beginning of the ways?’ for of necessity, if He was created a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone, as having those who came into being after Him. For Reuben, when he became a beginning of the children 2527 , was not only-begotten, but in time indeed first, but in nature and relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore if the Word also is ‘a beginning of the ways,’ He must be such as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though in point of time He be created first of them. For the beginning or initiative of a city is such as the other parts of the city are, and the members too being joined to it, make the city whole and one, as the many members of one body; nor does one part of it make, and another come to be, and is subject to the former, but all the city equally has its government and constitution from its maker. If then the Lord is in such sense created as a ‘beginning’ of all things, it would follow that He and all other things together make up the unity of the creation, and He neither differs from all others, though He become the ‘beginning’ of all, nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time; but He has the same manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. Nay, if He be a creature, as you hold, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all? when it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures not any is of a constant 2528 nature and of prior formation, but each has its origination with all the rest, however it may excel others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God’s Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam only was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.

49. And from the visible creation, we clearly discern that His invisible things also, ‘being perceived by the things that are made 2529 ,’ are not independent of each other; for it was not first one and then another, but all at once were constituted after their kind. For the Apostle did not number individually, so as to say ‘whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or Authority,’ but he mentions together all according to their kind, ‘whether Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities 2530 :’ for in this way is the origination of the creatures. If then, as I have said, the Word were creature He must have been brought into being, not first of them, but with all the other Powers, though in glory He excel the rest ever so much. For so we find it to be in their case, that at once they came to be, with neither first nor second, and they differ from each other in glory, some on the right of the throne, some all around, and some on the left, but one and all praising and standing in service before the Lord 2531 . Therefore if the Word be creature He would not be first or beginning of the rest; yet if He be before all, as indeed He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is beginning of all things as to His Essence 2532 , for what is the beginning of all is in the number of all. And if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a creature, but it is very plain that He differs in essence and nature from the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such, saying, ‘Who among the gods is like unto the Lord 2533 ?’ and ‘Who is like unto the Lord among the sons of God?’ and Baruch, ‘This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him 2534 .’ For the One creates, and the rest are created; and the One is the own Word and Wisdom of the Father’s Essence, and through this Word things which came to be, which before existed not, were made.

50. Your famous assertion then, that the Son is a creature, is not true, but is your fantasy only; nay Solomon convicts you of having many times slandered him. For he has not called Him creature, but God’s Offspring and Wisdom, saying, ‘God in Wisdom established the earth,’ and ‘Wisdom built her an house 2535 .’ And the very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit; for it is written, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.’ Therefore if He is before all things, yet says ‘He created me’ (not ‘that I might make the works,’ but) ‘for the works,’ unless ‘He created’ relates to something later than Himself, He will seem later than the works, finding them on His creation already in existence before Him, for the sake of which He is also brought into being. And if so, how is He before all things notwithstanding? and how were all things made through Him and consist in Him? for behold, you say that the works consisted before Him, for which He is created and sent. But it is not so; perish the thought! false is the supposition of the heretics. For the Word of God is not creature but Creator; and says in the manner of proverbs, ‘He created me’ when He put on created flesh. And something besides may be understood from the passage itself; for, being Son and having God for His Father, for He is His proper Offspring, yet here He names the Father Lord; not that He was servant, but because He took the servant’s form. For it became Him, on the one hand being the Word from the Father, to call God Father: for this is proper to son towards father; on the other, having come to finish the work, and taken a servant’s form, to name the Father Lord. And this difference He Himself has taught by an apt distinction, saying in the Gospels, ‘I thank Thee, O Father,’ and then, ‘Lord of heaven and earth 2536 .’ For He calls God His Father, but of the creatures He names Him Lord; as shewing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the creature 2537 , then it was He called the Father Lord. For in the prayer of David the Holy Spirit marks the same distinction, saying in the Psalms, ‘Give Thy strength unto Thy Child, and help the Son of Thine handmaid 2538 .’ For the natural and true child of God is one, and the sons of the handmaid, that is, of the nature of things originate, are other. Wherefore the One, as Son, has the Father’s might; but the rest are in need of salvation.

51. (But if, because He was called child, they idly talk, let them know that both Isaac was named Abraham’s child, and the son of the Shunamite was called young child.) Reasonably then, we being servants, when He became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as we do; and this He has so done from love to man, that we too, being servants by nature, and receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have confidence to call Him by grace Father, who is by nature our Lord. But as we, in calling the Lord Father, do not deny our servitude by nature (for we are His works, and it is ‘He that hath made us, and not we ourselves 2539 ’), so when the Son, on taking the servant’s form, says, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ let them not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that ‘in the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘all things were made by Him,’ and ‘in Him all things were created 2540 .’

Footnotes

372:2496

καλῶς ἀναγινώσκειν.…ὀρθὴν ἔχον τὴν διάνοιαν, i.e. the text admits of an interpretation consistent with the analogy of faith, and so μετ᾽ εὐσεβείας just below. vid. §1. n. 13. Such phrases are frequent in Athan.

372:2497

Prov. viii. 22. Athanasius follows the Sept. rendering of the Hebrew Qanâ. by ἔκτισε. The Hebrew sense is appealed to by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. iii. 2, 3. S. Epiphanius, Hær. 69. 25. and S. Jerome in Isai. 26. 13. Cf. Bas. c. Eun. ii. 20, and Greg. Nyss. c. Eun. 1. p. 34.

372:2498

This passage of Athan. has been used by many later fathers.

372:2499

John xvi. 25.

372:2500

Here, as in so many other places, he is explaining what is obscure or latent in Scripture by means of the Regula Fidei. Cf. Vincentius, Commonit. 2. Vid. especially the first sentence of the following paragraph, τί δεῖ νοεῖν κ.τ.λ. vid. supr. note 1.

372:2501

Prov. ix. 1.

372:2502

Ut intra intemerata viscera ædificante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum caro fieret. Leon. Ep. 31, 2. Didym. de Trin. iii. 3. p. 337. (ed. 1769.) August. Civ. D. xvii. 20. Cyril in Joann. p. 384, 5. Max. Dial. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. ed. Schutz.) vid. supr. Or. i. 11, note 8. Hence S. Clement. Alex. ὁ λόγος ἑαυτὸν γεννᾷ. Strom. v. 3.

372:2503

John i. 14.

372:2504

§12, n. 4.

372:2505

The passage is in like manner interpreted of our Lord’s human nature by Epiph. Hær. 69, 20–25. Basil. Ep. viii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 36–49. Ambros. de Fid. i. 15. August. de Fid. et Symb. 6.

372:2506

He seems here to say that it is both true that ‘The Lord created,’ and yet that the Son was not created. Creatures alone are created, and He was not a creature. Rather something belonging or relating to Him, something short of His substance or nature, was created. However, it is a question in controversy whether even His Manhood can be called a creature, though many of the Fathers (including Athan. in several places) seem so to call it. On the whole it would appear, (1.) that if ‘creature,’ like ‘Son,’ be a personal term, He is not a creature; but if it be a word of nature, He is a creature; (2.) that our Lord is a creature in respect to the flesh (vid. infr. 47); (3.) that since the flesh is infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural nor safe to call Him a creature (cf. Thom. Aq. Sum. Th. iii. xvi. 8, ‘non dicimus, quod Æthiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentes’) and (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is worshipped as in the Person of the Son, not by a separate act of worship. Cf. infr. Letter 60. ad Adelph. 3. Epiph. has imitated this passage, Ancor. 51. introducing the illustration of a king and his robe, &c.

373:2507

τὸ λεγόμενον κτίζεσθαι τῇ φύσει καὶ τῇ οὐσί& 139· κτίσμα. also infr. 60. Without meaning that the respective terms are synonymous, is it not plain that in a later phraseology this would have been, ‘not simply that He is in His Person a creature,’ or ‘that His Person is created?’ Athan.’s use of the phrase οὐσία τοῦ λόγου has already been noticed, supr. i. 45, and passages from this Oration are given in another connexion, supr. p. 70, note 15. The term is synonymous with the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the Word. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.] In the passage in the text the οὐσία of the Word is contrasted to the οὐσία of creatures; and it is observable that it is implied that our Lord has not taken on Him a created οὐσία. ‘He said not, Athan. remarks, ‘I became a creature, for the creatures have a created essence;’ he adds that ‘He created’ signifies, not essence, but something taking place in Him περὶ ἔκεινον, i.e. some adjunct or accident (e.g. notes on de Decr. 22), or as he says supr. §8, envelopment or dress. And infr. §51, he contrasts the οὐσία and the ἀνθρώπινον of the Word; as in Orat. i. 41. οὐσία and ἡ ἀνθρωπότης; and φύσις and σάρξ, iii. 34. init. and λόγος and σάρξ, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son ‘taking on Him the economy,’ infr. 76, and of the ὑπόστασις τοῦ λόγου being one with ὁ ἄνθρωπος, iv. 25, c. It is observed, §8, note, how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apollinarian and Eutychian heresies; and, considering Athan.’s most emphatic protests against their errors in his later works, as well as his strong statements in Orat. iii. there is no hazard in this admission. His ordinary use of ἄνθρωπος for the manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, præf. p. xliii. who uses natura absolutely for our Lord’s Divinity, as contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta.

373:2508

Ps. 104:24, Rom. 8:22Ps. civ. 24. LXX.; Rom. viii. 22.

373:2509

Rev. viii. 9; 1 Tim. iv. 4.

373:2510

Wisd. ix. 2.

373:2511

Matt. xix. 4. (ὁ κτίσας).

373:2512

Deut. iv. 32.

373:2513

Col. i. 15-17

373:2514

Ps. cii. 18. LXX.

373:2515

Ps. li. 12.

373:2516

Eph. ii. 15.

373:2517

Eph. iv. 22; vid. Cyr. Thes. p. 156.

373:2518

Jer. xxxi. 22. vid. also supr. p. 85, where he notices that this is the version of the Septuagint, Aquila’s being ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman.’ Athan. has preserved Aquila’s version in three other places, in Psalm xxx. 12; lix. 5; lxv. 18.

373:2519

Prov. ix. 1.

374:2520

John i. 14.

374:2521

§10. n. 6.

374:2522

Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 21.

374:2523

Gal. iii. 13; Is. liii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 24

374:2524

Here he says that, though our Lord’s flesh is created or He is created as to the flesh, it is not right to call Him a creature. This is very much what S. Thomas says, as referred to in §45, note 1, in the words of the Schools, that Æthiops, albus secundum dentes, non est albus. But why may not our Lord be so called upon the principle of the communicatio Idiomatum (infr. note on iii. 31.) as He is said to be born of a Virgin, to have suffered, &c.? The reason is this:—birth, passion, &c., confessedly belong to His human nature, without adding ‘according to the flesh;’ but ‘creature’ not implying humanity, might appear a simple attribute of His Person, if used without limitation. Thus, as S. Thomas adds, though we may not absolutely say Æthiops est albus, we may say ‘crispus est,’ or in like manner, ‘calvus est.’ Since crispus, or calvus, can but refer to the hair. Still more does this remark apply in the case of ‘Sonship,’ which is a personal attribute altogether; as is proved, says Petav. de Incarn. vii. 6 fin. by the instance of Adam, who was in all respects a man like Seth, yet not a son. Accordingly, we may not call our Lord, even according to the manhood, an adopted Son.

374:2525

πομπεύετε, infr. 82.

374:2526

ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν· and so in Justin’s Tryph. 61. The Bened. Ed. in loc. refers to a similar application of the word to our Lord in Tatian contr. Gent. 5. Athenag. Ap. 10. Iren. Hær. iv. 20. n. 3. Origen. in Joan. tom. 1. 39. Tertull. adv. Prax. 6. and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 7.

374:2527

ἀρχὴ τέκνων, Gen. xlix. 3.

374:2528

Cf. p. 157, note 7.

375:2529

Rom. i. 20.

375:2530

Vid. Col. i. 16

375:2531

i. 61; ii. 27.

375:2532

He says that, though none could be ‘a beginning’ of creation, who was a creature, yet still that such a title belongs not to His essence. It is the name of an office which the Eternal Word alone can fill. His Divine Sonship is both superior and necessary to that office of a ‘Beginning.’ Hence it is both true (as he says) that ‘if the Word is a creature, He is not a beginning;’ and yet that that ‘beginning’ is ‘in the number of the creatures.’ Though He becomes the ‘beginning,’ He is not ‘a beginning as to His essence,’ vid. supr. i. 49, and infr. §60. where he says, ‘He who is before all, cannot be a beginning of all, but is other than all,’ which implies that the beginning of all is not other than all. vid. §8, note 4, on the Priesthood, and §16, n. 7.

375:2533

Ps. lxxxix. 6.

375:2534

Bar. iii. 35.

375:2535

Vid. Prov. 3:19, Prov. 9:1.

375:2536

Matt. xi. 25.

375:2537

τὸ κτιστὸν, i.e. σῶμα, §47.

375:2538

Ps. lxxxvi. 16.

376:2539

Ps. c. 3.

376:2540

John 1:1, 3; Col. i. 16.

Chapter XX.—Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22 Continued. Our Lord is said to be created ‘for the works,’ i.e. with a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. xlix. 5, &c. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added; not so when His Divine Nature; Texts in proof.

51 (continued). For the passage in the Proverbs, as I have said before, signifies, not the Essence, but the manhood of the Word; for if He says that He was created ‘for the works,’ He shews His intention of signifying, not His Essence, but the Economy which took place ‘for His works,’ which comes second to being. For things which are in formation and creation are made specially that they may be and exist 2541 , and next they have to do whatever the Word bids them, as may be seen in the case of all things. For Adam was created, not that He might work, but that first he might be man; for it was after this that he received the command to work. And Noah was created, not because of the ark, but that first he might exist and be a man; for after this he received commandment to prepare the ark. And the like will be found in every case on inquiring into it;—thus the great Moses first was made a man, and next was entrusted with the government of the people. Therefore here too we must suppose the like; for thou seest, that the Word is not created into existence, but, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and He is afterwards sent ‘for the works’ and the Economy towards them. For before the works were made, the Son was ever, nor was there yet need that He should be created; but when the works were created and need arose afterwards of the Economy for their restoration, then it was that the Word took upon Himself this condescension and assimilation to the works; which He has shewn us by the word ‘He created.’ And through the Prophet Isaiah willing to signify the like, He says again: ‘And now thus saith the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to gather together Jacob unto Him and Israel, I shall be brought together and be glorified before the Lord 2542 .’

52. See here too, He is formed, not into existence, but in order to gather together the tribes, which were in existence before He was formed. For as in the former passage stands ‘He created,’ so in this ‘He formed;’ and as there ‘for the works,’ so here ‘to gather together;’ so that in every point of view it appears that ‘He created’ and ‘He formed’ are said after ‘the Word was.’ For as before His forming the tribes existed, for whose sake He was formed, so does it appear that the works exist, for which He was created. And when ‘in the beginning was the Word,’ not yet were the works, as I have said before; but when the works were made and the need required, then ‘He created’ was said; and as if some son, when the servants were lost, and in the hands of the enemy by their own carelessness, and need was urgent, were sent by his father to succour and recover them, and on setting out were to put over him the like dress 2543 with them, and should fashion himself as they, lest the capturers, recognising him 2544 as the master, should take to flight and prevent his descending to those who were hidden under the earth by them; and then were any one to inquire of him, why he did so, were to make answer, ‘My Father thus formed and prepared me for his works,’ while in thus speaking, he neither implies that he is a servant nor one of the works, nor speaks of the beginning of His origination, but of the subsequent charge given him over the works,—in the same way the Lord also, having put over Him our flesh, and ‘being found in fashion as a man,’ if He were questioned by those who saw Him thus and marvelled, would say, ‘The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways for His works,’ and ‘He formed Me to gather together Israel.’ This again the Spirit 2545 foretells in the Psalms, saying, ‘Thou didst set Him over the works of Thine hands 2546 ;’ which elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, ‘I am set as King by Him upon His holy hill of Sion 2547 .’ And as, when He shone 2548 in the body upon Sion, He had not His beginning of existence or of reign, but being God’s Word and everlasting King, He vouchsafed that His kingdom should shine in a human way in Sion, that redeeming them and us from the sin which reigned in them, He might bring them under His Father’s Kingdom, so, on being set ‘for the works,’ He is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were and needed restoration.

53. ‘He created’ then and ‘He formed’ and ‘He set,’ having the same meaning, do not denote the beginning of His being, or of His essence as created, but His beneficent renovation which came to pass for us. Accordingly, though He thus speaks, yet He taught also that He Himself existed before this, when He said, ‘Before Abraham came to be, I am 2549 ;’ and ‘when He prepared the heavens, I was present with Him;’ and ‘I was with Him disposing things 2550 .’ And as He Himself was before Abraham came to be, and Israel had come into being after Abraham, and plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and His forming signifies not His beginning of being but His taking manhood, wherein also He collects together the tribes of Israel; so, as ‘being always with the Father,’ He Himself is Framer of the creation, and His works are evidently later than Himself, and ‘He created’ signifies, not His beginning of being, but the Economy which took place for the works, which He effected in the flesh. For it became Him, being other than the works, nay rather their Framer, to take upon Himself their renovation 2551 , that, whereas He is created for us, all things may be now created in Him. For when He said ‘He created,’ He forthwith added the reason, naming ‘the works,’ that His creation for the works might signify His becoming man for their renovation. And this is usual with divine Scripture 2552 ; for when it signifies the fleshly origination of the Son, it adds also the cause 2553 for which He became man; but when he speaks or His servants declare anything of His Godhead, all is said in simple diction, and with an absolute sense, and without reason being added. For He is the Father’s Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 2554 ;’ and the wherefore it assigns not 2555 ; but when ‘the Word was made flesh 2556 ,’ then it adds the reason why, saying, ‘And dwelt among us.’ And again the Apostle saying, ‘Who being in the form of God,’ has not introduced the reason, till ‘He took on Him the form of a servant;’ for then he continues, ‘He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross 2557 ;’ for it was for this that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant.

54. And the Lord Himself has spoken many things in proverbs; but when giving us notices about Himself, He has spoken absolutely 2558 ; ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me,’ and ‘I and the Father are one,’ and, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and ‘I am the Light of the world,’ and, ‘I am the Truth 2559 ;’ not setting down in every case the reason, nor the wherefore, lest He should seem second to those things for which He was made. For that reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which not even He Himself had come into being. Paul, for instance, ‘separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised afore by the Prophets 2560 ,’ was thereby made subordinate to the Gospel, of which he was made minister, and John, being chosen to prepare the Lord’s way, was made subordinate to the Lord; but the Lord, not being made subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, save only that He is the Father’s Offspring and Only-begotten Wisdom, when He becomes man, then assigns the reason why He is about to take flesh. For the need of man preceded His becoming man, apart from which He had not put on flesh 2561 . And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, ‘I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of My Father, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day 2562 .’ And again; ‘I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me, should not abide in darkness 2563 .’ And again he says; ‘To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth 2564 .’ And John has written: ‘For this was manifested the Son of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil 2565 .’

55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil 2566 , the Saviour came, and this is the reason of His incarnate presence. For otherwise a resurrection had not been, unless there had been death; and how had death been, unless He had had a mortal body? This the Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth, ‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage 2567 .’ And, ‘Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead 2568 .’ And again, ‘For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit 2569 .’ And John says, ‘For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved 2570 .’ And again, the Saviour has spoken in His own person, ‘For judgment am I come into this world, that they who see not might see, and that they which see might become blind 2571 .’ Not for Himself then, but for our salvation, and to abolish death, and to condemn sin, and to give sight to the blind, and to raise up all from the dead, has He come; but if not for Himself, but for us, by consequence not for Himself but for us is He created. But if not for Himself is He created, but for us, then He is not Himself a creature, but, as having put on our flesh, He uses such language. And that this is the sense of the Scriptures, we may learn from the Apostle, who says in Ephesians, ‘Having broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to create in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace 2572 .’ But if in Him the twain are created, and these are in His body, reasonably then, bearing the twain in Himself, He is as if Himself created; for those who were created in Himself He made one, and He was in them, as they. And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably, ‘The Lord created me.’ For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so 2573 , by creating us in Him, let Him say, ‘He created me for the works,’ though not Himself a creature.

56. For if, as they hold, the Essence of the Word being of created nature, therefore He says, ‘The Lord created me,’ being a creature, He was not created for us; but if He was not created for us, we are not created in Him; and, if not created in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher 2574 . And it being so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it. But the Apostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when he says, ‘For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus 2575 ;’ and if in Christ we are created, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him; and thus the words ‘He created’ are for our sake. For because of our need, the Word, though being Creator, endured words which are used of creatures; which are not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are ours who are created in Him. And as, since the Father is always, so is His Word, and always being, always says ‘I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him 2576 ,’ and ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me 2577 ;’ so, when for our need He became man, consistently does He use language, as ourselves, ‘The Lord hath created Me,’ that, by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, and we might have a free mind 2578 . For what ought He, when made man, to say? ‘In the beginning I was man?’ this were neither suitable to Him nor true; and as it beseemed not to say this, so it is natural and proper in the case of man to say, ‘He created’ and ‘He made’ Him. On this account then the reason of ‘He created’ is added, namely, the need of the works; and where the reason is added, surely the reason rightly explains the lection. Thus here, when He says ‘He created,’ He sets down the cause, ‘the works;’ on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father, straightway He adds, ‘Before all the hills He begets me 2579 ;’ but He does not add the ‘wherefore,’ as in the case of ‘He created,’ saying, ‘for the works,’ but absolutely, ‘He begets me,’ as in the text, ‘In the beginning was the Word 2580 .’ For, though no works had been created, still ‘the Word’ of God ‘was,’ and ‘the Word was God.’ And His becoming man would not have taken place, had not the need of men become a cause. The Son then is not a creature.

Footnotes

376:2541

He says in effect, ‘Before the generation of the works, they were not; but Christ on the contrary’ (not, ‘was before His generation,’ as Bull’s hypothesis, supr. Exc. B. would require, but) ‘is from everlasting,’ vid. §57, note.

376:2542

Isa. 1:0, Isa. 49:5. LXX.

376:2543

§7.

376:2544

Vid. the well-known passage in S. Ignatius, ad Eph. 19 [and Lightfoot’s note].

376:2545

Supr. 20.

376:2546

Heb. ii. 7.

377:2547

Ps. ii. 6. LXX.

377:2548

ἐπέλαμψε, vid. of the Holy Spirit, Serap. i. 20, c.

377:2549

John viii. 58.

377:2550

Prov. 8:27, 30, LXX.

377:2551

p. 335, note 1.

377:2552

ἔθος ἐστὶ τῇ θεί& 139· γραφῇ: and so Orat. iii. 18, b. And τῆς γραφῆς ἔθος ἐχούσης, ibid. 30, d.

377:2553

Vid. Naz. Orat. 30. 2.

377:2554

John i. 1.

377:2555

Naz. ibid.

377:2556

John i. 14.

377:2557

Phil. ii. 6-8.

377:2558

Infr. 62.

377:2559

John 14:6, 9, 10; x. 30; viii. 12

377:2560

Rom. 1:1, 2.

377:2561

It is the general teaching of the Fathers that our Lord would not have been incarnate had not man sinned. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §3, c.] Cf. de Incarn. 4. vid. Thomassin. at great length de Incarn. ii. 5–11. also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7–12. Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disp. x. 4 and 5.

377:2562

John vi. 38-40

377:2563

John 12.46.

377:2564

John 18.37.

377:2565

1 John iii. 8.

378:2566

Two ends of our Lord’s Incarnation are here mentioned; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25. ‘who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.’ The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of in Incarn. esp. §§4–20. and in the two books against Apollinaris. Vid. supr. §8. §9. Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. And Theodoret, Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624.) and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification, &c., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie in the intercommunion of Christ’s and our persons. Serm. 63. 14. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both sacramento susceptionis and exemplo. Serm. 65, 2. and of a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacramento, aliud in exemplo. Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius.

378:2567

Heb. 2:14, 15.

378:2568

1 Cor. xv. 21.

378:2569

Rom. 8:3, 4.

378:2570

John iii. 17.

378:2571

John 9.39.

378:2572

Eph. 2:14, 15.

378:2573

The word αὐτὸς, ‘Himself,’ is all along used, where a later writer would have said ‘His Person;’ vid. supr. §45, n. 2; still there is more to be explained in this passage, which, taken in the letter, would speak a language very different from Athan.’s, as if the infirmities or the created nature of the Word were not more real than His imputed sinfulness. (vid. on the other hand infr. iii. 31–35). But nothing is more common in theology than comparisons which are only parallel to a certain point as regards the matter in hand, especially since many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our Lord’s real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal and Infinite Nature; and therefore His Manhood may be compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without meaning that it really was either.

378:2574

Note on iii. 19.

378:2575

Eph. ii. 10.

378:2576

Prov. viii. 30.

378:2577

John xiv. 10.

378:2578

ἐλεύθερον τὸ φρόνημα. vid. also beginning of the paragraph, where sanctification is contrasted to teaching. vid. also note on 79, infr. Contr. Apoll. i. 20. fin. ibid. ii. 6. also Orat. iii. 33, where vid. note, and 34. vid. for ἀρχή, Orat. i. 48, note 7. Also vid. infr. Orat. iii. 56, a. iv. 33, a. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1. and 2. (101, 102. Ed. Ben.) Nyssen. ad Theoph. in Apoll. p. 696. Leo, Serm. 26, 2. Serm. 72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. 63, 6. Hæc est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 17. vid. supr. i. 51, note 5. and note on 64 infr. 65 and 70. and on iii. 34.

379:2579

Prov. viii. 25.

379:2580

John i. 1.

Chapter XXI.—Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be ‘created,’ or the works to be ‘begotten.’ ‘In the beginning’ means in the case of the works ‘from the beginning.’ Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense of ‘First-born of the dead;’ of ‘First-born among many brethren;’ of ‘First-born of all creation,’ contrasted with ‘Only-begotten.’ Further interpretation of ‘beginning of ways,’ and ‘for the works.’ Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works.

57. For had He been a creature, He had not said, ‘He begets me,’ for the creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the Offspring is not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and proper to His Essence. Wherefore they are creatures; this God’s Word and Only-begotten Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, ‘In the beginning He begat,’ nor ‘In the beginning was,’ but ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth 2581 .’ Nor did David say in the Psalm, ‘Thy hands have “begotten me,”’ but ‘made me and fashioned me 2582 ,’ everywhere applying the word ‘made’ to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said ‘I made,’ but ‘I begat 2583 ,’ and ‘He begets me,’ and ‘My heart uttered a good Word 2584 .’ And in the instance of the creation, ‘In the beginning He made;’ but in the instance of the Son, ‘In the beginning was the Word 2585 .’ And there is this difference, that the creatures are made upon the beginning, and have a beginning of existence connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of them, ‘In the beginning He made,’ is as much as saying of them, ‘From the beginning He made:’—as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, taught, when He silenced the Pharisees, with the words, ‘He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female 2586 ;’ for from some beginning, when they were not yet, were originate things brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit has signified in the Psalms, saying, ‘Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth 2587 ;’ and again, ‘O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchased from the beginning 2588 ;’ now it is plain that what takes place at the beginning, has a beginning of creation, and that from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that ‘In the beginning He made,’ from his saying ‘made,’ means ‘began to make,’ Moses himself shews by saying, after the completion of all things, ‘And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make 2589 .’ Therefore the creatures began to be made; but the Word of God, not having beginning of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in their making, and their beginning precedes their coming to be; but the Word, not being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is measured by their becoming 2590 , and from some beginning does God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their origination; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning 2591 than the Father, whom 2592 they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.

58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference between the Offspring and things made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine doctrine 2593 about the Son, and knowing the difference of the phrases, said not, ‘In the beginning has become’ or ‘been made,’ but ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ that we might understand ‘Offspring’ by ‘was,’ and not account of Him by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to exist. And with these proofs, how, O Arians, misunderstanding the passage in Deuteronomy, did you venture a fresh act of irreligion 2594 against the Lord, saying that ‘He is a work,’ or ‘creature,’ or indeed ‘offspring?’ for offspring and work you take to mean the same thing; but here too you shall be shewn to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, ‘Is not He thy Father that bought thee? did He not make thee and create thee 2595 ?’ And shortly after in the same Song he says, ‘God that begat thee thou didst desert, and forgattest God that nourished thee 2596 .’ Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for he says not first ‘He begat,’ lest that term should be taken as indiscriminate with ‘He made,’ and these men should have a pretence for saying, ‘Moses tells us indeed that God said from the beginning, “Let Us make man 2597 ,”’ but he soon after says himself, ‘God that begat thee thou didst desert,’ as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the same. But after the words ‘bought’ and ‘made,’ he has added last of all ‘begat,’ that the sentence might carry its own interpretation; for in the word ‘made’ he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but in the word ‘begat’ he shews God’s lovingkindness exercised towards men after He had created them. And since they have proved ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying first, ‘Do ye thus requite the Lord?’ and then adds, ‘Is not He thy Father that bought thee? Did He not make thee and create thee 2598 ?’ And next he says, ‘They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, to gods whom they knew not. New gods and strange came up, whom your fathers knew not; the God that begat thee thou didst desert 2599 .’

59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term ‘begat’ is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, ‘I begat sons and exalted them;’ and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term ‘created,’ but undoubtedly by that of ‘begat.’ And this John seems to say, ‘He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God 2600 .’ And here too the cautious distinction 2601 is well kept up, for first he says ‘become,’ because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption; then he says ‘were begotten,’ because they too had received at any rate the name of son. But the People, as says the Prophet, ‘despised’ their Benefactor. But this is God’s kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, ‘the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father 2602 .’ And these are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this might be, ‘The Word became flesh,’ that He might make man capable of Godhead. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, ‘Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father 2603 ?’ for first he puts ‘created,’ next ‘Father,’ to shew, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore ‘Father’ is proper to the Son; and not ‘creature,’ but ‘Son’ is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us 2604 ; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we ‘cry, Abba, Father 2605 .’ And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, ‘I begat;’ since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written, ‘Let Us make man 2606 ;’ but afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to be begotten also; just as the great Moses in his Song with an apposite meaning says first ‘He bought,’ and afterwards ‘He begat;’ lest, hearing ‘He begat,’ they might forget their own original nature; but that they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, still no less than before are men works according to nature.

60. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other in nature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For having said, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways;’ He has added, ‘But before all the hills He begat me.’ If then the Word were by nature and in His Essence 2607 a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, ‘He begat me,’ but had been satisfied with ‘He created,’ as if that term implied ‘He begat;’ but, as it is, after saying, ‘He created me a beginning of His ways for His works,’ He has added, not simply ‘begat me,’ but with the connection of the conjunction ‘But,’ as guarding thereby the term ‘created,’ when he says, ‘But before all the hills He begat me.’ For ‘begat me’ succeeding in such close connection to ‘created me,’ makes the meaning one, and shews that ‘created’ is said with an object 2608 , but that ‘begat me’ is prior to ‘created me.’ For as, if He had said the reverse, ‘The Lord begat me,’ and went on, ‘But before the hills He created me,’ ‘created’ would certainly precede ‘begat,’ so having said first ‘created,’ and then added ‘But before all the hills He begat me,’ He necessarily shews that ‘begat’ preceded ‘created.’ For in saying, ‘Before all He begat me,’ He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shewn to be true 2609 in an earlier part of this book, that no one creature was made before another, but all things originate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command 2610 . Therefore neither do the words which follow ‘created,’ also follow ‘begat me;’ but in the case of ‘created’ is added ‘beginning of ways,’ but of ‘begat me,’ He says not, ‘He begat me as a beginning,’ but ‘before all He begat me.’ But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all 2611 ; but if other than all (in which ‘all’ the beginning of all is included), it follows that He is other than the creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the Word, being other than all things and before all, afterwards is created ‘a beginning of the ways for works,’ because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the ‘Beginning’ and ‘First-born from the dead, in all things might have the preeminence 2612 .’

61. Such then being the difference between ‘created’ and ‘begat me,’ and between ‘beginning of ways’ and ‘before all,’ God, being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, ‘The Lord created me.’ And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and ‘First-born 2613 .’ For though it was after us 2614 that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the ‘First-born’ of us, because, all men being lost, according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word’s body 2615 ; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, ‘I am the way’ and ‘the door 2616 ,’ and ‘through Me all must enter.’ Whence also is He said to be ‘First-born from the dead 2617 ,’ not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead.

62. But if He is also called ‘First-born of the creation 2618 ,’ still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time (for how should that be, since He is ‘Only-begotten?’), but it is because of the Word’s condescension 2619 to the creatures, according to which He has become the ‘Brother’ of ‘many.’ For the term ‘Only-begotten’ is used where there are no brethren, but ‘First-born 2620 ’ because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, ‘the first-born of God,’ nor ‘the creature of God;’ but ‘Only-begotten’ and ‘Son’ and ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ refer to Him as proper to the Father 2621 . Thus, ‘We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father 2622 ;’ and ‘God sent His Only-begotten Son 2623 ;’ and ‘O Lord, Thy Word endureth for ever 2624 ;’ and ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;’ and ‘Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 2625 ;’ and ‘This is My beloved Son;’ and ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God 2626 .’ But ‘first-born’ implied the descent to the creation 2627 ; for of it has He been called first-born; and ‘He created’ implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, ‘First-born’ needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten 2628 . For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;—that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. Moreover 2629 , as was before 2630 said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely 2631 it is said of Him, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father 2632 ;’ but the word ‘First-born’ has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, ‘for in Him all things were created 2633 .’ But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.

63. Not then because He was from the Father was He called ‘First-born,’ but because in Him the creation came to be; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men go about saying, ‘If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation.’ Senseless men! if He is simply ‘First-born 2634 of the whole creation,’ then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, ‘He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,’ lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, ‘of the whole creation,’ that He may appear other than the creation 2635 . Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob 2636 , but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, ‘that He may become First-born of all,’ lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but ‘among many brethren 2637 ,’ because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is ‘First-born of the whole creation 2638 ,’ the Son of God is plainly shewn to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called ‘First-born among many brethren’ because of the relationship of the flesh, and ‘First-born from the dead,’ because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and ‘First-born of the whole creation,’ because of the Father’s love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only ‘all things consist 2639 ,’ but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, ‘waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered’ one time ‘from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God 2640 .’ Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those that come after Him may abide 2641 , as depending on the Word as a beginning 2642 .

64. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be shamed from such a thought; for if the case stands not as we have said, but they will rule it that He is ‘First-born of the whole creation’ as in essence—a creature among creatures, let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the whole creation these also are parts; and the ‘First-born’ must be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and similitude 2643 must be the same with all. How then can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or who will endure them, if this is their language? or who can but hate them even imagining such things? For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any connection according to essence with the whole creation, has He been called ‘First-born’ of it: but because the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, condescended to things originate, that it might be possible for them to come to be. For they could not have endured His nature, which was untempered splendour, even that of the Father, unless condescending by the Father’s love for man He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into existence 2644 ; and next, because, by this condescension of the Word, the creation too is made a son 2645 through Him, that He might be in all respects ‘First-born’ of it, as has been said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the sake of all into this very world. For so it is written, ‘When He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him 2646 .’ Let Christ’s enemies hear and tear themselves to pieces, because His coming into the world is what makes Him called ‘First-born’ of all; and thus the Son is the Father’s ‘Only-begotten,’ because He alone is from Him, and He is the ‘First-born of creation,’ because of this adoption of all as sons 2647 . And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead ‘the first fruits of them that slept 2648 ;’ so, since it became Him ‘in all things to have the preeminence 2649 ,’ therefore He is created ‘a beginning of ways,’ that we, walking along it and entering through Him who says, ‘I am the Way’ and ‘the Door,’ and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, ‘Blessed are the undefiled in the Way,’ and ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God 2650 .’

65. And thus since the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a creature, it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is ‘beginning of ways.’ For when the first way, which was through Adam, was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust 2651 shalt thou return,’ therefore the Word of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father’s will 2652 , that whereas the first man had made it dead through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His own body 2653 , and might open ‘for us a way new and living,’ as the Apostle says, ‘through the veil, that is to say, His flesh 2654 ;’ which he signifies elsewhere thus, ‘Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new 2655 .’ But if a new creation has come to pass, some one must be first of this creation; now a man, made of earth only, such as we are become from the transgression, he could not be. For in the first creation, men had become unfaithful, and through them that first creation had been lost; and there was need of some one else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which had come to be. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, the ‘beginning’ of the new creation, is created as ‘the Way,’ and consistently says, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works;’ that man might walk no longer according to that first creation, but there being as it were a beginning of a new creation, and with the Christ ‘a beginning of its ways,’ we might follow Him henceforth, who says to us, ‘I am the Way:’—as the blessed Apostle teaches in Colossians, saying, ‘He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence.’

66. For if, as has been said, because of the resurrection from the dead He is called a beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, bearing our flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is evident that His words, ‘He created me a beginning of ways,’ is indicative not of His essence 2656 , but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper 2657 ; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways.’ For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh, and had become a beginning of things new created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, ‘Let this be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord 2658 .’ And again in the twenty-first Psalm, ‘The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord made 2659 .’ For we shall no more hear, ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die 2660 ,’ but ‘Where I am, there ye’ shall ‘be also;’ so that we may say, ‘We are His workmanship, created unto good works 2661 .’ And again, since God’s work, that is, man, though created perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and dead by sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of God should remain imperfect (wherefore all the saints were praying concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, ‘Lord, Thou shalt requite for me; despise not then the works of Thine hands 2662 ’); therefore the perfect 2663 Word of God puts around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created ‘for the works;’ that, paying the debt 2664 in our stead, He might, by Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what the Saviour says, ‘I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work which Thou hast given Me to do 2665 ;’ and again, ‘The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;’ but ‘the works 2666 ’ He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works;’ for it is all one to say, ‘The Father hath given me the works,’ and ‘The Lord created me for the works.’

67. When then received He the works to perfect, O God’s enemies? for from this also ‘He created’ will be understood. If ye say, ‘At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not,’ it is an untruth; for they were not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking what was already in being. Nor is it pious to refer to the time which preceded the Word’s becoming flesh, lest His coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the sake of these works that coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to say that when He has become man, then He took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also is He created for the works. Not of His essence then is ‘He created’ indicative, as has many times been said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works were become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He is said in respect to the body to be created; that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might present the Church unto the Father, as the Apostle says, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish 2667 .’ Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. And this has been done, since the own Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on the flesh, and become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how had a work been joined to the Creator by a work 2668 ? or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed it 2669 ? And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God’s sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God’s doing? For ‘who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by transgression 2670 ?’ For whereas God has said, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return 2671 ,’ men have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin? but the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, ‘Unless the Son shall make you free 2672 ;’ and the Son, who made free, has shewn in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things originate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father’s Essence, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins. For since it is said in the Word, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return,’ suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.

68. ‘Yet,’ they say, ‘though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse.’ And so another will tell them in like manner, ‘Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and undo the curse;’ but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God 2673 . He could have destroyed, before the ark of Noah, the then transgressors; but He did it after the ark. He could too, without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the people out of Egypt; but it profited to do it through Moses. And God was able without the judges to save His people; but it was profitable for the people that for a season judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came ‘at the fulness of the ages 2674 ,’ and when sought for said, ‘I am He 2675 .’ For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not fitting in any other way; and what is profitable and fitting, for that He provides 2676 . Accordingly He came, not ‘that He might be ministered unto, but that He might minister 2677 ,’ and might work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient to men for Him to speak from Sinai; and that He has done, that it might be possible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what He did may be seen thus; if God had but spoken, because it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the power had been shewn of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from without 2678 , and not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become worse, because he had learned to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command and undo the curse; and thus the need had become interminable 2679 , and men had remained under guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, ever sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, and had never become free, being in themselves flesh, and ever worsted by the Law because of the infirmity of the flesh.

69. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it 2680 ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation’s salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished (for ‘all died 2681 ’ in Christ), and all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide 2682 for ever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has many times been explained, every bite of the serpent began to be utterly staunched from out it; and whatever evil sprung from the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and with these death also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord Himself says 2683 , ‘The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in Me;’ and ‘For this end was He manifested,’ as John has written, ‘that He might destroy the works of the devil 2684 .’ And these being destroyed from the flesh, we all were thus liberated by the kinship of the flesh, and for the future were joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard Him say, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan 2685 ,’ and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman beguiling us, for ‘in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels 2686 ;’ and in Christ Jesus it shall be ‘a new creation,’ and ‘neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ 2687 ;’ and where Christ is, what fear, what danger can still happen?

70. But this would not have come to pass, had the Word been a creature; for with a creature, the devil, himself a creature, would have ever continued the battle, and man, being between the two, had been ever in peril of death, having none in whom and through whom he might be joined to God and delivered from all fear. Whence the truth shews us that the Word is not of things originate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify it 2688 in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh 2689 of Mary Ever-Virgin 2690 ; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true flesh, though Valentinus rave; yea the Word was by nature Very God, though Ario-maniacs rave 2691 ; and in that flesh has come to pass the beginning 2692 of our new creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us that new way, as has been said.

71. The Word then is neither creature nor work; for creature, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and thing made, He would also be work. Accordingly He has not said, ‘He created Me a work,’ nor ‘He made Me with the works,’ lest He should appear to be in nature and essence 2693 a creature; nor, ‘He created Me to make works,’ lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument 2694 made for our sake. Nor again has He declared, ‘He created Me before the works,’ lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the works, He should give ‘Offspring’ and ‘He created’ the same meaning. But He has said with exact discrimination 2695 , ‘for the works;’ as much as to say, ‘The Father has made Me, into flesh, that I might be man,’ which again shews that He is not a work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is not part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for the works, must be by nature other than the works. But if otherwise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of God be a work, by what 2696 Hand and Wisdom did He Himself come into being? for all things that came to be, came by the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, ‘My hand hath made all these things 2697 ;’ and David says in the Psalm, ‘And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands 2698 ;’ and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, ‘I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands 2699 .’ Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that ‘all things were made through the Word,’ and ‘without Him was not made one thing 2700 ,’ and again, ‘One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things 2701 ,’ and ‘in Him all things consist 2702 ,’ it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand 2703 of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, ‘O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,’ they recount things in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For they say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;’ to shew that all other things are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God 2704 , being His Word and Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a most apposite distinction, ‘the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful 2705 ;’ as in another Psalm too He says, ‘O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in Wisdom hast Thou made them all 2706 .’

72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would Scripture distinguish Him from the works, nor while it named them works, preach Him as Word and own Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, ‘The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account 2707 .’ For behold he calls things originate ‘creature;’ but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, ‘All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,’ he signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things originate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures. For if He were creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and would need one who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. But if the whole creation groans together, for the sake of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those that groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time 2708 , ‘The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remaineth for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed 2709 ;’ it is clearer than the light from these considerations also, that the Word of God is not a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then ‘The Lord hath created me a beginning of the ways,’ this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy.

Footnotes

379:2581

Gen. i. 1.

379:2582

Ps. cxix. 73.

379:2583

Ps. ii. 7.

379:2584

Ps. xlv. 1.

379:2585

John i. 1.

379:2586

Matt. xix. 4.

379:2587

Ps. cii. 25.

379:2588

Ps. lxxiv. 2.

379:2589

Gen. ii. 3.

379:2590

Supr. i. 29, n. 10.

379:2591

ἀρχῇ, vid. Orat. iv. 1.

379:2592

In this passage ‘was from the beginning’ is made equivalent with ‘was not before generation,’ and both are contrasted with ‘without beginning’ or ‘eternal;’ vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull’s explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted.

380:2593

θεολογῶν, vid. §71, note.

380:2594

The technical sense of εὐσέβεια, ἀσέβεια, pietas, impietas, for ‘orthodoxy, heterodoxy,’ has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) ‘profane and old-wives fables,’ and with ‘bodily exercise.’

380:2595

Deut. xxxii. 6. LXX.

380:2596

Deut. 32.18.

380:2597

Gen. i. 26.

380:2598

Deut. xxxii. 6.

380:2599

Deut. 32.17.

380:2600

John 1:12, 13.

380:2601

παρατηρήσεως, §12, note.

380:2602

De Decr. 31 fin.

380:2603

Mal. ii. 10.

380:2604

τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν υἱ& 231·ν. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς οἰκοῦντα λόγον. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23–25. and de Decr. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, §56, n. 5. infr. notes on 79.

380:2605

Gal. iv. 6.

381:2606

Gen. i. 26.

381:2607

§45, note 2.

381:2608

Ch. 20.

381:2609

pp. 367, 374.

381:2610

§48.

381:2611

§6, note 49.

381:2612

Col. i. 18.

381:2613

Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull’s hypothesis about the sense of πρωτοτόκος τῆς κτίσεως has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as Athan.’s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to πρωτοτόκος of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the ‘beginning of ways.’

381:2614

Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called ‘first-born from the dead,’ though others had been recalled to life before Him, therefore He is called ‘first-born of creation,’ not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29.

381:2615

§10. n. 7; Orat. iii. 31. note.

381:2616

John xiv. 6; x. 9.

381:2617

Rev. i. 5.

382:2618

Here again, though speaking of the ‘first-born of creation,’ Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to ‘first-born of the new creation or “brother” of many;’ and so infr. ‘first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.’

382:2619

Bp. Bull considers συγκατάβασις as equivalent to a figurative γέννησις, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.’s meaning. In Bull’s sense of the word, Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. Συγκαταβῆναι occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78–81. viz. that our Lord came ‘to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of His Image;’ which is just what is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word συγκατάβασις, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.

382:2620

Vid. Rom. viii. 29.

382:2621

This passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is ‘internal’ to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the ‘first-born,’ like ‘beginning of ways,’ is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord’s essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.

382:2622

John i. 14.

382:2623

1 John iv. 9.

382:2624

Ps. cxix. 89.

382:2625

1 Cor. i. 24.

382:2626

Matt. iii. 17; xvi. 16.

382:2627

This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.

382:2628

This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.

382:2629

We now come to a third and wider sense of πρωτότοκος, as found (not in Rom. 8:29, Col. 1:18, 15, where by ‘creation’ Athan. understands ‘all things visible and invisible.’ As then ‘for the works’ was just now taken to argue that ‘created’ was used in a relative and restricted sense, the same is shewn as regards ‘first-born’ by the words ‘for in Him all things were created.’

382:2630

i. 52.

382:2631

ἀπολελυμένως; supr. i. 56, note 6, and §§53, 56, and so ἀπολύτως Theophylact to express the same distinction in loc. Coloss.

382:2632

John i. 18.

382:2633

Col. i. 16.

382:2634

It would be perhaps better to translate ‘first-born to the creature,’ to give Athan.’s idea; τῆς κτίσεως not being a partitive genitive, or πρωτότοκος a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and τῆς κτ. a common genitive of relation, as ‘the king of a country,’ ‘the owner of a house.’ ‘First-born of creation’ is like ‘author, type, life of creation.’ Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, ‘for in Him all things were made,’ not simply ‘by and for,’ as at the end of the verse; or as Athan. says here, ‘because in Him the creation came to be.’ On the distinction of διὰ and ἐν, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)

382:2635

To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf. Milton’s imitation ‘the fairest of her daughters Eve.’ Vid. as regards the very word πρῶτος, John i. 15; and supr. §30, note 3, also πλείστην ἢ ἔμπροσθεν 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word ‘other’ (ante ‘alios immanior omnes), so too in the Greek superlative, ‘Socrates is wisest of “other” heathen.’ Athanasius then says in this passage, that ‘first-born of creatures’ implies that our Lord was not a creature; whereas it is not said of Him ‘first-born of brethren,’ lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born “among” brethren,’ where ‘among’ is equivalent to ‘other.’

382:2636

Gen. xlix. 3, LXX. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41 sq. where the text Col. i. 15 is quoted.

383:2637

Rom. viii. 29.

383:2638

Col. i. 15.

383:2639

Col. 1.17.

383:2640

Rom. 8:19, 21. Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is ‘first-born to the creation;’ viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man’s fall; as he says more clearly in the next section.

383:2641

De Decr. 19, n. 3.

383:2642

i. 48, n. 7.

383:2643

§20.

383:2644

He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into his created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in other words, that he was created in Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the διὰ supr.63, n. 1. vid. supr. de Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the συγκατάβασις is spoken of.

383:2645

As God created Him, in that He created human nature in Him, so is He first-born, in that human nature is adopted in Him. Leo Serm. 63. 3.

383:2646

Heb. i. 6.

383:2647

Thus he considers that ‘first-born’ is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord’s office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, §8, n. 4). In each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 13, 14. Orat. i. 51. iii. 20. infr. 76. init. He came τὴν τοῦ ἀρχετύπου πλάσιν ἀναστήσασθαι ἑαυτῷ contr.Apoll. ii. 5. And so again, ἡ ἰδέα ὅπερ λόγον εἰρήκασι. Clem. Strom. v. 3. ἰδέαν ἰδεῶν καὶ ἀρχὴν λεκτέον τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. ‘Whatever God was about to make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor would be in the things, were it not in the Word.’ August. in Psalm xliv. 5. He elsewhere calls the Son, ‘ars quædam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium.’ de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. infr. iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan. is discussing (Prov. viii. 22), presents a remarkable contrast to these passages, as making the Son, not the ἰδέα, but the external minister of the Father’s ἰδέα. de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. §31, n. 7.

383:2648

1 Cor. xv. 20.

383:2649

Col. i. 18.

383:2650

Ps. cxix. 1; Matt. v. 8.

384:2651

Gen. iii. 19.

384:2652

§31, n. 8.

384:2653

Vid. Or. i. §48, 7, i. 51, 5, supr. 56, 5. Irenæus, Hær. iii. 19, n. 1. Cyril. in Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril, one may say, passim.

384:2654

Heb. x. 20.

384:2655

2 Cor. v. 17.

384:2656

§45, n. 2.

384:2657

Athanasius here says that our Lord’s body was subject to death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. And so τὸν ἄνθρωπον σαθρωθέντα. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab æternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust. xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetæ), and held that our Lord’s manhood was naturally indeed corrupt, but became from its union with the Word incorrupt from the moment of conception; and in consequence it held that our Lord did not suffer and die, except by miracle. vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis. t. i. pp. 563, 4, 8.) vid. supr. i. 43 and 44, notes; also infr. 76, note. And further, note on iii. 57.

384:2658

Ps. cii. 18.

384:2659

Psa. 22.32.

384:2660

Gen. ii. 17.

384:2661

John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 10.

384:2662

Ps. cxxxviii. 8.

384:2663

Cf. Orat. iv. 11.

384:2664

ἀνθ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδούς, and so the Lord’s death λύτρον πάντων. Incarn. V.D. 25. λύτρον καθάρσιον. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13, 14, 47, 55, 67. In Illud. Omn. 2 fin.

384:2665

John xvii. 4.

384:2666

John 5.36.

385:2667

Eph. v. 27.

385:2668

Vid. de Decr. 10, 2. 4; Or. i. 49, §16, n. 7. Iren. Hær. iii. 20.

385:2669

Cf. infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also iii. 33 init. August. Trin. xiii. 18. Id. in Psalm 129, n. 12. Leon. Serm. 28, n. 3. Basil. in Psalm 48, n. 4. Cyril. de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also Procl. Orat. i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil. contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral. xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 583.

385:2670

Mic. vii. 18.

385:2671

Gen. iii. 19.

385:2672

Vid. John viii. 36.

385:2673

Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supported by Naz. Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876, 7. August. de Trin. xiii. 13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but S. Thomas and the schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav. Incarn. ii. 13. However, it will be observed from what follows that Athan. thought the Incarnation still absolutely essential for the renewal of human nature in holiness. Cf. de Incarn. 7. That is, we might have been pardoned, we could not have been new-made, without the Incarnation; and so supr. 67.

385:2674

Gal. iv. 4.

385:2675

John xviii. 5.

385:2676

‘Was it not in His power, had He wished it, even in a day to bring on the whole rain [of the deluge]? in a day, nay in a moment?’ Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to apply this principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of God’s power as contrasted with His acts, Petavius brings together the statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6.

385:2677

Vid. Matt. xx. 28

385:2678

Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence had but an external divine assistance, not an habitual grace; this, however, is contrary to his own statements already referred to, and the general doctrine of the fathers. vid. e.g. Cyril. in Joan. v. 2. August. de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid also infr. §76, note.

386:2679

εἰς ἄπειρον, de Decr. 8.

386:2680

De Decr. 10.

386:2681

2 Cor. v. 14.

386:2682

διαμείνωσιν, §63, n. 8; §73, Gent. 41, Serm. Maj. de Fid. 5.

386:2683

John xiv. 30. ἔχει t. rec. εὑρίσκει Ath. et al.

386:2684

1 John iii. 8.

386:2685

Matt. xvi. 23.

386:2686

Mark xii. 25.

386:2687

Gal. vi. 15; iii. 28.

386:2688

ἐν ἑαυτῷ θεοποιήσῃ. supr. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph. 4. a. Serap. i. 24, e. and §56, note 5. and iii. 33. De Decr. 14. Orat. i. 42. vid. also Orat. iii. 23. fin. 33. init. 34. fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For our becoming θεοὶ vid. Orat. iii. 25. θεοὶ κατὰ χάριν. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. θεοφορούμεθα. Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 init. χριστόφοροι. ibid. θεούμεθα. iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. H. E. i. p. 846. init.

386:2689

§45, n. 2.

386:2690

Vid. also Athan. in Luc. (Migne xxvii. 1393 c). This title, which is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph. Hær. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Cæsarius has ἀειπαῖς. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope’s letter in response. (Coust. Ep. Pont. p. 669–682.) Also Pearson On the Creed, Art. 3. [§§9, 10, p. 267 in Bohn’s ed.] He replies to the argument from ‘until’ in Matt. i. 25, by referring to Gen. xxviii 15; Deut. xxxiv. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 35; 2 Sam. vi. 23; Matt. xxviii. 20. He might also have referred to Psalm cx. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 25. which are the more remarkable, because they were urged by the school of Marcellus as a proof that our Lord’s kingdom would have an end, and are explained by Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29; where the true meaning of ‘until’ (which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25), is well brought out. ‘He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how shall He not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery over them?’

387:2691

De Syn. 13, n. 4.

387:2692

i. 48, n. 7.

387:2693

§45, note 2.

387:2694

ὄργανον, note on iii. 31.

387:2695

§12, note.

387:2696

§22, n. 2.

387:2697

Is. lxvi. 2.

387:2698

Ps. cii. 25.

387:2699

Psa. 143.5.

387:2700

John i. 3.

387:2701

1 Cor. viii. 9.

387:2702

Col. i. 17.

387:2703

§31, n. 4.

387:2704

θεολογούμενος. vid. de Decr. 31, n. 5. also Incarn. c. Ar. 3. 19, Serap. i. 28. 29. 31. contr. Sab. Greg. and passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, c. 124, b. &c. κυριολογεῖν, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sab. Greg. §4, f.

387:2705

Ps. xxxiii. 4.

387:2706

Psa. 104.24.

387:2707

Heb. 4:12, 13.

388:2708

§1, n. 6.

388:2709

John 8:35, 36.

Chapter XXII.—Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context of Prov. 8:22, 22Proverbs viii. 22 Vz. 22–30 It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. ‘Founded’ is used in contrast to superstructure; and it implies, as in the case of stones in building, previous existence. ‘Before the world’ signifies the divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. viii. 22, and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the Incarnation.

But since the heretics, reading the next verse, take a perverse view of that also, because it is written, ‘He founded me before the world 2710 ,’ namely, that this is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate Presence 2711 , it is necessary, explaining this verse also, to shew their error.

73. It is written, ‘The Lord in Wisdom founded the earth 2712 ;’ if then by Wisdom the earth is founded, how can He who founds be founded? nay, this too is said after the manner of proverbs 2713 , and we must in like manner investigate its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the Father frames and founds the earth to be firm and steadfast 2714 , Wisdom Itself is founded for us, that It may become beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. Accordingly here as before, He says not, ‘Before the world He hath made me Word or Son,’ lest there should be as it were a beginning of His making. For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son 2715 , ‘and on this point specially search the Scriptures 2716 ;’ for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God 2717 .’ This also the father 2718 of the Arian heresy asked as one of his first questions; ‘If Thou be the Son of God 2719 ;’ for he knew that this is the truth and the sovereign principle of our faith; and that, if He were Himself the Son, the tyranny of the devil would have its end; but if He were a creature, He too was one of those descended from that Adam whom he deceived, and he had no cause for anxiety. For the same reason the Jews of the day 2720 were angered, because the Lord said that He was Son of God, and that God was His proper Father. For had He called Himself one of the creatures, or said, ‘I am a work,’ they had not been startled at the intelligence, nor thought such words blasphemy, knowing, as they did, that even Angels had come among their fathers; but since He called Himself Son, they perceived that such was not the note of a creature, but of Godhead and of the Father’s nature 2721 . The Arians then ought, even in imitation of their own father the devil, to take some special pains 2722 on this point; and if He has said, ‘He founded me to be Word or Son,’ then to think as they do; but if He has not so spoken, not to invent for themselves what is not.

74. For He says not, ‘Before the world He founded me as Word or Son,’ but simply, ‘He founded me,’ to shew again, as I have said, that not for His own sake 2723 but for those who are built upon Him does He here also speak, after the way of proverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, ‘Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon 2724 .’ And it must be that the foundation should be such as the things built on it, that they may admit of being well compacted together. Being then the Word, He has not, as Word 2725 , any such as Himself, who may be compacted with Him; for He is Only-begotten; but having become man, He has the like of Him, those namely the likeness of whose flesh He has put on. Therefore according to His manhood He is founded, that we, as precious stones, may admit of building upon Him, and may become a temple of the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us. And as He is a foundation, and we stones built upon Him, so again He is a Vine and we knit to Him as branches,—not according to the Essence of the Godhead; for this surely is impossible; but according to His manhood, for the branches must be like the vine, since we are like Him according to the flesh. Moreover, since the heretics have such human notions, we may suitably confute them with human resemblances contained in the very matter they urge. Thus He saith not, ‘He made me a foundation,’ lest He might seem to be made and to have a beginning of being, and they might thence find a shameless occasion of irreligion; but, ‘He founded me.’ Now what is founded is founded for the sake of the stones which are raised upon it; it is not a random process, but a stone is first transported from the mountain and set down in the depth of the earth. And while a stone is in the mountain, it is not yet founded; but when need demands, and it is transported, and laid in the depth of the earth, then forthwith if the stone could speak, it would say, ‘He now founded me, who brought me hither from the mountain.’ Therefore the Lord also did not when founded take a beginning of existence; for He was the Word before that; but when He put on our body, which He severed and took from Mary, then He says ‘He hath founded me;’ as much as to say, ‘Me, being the Word, He hath enveloped in a body of earth.’ For so He is founded for our sakes, taking on Him what is ours 2726 , that we, as incorporated and compacted and bound together in Him through the likeness of the flesh, may attain unto a perfect man, and abide 2727 immortal and incorruptible.

75. Nor let the words ‘before the world’ and ‘before He made the earth’ and ‘before the mountains were settled’ disturb any one; for they very well accord with ‘founded’ and ‘created;’ for here again allusion is made to the Economy according to the flesh. For though the grace which came to us from the Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now, and has come when He sojourned among us; yet this grace had been prepared even before we came into being, nay, before the foundation of the world, and the reason why is kindly and wonderful. It beseemed not that God should counsel concerning us afterwards, lest He should appear ignorant of our fate. The God of all then,—creating us by His own Word, and knowing our destinies better than we, and foreseeing that, being made ‘good 2728 ,’ we should in the event be transgressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise for disobedience,—being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word, by whom also He created us 2729 , the Economy of our salvation; that though by the serpent’s deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain quite dead, but having in the Word the redemption and salvation which was afore prepared for us, we might rise again and abide immortal, what time He should have been created for us ‘a beginning of the ways,’ and He who was the ‘First-born of creation’ should become ‘first-born’ of the ‘brethren,’ and again should rise ‘first-fruits of the dead.’ This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his writings; for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs ‘before the world’ and ‘before the earth was,’ he thus speaks to Timothy 2730 ; ‘Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and brought to light life 2731 .’ And to the Ephesians; ‘Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself 2732 .’

76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says himself, in Him we were represented 2733 beforehand? and how at all, before men were created, did He predestinate us unto adoption, but that the Son Himself was ‘founded before the world,’ taking on Him that economy which was for our sake? or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, have we ‘an inheritance being predestinated,’ but that the Lord Himself was founded ‘before the world,’ inasmuch as He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on Him through the flesh all that inheritance of judgment which lay against us, and we henceforth were made sons in Him? and how did we receive it ‘before the world was,’ when we were not yet in being, but afterwards in time, but that in Christ was stored the grace which has reached us? Wherefore also in the Judgment, when every one shall receive according to his conduct, He says, ‘Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world 2734 .’ How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came to be, save in the Lord who ‘before the world’ was founded for this purpose; that we, as built upon Him, might partake, as well-compacted stones, the life and grace which is from Him? And this took place, as naturally suggests itself to the religious mind, that, as I said, we, rising after our brief death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we had not been capable 2735 , men as we are, formed of earth, but that ‘before the world’ there had been prepared for us in Christ the hope of life and salvation. Therefore reason is there that the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in it as ‘a beginning of ways for His works,’ is laid as a foundation according as the Father’s will 2736 was in Him before the world, as has been said, and before land was, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains burst forth; that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes of visible nature pass away in the fulness of the present age, we on the contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but may be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and blessing which before these things have been prepared for us in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards abide 2737 and live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.

77. Nor in any other way was it fitting that our life should be founded, but in the Lord who is before the ages, and through whom the ages were brought to be; that, since it was in Him, we too might be able to inherit that everlasting life. For God is good; and being good always, He willed this, as knowing that our weak nature needed the succour and salvation which is from Him. And as a wise architect, proposing to build a house, consults also about repairing it, should it at any time become dilapidated after building, and, as counselling about this, makes preparation and gives to the workmen materials for a repair; and thus the means of the repair are provided before the house; in the same way prior to us is the repair of our salvation founded in Christ, that in Him we might even be new-created. And the will and the purpose were made ready ‘before the world,’ but have taken effect when the need required, and the Saviour came among us. For the Lord Himself will stand us in place of all things in the heavens, when He receives us into everlasting life. This then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the sense of the passage is right 2738 . But since that passage, when scrutinized, has a right sense in every point of view, it may be well to state what it is; perhaps many words may bring these senseless men to shame. Now here I must recur to what has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, ‘The Lord created me;’ and He plainly indicates a sense not spoken ‘plainly’ but latent 2739 , such as we shall be able to find by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on hearing from the Framing Wisdom, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ does not at once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created? who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say, that He was created ‘a beginning of ways,’ does not investigate the sense, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can become a Beginning of many others? for it is a dark saying 2740 ; but ‘a man of understanding,’ says he, ‘shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings 2741 .’

78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom 2742 of God is Creator and Framer of all things; for ‘in Wisdom hast Thou made them all 2743 ,’ he says, and ‘the earth is full of Thy creation.’ But that what came into being might not only be, but be good 2744 , it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend 2745 to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and semblance of Its Image on all in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God 2746 . For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image; in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and through It we are able to know Its Father. ‘For he who hath the Son,’ saith He, ‘hath the Father also;’ and ‘he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me 2747 .’ Such an impress then of Wisdom being created in us, and being in all the works, with reason does the true and framing Wisdom take to Itself what belongs to its own impress, and say, ‘The Lord created me for His works;’ for what the wisdom in us says, that the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His own; and, whereas He is not Himself created, being Creator, yet because of the image of Him created in the works 2748 , He says this as if of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has said, ‘He that receiveth you, receiveth Me 2749 ,’ because His impress is in us, so, though He be not among the creatures, yet because His image and impress is created in the works, He says, as if in His own person, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.’ And therefore has this impress of Wisdom in the works been brought into being, that, as I said before, the world might recognise in it its own Creator the Word, and through Him the Father. And this is what Paul said, ‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made 2750 .’ But if so, the Word is not a creature in essence 2751 ; but the wisdom which is in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the Proverbs.

79. But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not 2752 ? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, ‘For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God 2753 ?’ or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a ‘multitude of wise men 2754 ’ are found in Scripture? for ‘a wise man feareth and departeth from evil 2755 ;’ and ‘through wisdom is a house builded 2756 ;’ and the Preacher says, ‘A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine;’ and he blames those who are headstrong thus, ‘Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this 2757 .’ But if, as the Son of Sirach says, ‘He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him 2758 ,’ and this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence of the Very 2759 Wisdom and Only-begotten, but of that wisdom which is imaged in the world, how is it incredible that the All-framing and true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world, should say, as I have already explained, as if of Itself, ‘The Lord created me for His works?’ For the wisdom in the world is not creative, but is that which is created in the works, according to which ‘the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork 2760 .’ This if men have within them 2761 , they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they are made really 2762 after God’s Image. And, as some son of a king, when the father wished to build a city 2763 , might cause his own name to be printed upon each of the works that were rising, both to give security to them of the works remaining, by reason of the show of his name on everything, and also to make them remember him and his father from the name, and having finished the city might be asked concerning it, how it was made, and then would answer, ‘It is made securely, for according to the will of my father, I am imaged in each work, for my name was made in the works;’ but saying this, he does not signify that his own essence is created, but the impress of himself by means of his name; in the same manner, to apply the illustration, to those who admire the wisdom in the creatures, the true Wisdom makes answer, ‘The Lord created me for the works,’ for my impress is in them; and I have thus condescended for the framing of all things.

80. Moreover, that the Son should be speaking of the impress that is within us as if it were Himself, should not startle any one, considering (for we must not shrink from repetition 2764 ) that, when Saul was persecuting the Church, in which was His impress and image, He said, as if He were Himself under persecution, ‘Saul, why persecutest thou Me 2765 ?’ Therefore (as has been said), as, supposing the impress itself of Wisdom which is in the works had said, ‘The Lord created me for the works,’ no one would have been startled, so, if He, the True and Framing Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God, should use what belongs to His image as about Himself, namely, ‘The Lord created me for the works,’ let no one, overlooking the wisdom created in the world and in the works, think that ‘He created’ is said of the Substance of the Very 2766 Wisdom, lest, diluting the wine with water 2767 , he be judged a defrauder of the truth. For It is Creative and Framer; but Its impress is created in the works, as the copy of the image. And He says, ‘Beginning of ways,’ since such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning. and, as it were, rudiments of the knowledge of God; for a man entering, as it were, upon this way first, and keeping it in the fear of God (as Solomon says 2768 , ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’), then advancing upwards in his thoughts and perceiving the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in It also Its Father 2769 , as the Lord Himself has said, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and as John writes, ‘He who acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also 2770 .’ And He says, ‘Before the world He founded me 2771 ,’ since in Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom, God’s Son, to be by nature a creature, He has found it necessary to add, ‘Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills He begets me,’ that in saying, ‘before every creature’ (for He includes all the creation under these heads), He may shew that He is not created together with the works according to Essence. For if He was created ‘for the works,’ yet is before them, it follows that He is in being before He was created. He is not then a creature by nature and essence, but as He Himself has added, an Offspring. But in what differs a creature from an offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, has been shewn in what has gone before.

81. But since He proceeds to say, ‘When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him 2772 ,’ we ought to know that He says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above (for there is no room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made not even one 2773 thing); but this is what He says, ‘All things took place in Me and through Me, and when there was need that Wisdom should be created in the works, in My Essence indeed I was with the Father, but by a condescension 2774 to things originate, I was disposing over the works My own impress, so that the whole world as being in one body, might not be at variance but in concord with itself.’ All those then who with an upright understanding, according to the wisdom given unto them, come to contemplate the creatures, are able to say for themselves, ‘By Thy appointment all things continue 2775 ;’ but they who make light of this must be told, ‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools;’ for ‘that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has revealed it unto them; for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but served the creature more than the Creator of all, who is blessed for ever. Amen 2776 .’ And they will surely be shamed at hearing, ‘For, after that in the wisdom of God (in the mode we have explained above), the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe 2777 .’ For no longer, as in the former times, God has willed to be known by an image and shadow of wisdom, that namely which is in the creatures, but He has made the true Wisdom Itself to take flesh, and to become man, and to undergo the death of the cross; that by the faith in Him, henceforth all that believe may obtain salvation. However, it is the same Wisdom of God, which through Its own Image in the creatures (whence also It is said to be created), first manifested Itself, and through Itself Its own Father; and afterwards, being Itself the Word, has ‘become flesh 2778 ,’ as John says, and after abolishing death and saving our race, still more revealed Himself and through Him His own Father, saying, ‘Grant unto them that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent 2779 .’

82. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of Him; for the knowledge of Father through Son and of Son from Father is one and the same, and the Father delights in Him, and in the same joy the Son rejoices in the Father, saying, ‘I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him 2780 .’ And this again proves that the Son is not foreign, but proper to the Father’s Essence. For behold, not because of us has He come to be, as the irreligious men say, nor is He out of nothing (for not from without did God procure for Himself a cause of rejoicing), but the words denote what is His own and like. When then was it, when the Father rejoiced not? but if He ever rejoiced, He was ever, in whom He rejoiced. And in whom does the Father rejoice, except as seeing Himself in His own Image, which is His Word? And though in sons of men also He had delight, on finishing the world, as it is written in these same Proverbs 2781 , yet this too has a consistent sense. For even thus He had delight, not because joy was added to Him, but again on seeing the works made after His own Image; so that even this rejoicing of God is on account of His Image. And how too has the Son delight, except as seeing Himself in the Father? for this is the same as saying, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me 2782 .’ Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O Christ’s enemies, and vainly did ye parade 2783 and circulate everywhere your text, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solomon’s meaning, but your own comment 2784 . For behold your sense is proved to be but a fantasy; but the passage in the Proverbs, as well as all that is above said, proves that the Son is not a creature in nature and essence, but the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom ‘all things were made,’ and ‘without Him was made not one thing. 2785 ’

Footnotes

388:2710

Prov. viii. 23.

388:2711

Or. i. 49, n. 2.

388:2712

Prov. iii. 19.

388:2713

Cf. 44, n. 3.

388:2714

§69. 3.

388:2715

Serap. ii. 7, 8.

388:2716

Vid. supr. pp. 74, 172, and notes. vid. also Serap. i. 32 init. iv. fin. contr. Apoll. i. 6, 8, 9, 11, 22; ii. 8, 9, 13, 14, 17–19. ‘The doctrine of the Church should be proved, not announced (ἀποδεικτικῶς οὐκ ἀποφαντικῶς); therefore shew that Scripture thus teaches.’ Theod. Eran. p. 199. Ambros. de Incarn. 14. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Tertull. Carn. Christ. 7. vid. also 6. Max. dial. v. 29. Heretics in particular professed to be guided by Scripture. Tertull. Præscr. 8. For Gnostics vid. Tertullian’s grave sarcasm: ‘Utantur hæretici omnes scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo.’ Carn. Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. Or. i. 1, n. 4. And so Marcellus, ‘We consider it unsafe to lay down doctrine concerning things which we have not learned with exactness from the divine Scriptures.’ (leg. περὶ ὧν παρὰ τῶν). Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177, d. And Macedonians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. And Monophysites, ‘I have not learned this from Scripture; and I have a great fear of saying what it is silent about.’ Theod. Eran. p. 215; also Hilar. ad Const. ii. 9. Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 13.

388:2717

Matt. xvi. 16.

388:2718

Ep. Æg. 4. Sent. D. 3. c. infr. 59 init. 67. fin. note infr. on iii. 8.

388:2719

Matt. iv. 3.

388:2720

§1, n. 6.

388:2721

πατρικήν, vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1.

388:2722

περιεργάζεσθαι, vid. iii. 18.

388:2723

§60, n. 2.

388:2724

1 Cor. 3:10, 11; Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 341.

388:2725

§8, note 3a.

389:2726

Letter 59. 6. Leon. Ep. 28. 3.

389:2727

διαμείνωμεν, 69, n. 3.

389:2728

Gen. i. 31.

389:2729

i. 49, n. 10.

389:2730

Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 342.

389:2731

2 Tim. i. 8-10.

389:2732

Eph. i. 3-5.

389:2733

Cf. 64, notes 3, 5.

389:2734

Matt. xxv. 34.

390:2735

The Catholic doctrine seems to be, that Adam innocent was mortal, yet would not in fact have died; that he had no principle of eternal life within him, but was sustained continually by divine power, till such time as immortality should have been given him. vid. Incarn. 4. Cf. Augustine, de pecc. mer. i. 3. Gen. ad lit. vi. 20. Pope Pius V. condemned the assertion of Baius, Immortalitas primi hominis non erat gratiæ beneficium sed naturalis conditio. His decision of course is here referred to only historically.

390:2736

Cf. 31. n. 8.

390:2737

74, n. 5.

390:2738

§44, n. 1.

390:2739

Cf. 73, n. 2. and reff.

390:2740

αἴνιγμα, supr. i. 41, n. 9.

390:2741

Prov. 1:5, 6.

390:2742

αὐτοσοφία vid. infr. note on iv. 2.

390:2743

Ps. civ. 24. Sept.

390:2744

supr. de Decr. 19, n. 3.

390:2745

Cf. 64, notes 2 and 5.

390:2746

Didymus argues in favour of interpreting the passage of created wisdom at length, Trin. iii. 3. He says that the context makes this interpretation necessary.

390:2747

1 John ii. 23; Matt. x. 40.

391:2748

Athan. here considers wisdom as the image of the Creator in the Universe. He explains it of the Church, de Incarn. contr. Ar. 6. if it be his [but see Prolegg. ch. iii. §1 (36)]; (and so Didym. Trin. iii. 3 fin.) Cf. Jerome, in Eph. iv. 23, 24. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Epiphanius says, ‘Scripture has nowhere confirmed this passage (Prov. viii. 22), nor has any Apostle referred it to Christ.’ (vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 20.) Hær. 69. pp. 743–745. He proceeds to shew how it may apply to Him.

391:2749

Matt. x. 40.

391:2750

Rom. 1:19, 20.

391:2751

Cf. 45, n. 2.

391:2752

Vid. Epiph. Hær. 69.

391:2753

1 Cor. i. 21.

391:2754

Vid. Wisd. vi. 24

391:2755

Prov. xiv. 16.

391:2756

Prov. 14.24.

391:2757

Eccles. viii. 1; vii. 10.

391:2758

Sir. 1:9, 10.

391:2759

Cf. 78, n. 1.

391:2760

Ps. xix. 1.

391:2761

Cf. contr. Gent. 2, 30, 40, &c. vid. also Basil. de Sp. S. n. 19. Cyril. in Joan. p. 75.

391:2762

De Decr. 31, n. 5.

391:2763

This is drawn out somewhat differently, and very strikingly in contr. Gent. 43. The Word indeed is regarded more as the Governor than the Life of the world, but shortly before he spoke of the Word as the Principle of permanence. 41 fin.

391:2764

τὸ αὐτὸ γὰρ λέγειν οὐκ ὀκνητέον: where Petavius, de Trin. ii. 1. §8. ingeniously but without any authority reads οὐκ ὀκνεῖ θεόν. It is quite a peculiarity of Athan. to repeat and to apologize for doing so. The very same words occur supr. 22, c. Orat. iii. 54, a. Serap. i. 19, b. 27, e. Vid. also 2, c. 41, d. 67, a. 69, b. iii. 39 init. vid. especially supr. p. 47, note 6.

391:2765

Acts ix. 4.

392:2766

Cf. above, 79, n. 8.

392:2767

Isa. i. 22. Infr. iii. 35. Ep. Æg. §17. Ambros. de Fid. iii. 65. p. 157. note 4.

392:2768

Prov. i. 7, LXX.

392:2769

The whole of this passage might be illustrated at great length from the contr. Gent. and the Incarn. V. D. vid. supr. notes on 79. Cf. c. Gent. 34, and Incarn. 11, 41, 42, &c. Vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 16.

392:2770

John xiv. 9; 1 John ii. 23. and so Cyril in Joan. p. 864. vid. Wetstein in loc.

392:2771

Vid. Prov. viii. 24-26.

392:2772

Prov. 8.27.

392:2773

John i. 3.

392:2774

Here again the συγκατάβασις has no reference whatever to a figurative γέννησις, as Bishop Bull contends, but to His impressing the image of Wisdom on the works, or what He above calls the Son’s image, on which account He is πρωτοτόκος

392:2775

Vid. Ps. cxix. 91

392:2776

Rom. i. 19-25

392:2777

1 Cor. i. 21.

392:2778

John i. 14.

392:2779

Vid. John 17.3.

392:2780

Prov. viii. 30.

393:2781

Prov. viii. 31.

393:2782

John 14:9, 10.

393:2783

ἐνεπομπεύσατε. ‘The ancients said πομπεύειν “to use bad language,” and the coarse language of the procession, πομπεία. This arose from the custom of persons in the Bacchanalian cars using bad language towards by-standers, and their retorting it.’ Erasm. Adag. p. 1158. He quotes Menander,

ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν εἰσὶ πομπεῖαί τινες

σφόδρα λοίδοροι.

393:2784

διάνοιαν, ἐπίνοιαν, supr. Or. i. 52, n. 7.

393:2785

John i. 3.

Discourse III.

————————————

Chapter XXIII.—Texts Explained; Seventhly, John xiv. 10 Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius’s evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.

Cite this text

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. IV, part 2 of 3. . Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/nicene-and-post-nicene-fathers-ser-ii-vol-iv-part-2/. Public-domain text reproduced in full; markup only.