Ay

i

να

> Aus

ie ten

til

os A Be ten ere

DSi ΤΡ sad ema

ΑἈΒΥΈΒΙῚ ΞΘΞΤΊΟΣ ALININL

. vs χῷ eee oe Rt ge pe peabenste ΒᾺΣ ce οἷς hw 4 or - ᾿ Paw GOS oad ct EY See ae PRG a date BOR Phy = aA Ἐν με oy x ee ᾿ ΝΡ it ad: ie ἣν : Ai is fh : ᾿ dyed! 4 6 ry renee τως κ “1 ; Μ spate mad ᾿ς at Sade δ 2 Phe. geal eye. aes ; “yh EE Oe ee ee eS νι a ete Eee

a

TRINITY

FROM:THE: LIBRARY-OF “ap

SIBRARY OF FATHERS

OF THE

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, M°ERIOR TO THE DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST.

TRANSLATED BY MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,

YET SHALL NOT THY TEACHERS BE REMOVED INTO A CORNER ANY MORE, BUT THINE EYES SHALL SEE THY TEACHERS. Isaiah xxx. 20.

OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER; J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON, MDCCCXLIV.

SELECT TREATISES

Or

Ss ATH AN 252 Ue,

ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA,

IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS, 2 '**

νοι.

TRANSLATED,

WITH NOTES AND INDICES.

OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER; J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. MDCCCXLIV.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

THE Preliminary Matter is unavoidably postponed.

A Paes Fed Dec. 6, 1844.

ὮΝ orem 3 eee Sa

TO THE

MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD

WILLIAM LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND,

FORMERLY REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

THIS LIBRARY OF

ANCIENT BISHOPS, FATHERS, DOCTORS, MARTYRS, CONFESSORS, OF CHRIST’S HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,

IS WITH HIS GRACE’S PERMISSION RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, IN TOKEN OF REVERENCE FOR HIS PERSON AND SACRED OFFICE, AND OF

GRATITUDE FOR HIS EPISCOPAL KINDNESS,

CONTENTS. Fer vers. 142,

EPISTLE OF 5. ATHANASIUS

IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.

CHAP. 1,

INTRODUCTION.

The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council ; their fickleness ; they are like Jews; their employment of force instead of reason, Page 1 i

CHAP. II. CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL.

Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council ; proceedings at Niceea; Eusebians then signed what they now complain of; on the unanimity of true teachers, and the process of tradition; changes of the Arians. 5

CHAP, 11h.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD SON AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD.

Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial. Attempts of Arians to find a third meaning between these; 6. g. that our Lord alone was created immediately by God; Asterius’s view; or that our Lord alone partakes the Father. The second and true sense; God begets as He makes, really ; though His creation and generation not like man’s; His generation inde- pendent of time; generation implies an internal, and therefore an eternal, act in God; explanation of Prov. 8, 22. 10

b

νος.

Ι,

11 CONTENTS.

CHAP. IV.

PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON.

Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply eternity; as well as the Father’s title of Fountain. The Arians reply that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, but are names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &. Why there is but one Son, Word, &c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him. 24

CHAP. V.

DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL'S PHRASES, FROM THE SUBSTANCE,” AND “* ONE IN SUBSTANCE.”

Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we ought to look at the sense more than the wording. Evasion of the Eusebians as to the phrase of God,” which is in Scripture; their evasion of all explanations but those which the Council selected; which were intended to negative the Arian formule. Protest against their conveying any material sense. 30

CHAP. VI.

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL.

Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome; Origen. 43

CHAP, Vil. ON THE ARIAN SYMBOL INGENERATE.”’

This term afterwards adopted by the Arians; and why; three senses of it. A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His creatures,

not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead ; Conclusion, 51 APPENDIX. Letter of Eusebius of Ceesarea to the People of his Diocese. 59

NOTE ON p. 61.

On the meaning of the phrase if ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως οὐσίας in the Nicene Anathema. 66

CONTENTS. ill

EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS,

CONCERNING THE COUNCILS HELD AT ARIMINUM IN ITALY AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA.

GCHAP. 1

HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.

Reasons why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling any; and of the style of the Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene Councils. Proceedings at Ariminum ; Letter of the Council to Constantius ; its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the Arians. 73

ΟΗΆΡ. 11.

HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS.

Arius’s own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander. Corrections by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius. Letter of the Council of Jerusalem. First Creed of Arians at the Dedication at Antioch; second, Lucian’s on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius ; fourth, sent into Gaul to Constans; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Ttaly; sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as intro- duced above in Chapter i; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople ;

eleventh, at Antioch. 93 CHAP, tT, ON THE SYMBOLS OF THE SUBSTANCE” AND ONE IN SUBSTANCE.”

We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the sense; meaning of the Symbols; the question of their not being in Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, are not to be considered Arians, Reasons why ‘One in substance” better than Like in substance,” yet the latter may be interpreted in a good sense. Ex- planation of the rejection of One in substance’’ by the Council which condemned Samosatene; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria. Parallel variation in the use of “‘ Ingenerate ;” quotation from 8. Ignatius and another. Reasons for using One in substance ;” objections to it ; examination of the word itself. Further documents of the Council of

Ariminum 129

Note ON CHAPTER II.

Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium, 160

NOTE ON PAGE 147. On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosata. 165

"5

1V CONTENTS.

FOUR DISCOURSES OF §. ATHANASIUS AGAINST THE ARIANS.

DISCOURSE I.

CHAP.-I.

INTRODUCTION.

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

11] CHAP, 17:

EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS.

Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before His gene- ration; He was created ; named Wisdom and Word after God’s attributes; made that He might make us ; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God’s foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so, as others, by participation; foreign in substance from the Father; does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself. 185

CHAP. A; THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine is new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father’s Substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning. The controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe i in as God, ‘can be 50 in name only, and is merely a creature. “What pretence then is there for being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage,

and dare not avow their tenets. 189

CHAP IY. THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE.

These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concerning the Eternal Power’ of God in Rom. i. 20. which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, “‘ Once the Son was not,” its supporters not daring to speak of a time when the Son was not.”’ 195

CONTENTS. Υ͂

CHAP. V. SUBJECT CONTINUED.

The objection, that the Son’s eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity. The word Son is used ina transcendant, but is to be un- derstood in a real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in par- taking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget. 200

CHAR. VI; SUBJECT CONTINUED.»

Third proof of the Son’s eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His consubstantiality; as the Creator; as One of the Blessed Trinity; as Wisdom; as Word; as Image. But if the Son be a perfect Image of the Father, why is He not a Father also? because God, being perfect, is not the origin of a race. The Father only a Father, because the Only Father; the Son only a Son because the Only Son. Men are not really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does not become a Father, because He has received from the Father, to be immutable and ever the same. 205

CHAP. Vib

OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF.

Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not. 213

CHAP. VIII. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.

W hether 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 nota Father, asa Creator, in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the Substance of God, as generation does. 218

vl

CONTENTS.

CHAP. ΙΧ.

OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.

Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an

unscriptural word ; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If it means without Father,” there is but One Ingenerate ; if “without beginning or creation,’ there are Two. Inconsistency of Asterius. Ingenerate” is a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is “‘ Almighty,” or Lord of powers.”’ ““ Father”’ is the truer title, not only as Scriptural, but as implying a Son, and our adoption as sons. 224

CHAP... xX,

OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.

How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is unalter-

able becanse the Image of the Father; proved from texts. 230

CHAP. XI.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; AND FIRST, PHIL. 11. 9, 10.

Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine; e.g. Phil. ii.

9,10. Whether the words ‘“ Wherefore God hath highly exalted” prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word “‘ Son,” according to the Regula Fidet; which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of highly exalted,” and “gave,” and ‘wherefore ;”’ viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord’s manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word’s exaltation’ through the Resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the Nature of the Word. 233

CHAT. ΧΙ͂Ϊ.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY, PSALM x\lv. 7, 8.

Whether the words therefore,” anointed,” &c. imply that the Word has

been rewarded. Argued against, first, from the word “fellows” i. e. par- takers.” Ie is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And for us He is said to sanctify Himself, and in order to give us the glory He has received. ‘The word wherefore” implies His divinity. Thou hast loved righteousness,” ὅς, do not imply trial or

Choices 246

CONTENTS. vil

CHAP. XIII.

TEXTS EXPLAINED ; THIRDLY, HEBREWS 1. 4.

Additional texts brought as objections; 6. g. Hebr. i. 4. vii, 22. Whether the word “better” implies likeness to the Angels; and “made” or “become” implies creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances under which Scripture speaks. Difference between ‘“ better’ and ‘“ereater;’” texts in proof. Made’ or become” is 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 re- lation towards us. Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the Eternal Father. 257

NOTE ON p. 214.

On the meaning of the formula πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, in the Nicene Anathema. 272

DISCOURSE ἢ. CHAP. XIV.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS 11]. 2.

Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word “servant,” nor by “made” which oc- curs in it; (how can the Judge be among the works” which God will bring into judgment ?”) nor by ‘‘faithful;”” and is confuted by the im- mediate context, which is about Priesthood ; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word “faithful” to mean 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. 281

CHAP. XV; TEXTS EXPLAINED; FIFTHLY, ACTS ii. 36.

The Regula Fidei must be observed ; ‘‘ made’”’ applies to our Lord’s manhood ; and to His manifestation ; and to His office relative to us; and is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen, 27, 29, 37. The context con- tradicts the Arian interpretation. 297

vil CONTENTS.

CHAP. XVI.

INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS Vill. 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 Divine Medium or Agent in creation; moreover in being the Revealer of the Father; and in being the Object of worship. 306

CHAP. XVII; INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS Vill. 22. CONTINUED.

Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God’s immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God’s hand, and an infinite series of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moses was not the Agent in creation :—objected again, that unity is found in created ministrations; but all such ministrations are defective and dependent :—again, that He learned to create; yet could God’s Wisdom need teaching? and why should He learn, if the Father worketh hitherto?’’ If the Son was created to create us, He is for our

sake, not we for His. alg

CHAP] ΧΥΤΙΗΙ- INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS vill. 22. CONTINUED.

Contrast between the Father’s operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these illustrations; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God’s Word and man’s word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Ingenerates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by

the Father, On the Baptism of hereties. Why Arian worse than other 323

heresies.

CONTENTS. 1X

CHAPS XIX.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vill. 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 Fidet. “He created Me” not equivalent to “I am a creature.”’ Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, If He is a creature, it is as “a Beginning of ways,”’ an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is for the works,” which implies that the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was created. Also “the Lord’ not the Father created’? Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant. 342

CHAP. XX. TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vill. 22. CONTINUED.

Our Lord is said to be created “for the works,” i. e. with a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. 49, 5. &e. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added ; not so when His Divine Natare; texts in proof. 353

CHAP, XXE TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vili. 22. CONTINUED.

Our Lord not said in Scripture to he “‘created,’’ nor 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 ne- cessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works. 362

>

CHAP. XXII.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT OF PROVERBS Vill. 22. viz. 22—30.

It is right to interpret this passage by the Megula 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. vill. 22. and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. ‘The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the Incarnation. 385

x CONTENTS.

DISCOURSE III.

CHAP. XA

TEXTS EXPLAINED 3 SEVENTHLY, JOHN xiv. 10.

Introduction. The doctrine of the Coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Substance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Substance, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius’s evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One Only God, because the Son is in the Father. 398

CHAP. XXIV.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; EIGHTHLY, JOHN Xvil. 3. AND THE LIKE.

Our Lord’s divinity cannot interfere with His Father’s prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. One” is used in contrast with false gods and idols, not with the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father’s, as being in- cluded in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin. 409

CHAP. XXV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; NINTHLY, JOHN x. 30. xvii. 11, ἄτα.

Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment ; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness between ‘Them is in nature, because there is oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that “The Father and Son are one, as we are one with Christ,” is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. Force of “in us; force of ‘as;’’ confirmed by S. John.

3 In what sense we are “in God”? and His βοῃϑ.᾽ 414

CONTENTS. ΧΙ

CHAP. XXVI.

INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE INCARNATION.

Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidet. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to 1 Pet. iv. 1. 436

CHAP. XXVII.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; TENTHLY, MATTHEW xxviii. 18. JOHN 111. 35. το.

These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by “ὁ 807 in John 5, 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again, they are used with reference to our Lord’s human nature; and for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the power, &c. before He received it. He was God and man, and His actions are often at once divine and human. 45]

CHAP. XXVIII.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; ELEVENTHLY, MARK ΧΙ]. 32. AND LUKE 11, 52;

Arian explanation of the former text contradicts the Regula Fidei; and the context. Onr Lord said that He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human nature ; fromsympathy with man. Ifthe Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father’s, therefore know- ledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father; if the Father’s Image, Ile knows the Day; if He created and upholds all things, He knows the Day when they will cease to be. He knows not, as representing us, argued from Matt. 24,42. As He asked about Lazarus’s grave, &c. yet knew, so He knows; as 8. Paul said, ‘‘ whether in the body I know not,” &c. yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not, for our profit ; that we be not curious, (asin Acts 1, 7. where on the contrary He did not say He knew not;) that we be not secure and slothful. As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows. Again, He also advanced in wisdom, as man; else Hie made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on. 459

ΧΙ CONTENTS.

CHAP, XXIX.

TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW Xxvl. 39; JOHN xii. 27. &c.

Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear. He feared because His fiesh feared. 476

CHAT, «x4. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS Vli—x.

Whether the Son is begotten at the Father’s will? This virtually the same as whether Once He was not? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter question. The Regula Fide? answersit at once in the negative by contrary texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will ; which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. Ifthe Son by will, there must be another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. Vhe Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father. 484

DISCOURSE IV. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 498

Subject 7.

The doctrine of the Monarchia implies or requires, not negatives, the substantial existence of the Word and Son.

ess | The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from God’s Substance and distinct from Him. Tlustration of John 10, 30.

drawn from Deut. 4, 4. 62

CONTENTS. Xl

Subject 11. Texts explained against the Arians, viz. Matt, xxviii. 18, Phil. ii. 9. E'ph..i. 20.

§§. 6, 7.

When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was His. 520

Subject 111. Comparison of Photinians with Arians.

§. 8.

Arians date the Son’s beginning earlier than the Photinians. 521

Subject LV. (Being Subject 1. continued.) $$. 9, 10.

Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, and the Son from the Father. 522

Subject V. (Being Subject 3. continued.) δὰ. 1 Pas Photinians, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but deve- loped, to create us; as if the Divine silence were a state of inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted; or as if there were a going forth

and return of the Word; a doctrine which implies change and imperfection in Father and Son. 525

Subject VI. The Sabellian doctrine of dilatation and contraction. δῷ; 13, 14.

Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the Divine Nature. IJlustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. 6,11, &e. 522

Xiv CONTENTS.

Subject VII.

On the Identity of the Word with the Son, against Photinians and Samosatenes.

δῷ, 15—24. Since the Word is from God, He must be Son. Since the Son is from everlasting, He must be the Word; else either He is superior to the W ord, or the Word is the Father. Texts of the New Testament which state the unity of the Son with the Father; therefore the Son is the Word. Three heretical hypotheses—1. That the Manis the Son; refuted. 2. That the Word and Man together are the Son; refuted. 3, That the Word became Son on His incarnation; refuted. Texts of the Old Testament which speak of the Son. If they are merely prophetical, then those concerning the Word may be such also. 531

Subject VIII. (Being Subject 4. continued.) §. 25.

Heretical illustration from 1 Cor. 12, 4. refuted. 543

Subject LX. (Being Subject 7. continued.)

That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament. Texts from Old Testament continued; especially Ps. 110, 3. Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts 10, 36. urged by the Samosatenes; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. 1, 5. Lev. 9, 7. &c. Necessity of the Word’s taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without de- stroying, the flesh. 545

Page 8. 15

221. 222. 223. 239. 243. 244.

246.

253. 343. 397. 418. 440. 453. 486.

CORRIGENDA.

line 14. for for read from

5. note d. vid. p. 311, note i.

line 19. for the Word, read a word, note i. line 11. for there be read He be line 8. for which read whom

heading. for Synod read Symbol

. line 18. from fin. for does read does not . note r. col. 2. and 191. heading. for Father read fathers

note t. cire. fin. for repeats read repents twice

. and 122. read Germinius

line 8. for those read whom

. note. col. 2. for Ariorum read Arianorum

fin. for of Him. ..being read that He...was

. note i. for interpretators read interpreters

note n. col. 1. line 18. for the Father’s read a father’s

. note y. fin. for Anomean read the Anomeon

. note. col. 1. fin. for the read that

. line 4. znsert been after have

. margin. for Theb. read Heb.

. line 13. for is read in

. note f. col. 1. line 6. from fin. for Father read Son . note i. col. 2. for mentioned read mentions

. line 12. from fin. after Grat. 30. add and passim. . line 10. omdzt certainly.

. line 1. for who read whom

. ref. 4. for μιονός read moves

note. line 7. for even read ever

col. 2. line 2. for statement read implication

line 6. for as to all such speculations concerning read in attri- buting such things to

note f. col. 1. for irreligionem read irreligiosam

circ. fin. for Son... He read son. ..he

note. for is to be read to be

note. for humiliabus ead humiliatus

note. for did so read He did so

note k. line 6. for to come read it comes

note fin. for λόγον read κύριον

note fin. for as read in

line 10. for . B read ;

heading. for Each read The

note. col. 2. init. for singly read simply

three times. for drift read scope

note. col. 1. line 25. for but read hardly more than

note g. col. 2. lines 3 and 6. for as...si read which. ..si non

In Letters and Numbers.

. note p. for 46. read 40.

. top margin. add §. 6.

. line 3. for clerks read clerks

. note m. for the same year read next year . note i. col. 1. line 4. for ref. 4. read ref. 5. . line 10. for A.D. 367. read A.D. 357.

. Tef. 4. for 3 read 4

. ref. 5. for 5 read 4

. ref. 2. for 79 read 179

. note. col. 1. for 36. read 30, 20.

. lettering of note. for 1 read f

. note ἃ, for g read z

. note a. for 13. read 10.

. note o. init. for ref. 4. read ref. 5.

. ref. 2. for 144. read 244.

. note ὁ. fin. and 287. note g. fin. for read i . ref. 2. for 3 read 4

. ref. 1. for 44. read 43.

2. lettering of note. read s

- note e. fin. for 67. read 56.

. tef. 2. for 291. read 391.

. line 4. from fin. and margin. for water read water and for

ili. 35. read 5111. 35.

DISCOURSE II.

tS” In the references henceforth made to 5. Athanasius’s Works in the Notes and margin, the Arabic numerals stand generally for the sections as in the Benedictine Edition; hitherto § has been prefixed to those numerals which are indicative of sections which are to be found in this Volume.

CHAP. XIV. TEXTS EXPLAINED; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS lil. 2.

Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word “servant,” nor by “made” which oc- curs in it; (how can the Judge be among the works” which “God will bring into judgment?’’) nor by faithful; and is confuted by the im- mediate context, whichis 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 prp indeed think that enough had been said already §. 1. against the hollow professors! of Arius’s madness, whether for Sea their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation 197, and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the note Β. Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb ; but, as swine and dogs wallow? in their own vomit? κυλιό- and their own mire, even invent new expedients® for their") ... irreligion. ‘Thus they misunderstand the passage in the 16. Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His mee ways for His works*, and the words of the op ee Who was 29, Jaithful to Him that made Him, and straightway’* argue, that a = the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they supr. might have learned from what is said above, had they not???”

utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not 19—72. from nothing nor in the number of things generate at all, ees

the Truth witnessing® it, (for, being God, He cannot be ane oh

U 35,

282 The Arians, because Christ is man, deny that He is God.

BS, 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

‘vid. was not before its generation’,”) yet since, as if dreading to 78. 6 desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the

5}. aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good’ es 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 of the present Jews*, but would have inquired and learned” that, John 1, whereas In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was

with God, and the Werd was God, in consequence, it was

when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became yee 1, man, that it was said of Him, as by John, The Word ee became flesh; so by Peter, He hath made Him Lord and 36. Christ;—as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Prov. 8, Himself, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways τ Jor His works; so by Paul, Become so much better than the *Heb.1, Angels®; and again, He made Himself of no reputation, and - 957, look upon Him the form of a servant‘; ἀπ again, Wherefore, = τ τ holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Heb. 3, Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was 7. Christ fajthful to Him that made Him®. For all these texts have

Rom.

Jesus,

rt. the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative 5 Sent ee ᾿ p.11. οὗ the divinity of the Word, even those of them which

speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man.

2. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refuta-

a φῶν νῦν ᾿Ιουδαίων, means literally ‘the Jews of this day,’ as here and (ταῖς i, 8:. 10: 38. τεῦ 11 1. ii; 28. 6. But elsewhere this and similar phrases, as distinctly mean the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews; e.g. τῶν νῦν lovdaiwy. In illud Omn.5.d. ᾿Ιουδαῖοι of τε παλαιοὶ καὶ οἱ νέοι οὗποι, iii. δ2. ἃ. οἱ rors καὶ οἱ νέοι νῦν, Sent. VD. 3. C. σῶν νέων, ibid. 4. init. (vid. also καὶ of Thee ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, i. 8. supr. p. 190. yet vid. of cere ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, de Syn, 33.) σῶν νῶν "louduilovrwy, i, 39. supr. p. 236. ᾿Ιουδαϊκὴ νέα αἵρεσις, Hist. Arian. 10. πη (vid... also: Orat., oni. 98.)

᾿ ~ . oh ᾿Ιουδαῖοι οἱ πότε... οὐ Αρειανοὶ νῦν ᾿Ιουδαΐὶ-

ζονσες, de Decr. 2. supr. p. 4. The Arians are addressed under the name of Jews, a χοιστόμαχοι καὶ ἀχάρισαοι Ἴσου- δαῖοι, Ὅταν, iii. Bb. They are said to be Jews passim. ‘Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr.i.supr. pp.2—4. It is observable, that Eusebius makes a point, on the contrary ,of calling Marcellus a Judaizer and Jewish, on the ground that he denied that Wisdom was more than an attribute in the Divine Mind, e. g. pp. 42. ς. 02, fin. 65, ἃ,

> ἐρωτῶντες ἐμανθάνον ; and so μαθὼν ἐδιδάσκεν, Orat. 111. 9, de Decr. 7. supr. Ρ. 13, note a.

If He be Son and Image, why bring texts as objections ? 283

tion, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle’s words, (to mention them first,) they consider the Word of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, Who was Saithful to Him that made Him, 1 have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand’, as before, their statement.

3. 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, and Word, and Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative! nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son’, neither is He Image“. 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 Substance be

° By λαμβάνουτες rag αὐτῶν rd λῆμμω, “ὁ accepting the proposition they offer,”’ he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. supr. p- 233. Yet after all itis 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: (7. 2. 18: init, 36. init. 42, 54, δ]. 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 στροσ- ἔχωμεν σῇ ἀνάγνωσει «ἧς θεοπνιύστου γφαφὴς, 111. 28. ἥπ. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a “good,” ‘‘ pious,’’ “ὁ or- thodox”’ sense, i. e. they can be inter- preted (in spite, if so be, of appear- ances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. p. 341, note h; also notes on 35. and 11]. 58.

d i.e. in any true sense of the word

U

“‘image;”’ or, so that He may be ac- counted the ἀπαράλλακτος εἴκων of the Father, vid. supr. p. 106, noted. 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,whichisthedoctrineto which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. ‘‘Naturam et essentiam Deitatis,’’ says Thomassin, ‘‘in suo fonte assen- tiuntur omnes esse plenitudinem totius esse. At heec necesse est ut statim exundet nativa fecunditate sua. Infi- nitum enim illud Esse, non Esse tan- tum est, sed Esse totum est; vivere id ipsum est, intelligere, sapere; opulen- tie sue, bonitatis, et sapientiz rivulos undique spargere; nec rivulos tantum, sed et fontem et plenitudinem ipsam suam diffundere. Hee enim demum feecunditas Deo digna, Deo par est, ut a Fonte bonitatis, non rivulus sed flumen effluat, nec extra effluat, sed in ipsomet, cum extra nihil sit, quo illa plenitudo capi possit.”’ de Trin. 19. 1

.)

~

CHAP. XIV.

——

δ. 2.

1 ψέννη-

σικῆς»

p. 284, note 6. 2p. 312, note m.

284 4 Son tsimplied in the idea of creation, for itis throughHim.

sc. not fruitful itself’, but barren, as they hold, as a light that ᾿ lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak