Skip to main content

Full text of "Select treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria ; in controversy with the Arians : translated with notes and indices"

See other formats


<-"; ".:.- . 



< 




TRINITY UNIVERSITY 

LIBRARY, 
S.N .S.H...^;-.No 



TRINITY UNIVERSITY 

LIBRARY, 



SELECT TREATISES 



OP 



S. A T H A N A S I U S, 

ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 

IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS. 



SELECT TREATISES 

Of 



t M 

OF 



S. A T H A N A S I U S, 



ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 



IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS, 



TRANSLATED, 



WITH NOTES AND INDICES. I 



OXFORD, 

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 

F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 

MDCCCLTII. 



M.I 



EPISTLE 

OF 

S. ATHANASIUS, 

ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 

IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION. 



CHAP. I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council ; their fickleness ; 
they are like Jews; their employment of force instead of reason. 

1. THOU hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion CHAP. 
thou hast had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom _ _ 
were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many *" 
of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I 
hailed thy vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently 
exposed the irreligion a of their heresy ; while I marvelled 
at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past de 
tection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, 
after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, 
still to complain like the Jews, " Why did the Fathers at 
Nicaea use terms not in Scripture b , * Of the substance and 



a ewre jSeta, a<re/3eta, &c. here trans- affe^s, as being without devotion, the 

lated "religion, irreligion, religious, SoneucrejS^s devout, as paying devotion 

&c.<fec."are technical words throughout, to the Father," Socr. Hist. ii. 43. Hence 

being taken from St. Paul s text, "Great Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with 

is the mystery of godliness," evaefieias, a\r)6u>s fiiffefiie. Theod. Hist. i. 4, 

i. e. orthodoxy. Such too seems to be b It appears that the Arians did not 

the meaning of " godiy admonitions," venture to speak disrespectfully of the 

and "godly judgments, "and "this godly definition of the Council till the date 

and well-learned man," in our Ordina- (A. D. 350.) of this work; whenAcacius 

tion Services. The Latin translation is headed them. Yet the plea here used, 

" pius," " pietas." It might be in the unscriptural character of its symbol, 

some respects suitably rendered by bad been suggested to Constantius on 

u devout" and its derivatives. On its his accession, A.D. 337, by the Arian 

familiar use in the controversy depends priest, the favourite of Constantia, to 

the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, whom Constantine had entrusted his 

Arian Bishop of Constantinople, which will, Theod. Hist. ii. 3 ; and Eusebius 

was received with loud laughter in the of Csesarea glances at it, at the time of 

Cathedral, and remained in esteem the Council, in the letter to his Church, 

down to Socrates s day, " The Father is which is subjoined to this Treatise. 

B 



2 The Arians, like the Jews, unwilling to believe) 

NICEN. * One in substance ? " Thou then, as a man of learning, 
. PE , F . in spite of their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking 

6/bLOOV- . , . . , . 

(Tiov to no purpose ; and they in devising them were but acting 
suitably to their own evil disposition. For they are as 
variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in 
their colours ; and when exposed they look confused; and 
when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, 
and betake themselves to evasions. And then, when detected 
in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which 

Ps. 2,1. are not, and, according to the Scripture, imagine a vain 
thing ; and that they may be constant to their irreligion. 

2. Now such endeavours d are nothing else than an obvious 
token of their defect of reason 6 , and a copying, as I have said, 
of Jewish malignity. For the Jews too, when convicted by the 

John G, Truth, and unable to confront it, used evasions, such as What 

q A 

sign doest Thou, that we may see and believe Thee? What dost 
Thou work ? though so many signs were given, that they said 

Johnli, themselves, What do we ? for this man doeth many miracles ? 
In truth, dead men were raised, lame walked, blind saw afresh, 
lepers were cleansed, and the water became wine, and five 
loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and wor 
shipped the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the 
prophecies, and that He was God the Son of God ; all but 
the Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter than the 

Johnio, sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, Why dost Thou, 
being a man, make Thyself God? Insensate, and verily 
blind in understanding! they ought contrariwise to have 
said, " Why hast Thou, being God, become man ?" for His 
works proved Him God, that they might both worship the 



c Alexander also calls (hem chame- but infra, $. 25. iirixeit^uara means 

Icons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12. Athanasius more definitely reasonings or argu- 

so^calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. mentations. 

. 79. Cyril compares them to "the 4^07(05; an allusion, frequent in 

leopard which cannot change his spots." Athanasius. to the judicial consequence 

Dial. n. imj :.Naz. Or. 28. 2. On the of their denying the Word of God. 

fickleness of the Arians, vid. infra, $.4- Thus, just below, n. 3. " Denying the 

&c .Orat. n. 40 . Hesays, adEp. jEg.6. Word" or Reason "of God, reason 

that they considered Creeds as yearly have they none." Also Oat. i. . 35 

covenants ; and de Synod. . 3. 4. as fin. . 40. init. . 62. Orat. ii. . 7. init . 

Wh E , d Cts vld ;, a l.14.and;wi. Hence he so often calls the Arians 

What wonder that they fight against < mad" and "deranged;" e. g. "not 

themsh ^^ figbt againSt aW - are **<>* wd tbeir reason is." Orat. 



37 - 

. and so Orat. i. . 44. init. 



and fertile in exceptions. 3 

goodness of the Father, and admire the Son s economy for CHAF. 
our sakes. However, this they did not say ; no, nor liked to 
witness what He was doing ; or they witnessed indeed, for 
this they could not help, but they changed their ground of 
complaint again, " Why healest Thou the paralytic, why 
makest Thou the born-blind to see, on the sabbath day ?" 
But this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring ; for on 
other days as well did the Lord heal all manner of sickness, Mat. 4, 
and all manner of disease, but they complained still accord 
ing to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred 
the suspicion of Atheism f , to a recantation of their own 
wickedness. And though in such sundry times and diverse 
manners the Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached the 
Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks, 
they contradicted in the language of folly, and this they did, 



f or ungodliness, adedr-riTos. Thus 
Aetius was called 6 iiOeos, the ungodly, 
de Synod. . 6 ; and Arius complains 
that Alexander had expelled him and his 
from Alexandria, us avOpuirovs aOeovs. 
Theodor. Hist. i. 4. " Atheism" and 
u Atheist" imply intention, system, and 
profession, and are so far too strong a 
rendering of the Greek. Since Christ 
was God, to deny Him was to deny God. 
The force of the term, how ever, seems to 
be, that, whereas the Son had revealed 
the "unknown God," and destroyed the 
reign of idols, the denial of the Son was 
bringing back idolatry and its attendant 
spiritual ignorance. Thus in the Orat. 
contr. Gent. . 29. fin. written before 
the Arian controversy, he speaks of 
" the Greek idolatry as full of all 
Atheism" or ungodliness, and contrasts 
with it the knowledge of "the Guide 
and Framer of the Universe, the Fa 
ther s Word, ""that through Him we 
may discern His Father, and the Greeks 
may know how far they have separated 
themselves from the truth.* And Orat. 
ii. 43. he classes Arians with the Greeks, 
who "though they have the name of 
God in their mouths, incur the charge 
of Atheism, because they know not the 
real and true God, the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. * (vid. also Basil 
in Eunom. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards 
he gives a further reason for the title, 
observing that Arianism was worse than 
previous heresies, such as Manicheism, 
inasmuch as the latter denied the Incar 
nation, but it tore from God s substance 



His connatural Word, and, as far as 
its words went, infringed upon the 
perfections and being of the First Cause. 
And so ad Ep. ^Eg. 5. 17. fin. he says, 
that it alone, beyond other heresies, 
" has been bold against the Godhead 
Itself in a mad way, (fj.aviKu>Tpov, vid. 
foregoing note.; denying that there is a 
Word, and that the Father was always 
Father." Elsewhere, he speaks more 
generally, as if Arianism introduced 
" an Atheism or rather Judaism against 
the Scriptures, being next door to Hea 
thenism, so that its disciple cannot be 
even named Christian ; for all such 
tenets are contrary to the Scriptures;" 
and he makes this the reason why the 
Nicene Fathers stopped their ears and 
condemned it. ad Ep. ^Eg. . 13. For 
the same reason he calls the heathen 
&0eoi, atheistical or ungodly, " who are 
arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scrip 
ture." Orat. contr. Gent. . 14. vid. 
iSu\wv aOeor-nra. . 46. init. Moreover, 
he calls the Arian persecution worse 
than the pagan cruelties, and therefore 
" a Babylonian Atheism," Ep. Encycl. 
. 5. as not allowing the Catholics the 
use of prayer and baptism, with a refer 
ence to Dan. vi. 11, &c. Thus too he 
calls Constantius atheist, for his treat 
ment of Hosius; oin-e r))v Qtbv tpofirjdels 6 
&0fos. Hist. Arian. 45. Another reason 
for the title seems to have lain in the 
idolatrous character of Arian worship 
on its own shewing, viz. as worshipping 
One whom they yet maintained to be a 
creature. 



B 2 



4 And) like the Jews, have recourse to violence. 

NIC EN. according to the divine proverb, that by finding occasions, 

PEF they might separate themselves from the truth . 

. o. 3. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly and 

denying the Lord, were with justice deprived of their laws and 

of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians, Judaizing 

now, are, in my judgment, in circumstances like those of 

Caiaphas and the contemporary Pharisees. For, perceiving 

that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they invent excuses, 

"Why was this defined, and not that?" Yet wonder not if 

now they practise thus ; for in no long time they will turn 

Johnl8,to outrage, and next will threaten the band and the captain^. 
Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has such consistence as 
we see ; for denying the Word of God, reason have they 
none at all, as is equitable. Aware then of this, I would have 
made no reply to their interrogations; but, since thy friend 
liness 1 has asked to know the transactions of the Council, 
I have without any delay related at once what then took 
place, shewing in few words, how destitute Arianism is of 
a religious spirit, and how its very business is to frame 
evasions. 

s A reference to Prov. 18, 1. which duced us instead of the deacons of the 

runs in the Septuagint, " a man seek- Church?" vid. also. 10. and 45. Orat. 

eth occasions, when desirous of separat- ii. . 43. Ep. Encycl. . 5. Against, 

ing himself from friends." the use of violence in religion, vid. 

i Apparently an allusion to the text Hist. Arian. . 33. 67. (Hil. ad Const. 
in the margin. Elsewhere, he speaks i. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, 
of " the chief captain and u the go- that at Nicaea, " it was not necessity 
vernor," with an allusion to Acts 23, which drove the judges to"their decision, 
2224. &c. tfec. Hist. Arian. . 66. fin. " but all vindicated the Truth from de- 
vid. also . 2. Speaking of the Council liberate purpose." ad Ep. ^Eg. 13. 
of Tyre, A.D. 335. he asks, Apol. > Stetdero. vid. also Hist. Arian. . 45. 
contr. Arian. .8. " How venture they Orat. ii. . 4. where Parker maintains 
to call that a Council in which a Count without reason that it should be trans- 
presided, and an executioner was pre- lated, "external condition." vid. also 
sent, and a registrar [or jailer] intro- Theod. Hist. i. 4. init. 



CHAP. II. 

CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL. 

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

1. AND do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so. If, CHAP. 
the devil having sowed their hearts with this perverseness k , 
they feel confidence in their bad inventions, let them defend 
themselves against the proofs of heresy which have been ad 
vanced, and then will be the time to find fault, if they can, 
with the definition framed against them 1 . For no one, on 
being convicted of murder or adultery, is at liberty after 
the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he spoke 
in this way and not in that m . For this does not exculpate 
the convict, but rather increases the crime on the score of 
petulance and audacity. In like manner, let these either 
prove that their sentiments are religious, (for they were then 
accused and convicted, and their complaints are since, and 

k iri(riripavTosTov$ia&6\ov, theallu- faith and ignorant in their criticisin ; 

sion is to Matt. 13, 25. and is very and speaks of the Council negativing 

frequent in Athan. chiefly with a refer- their formula;, and subst tuting those 

ence to Arianism. He draws it out at which were " sound and ecclesiastical." 

length, Orat. ii. . 34. Elsewhere, he vid. also n. 4. 

uses the image for the evil influences m And so St. Leo passim concerning 

introduced into the soul upon Adam s the Council of Chalcedon, " Concord 

fall, contr. Apoll. i. . 15. as does S. will be easily established, if the hearts 

Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 40. n. 3. using it of all concur in that faith which &c. no 

of such as lead to backsliding in Chris- discussion being allowed whatever con- 

tians, ibid. v. 10. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, cerning any retractation, Ep. 94. He 

of the natural passions and of false calls such an act a " magnum sacrile- 

reason misleading them, de An. et gium," Fp. 157. c. 3. " To be seeking 

Resurr. p. G40. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. for what ha? been disclosed, to retract 

c. 2. what has been perfected, to tear up 

1 The Council did two things, ana- what has been laid down, (definita,) 

thematize the Arian positions, (at the what is this but to be unthankful for 

end of the Creed,) and establish the what we gained? Ep. 162. vid. the 

true doctrine by the insertion of the whole of it. He says that the attempt 

phrases, "of the substance" and "one* is "no mark of a peace-maker but a 

in substance," Athan. says that the rebel. Ep. 164. c. 1. fin. vid. also Epp. 

Arians must not criticise the latter be- 145, and 156, where he says, none can 

fore they had cleared themselves of the assail what is once determined, but " aut 

former. Thus he says presently, that antichristus aut diabolus." c. 2. 
they were at once irreligious in their 



(> Equivocations and variations of the Arians. 

NicEN.it is just that those who are under a charge should confine 

DEF - themselves to their own defence,) or if they have an unclean 

conscience, and are aware of their own irreligion, let them not 

complain of what they do not understand, or they will bring 

on them a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignorance. 

Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile spirit, and 

learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse their 

irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines of 

1 vij> ... religion 1 . 

. 28." 2. Now it happened to the Eusebians in the Nicene Council 
Socr. p. as f }iows : while they stood out in their irreligion, and at- 
3. tempted their fight against God", the terms they used were 
replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops, who were 
more than three hundred, mildly and charitably required of 
them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds. 
Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were 
convicted , and one differed from another; then perceiving the 
straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by 
their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their he 
terodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms 
they had invented, published against them the sound and eccle 
siastical faith ; and, whereas all subscribed it, the Eusebians 
subscribed it also in those very words, of which they are 
now complaining, I mean, " of the substance" and " one in 
substance," and that " the Son of God is neither creature or 
cav work, nor in the number of things generated, but that the 
Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father." And, 
what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Cassarea in Palestine, who 
tas had denied the day before 2 , but afterwards subscribed, sent to 
his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church s faith, 
and the tradition of the Fathers ; and made a public profes 
sion that they were before in error, and were rashly contending 
against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to 



, 06<fy*ax<H. vid. Acts 5, 39. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. xp^TOjuax^. Ep. 

23, 9. are of very frequent use in Athan. 236. init. vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. p. 19. 

as is xP torTO V a X in speaking of the e. p. 24. e, 6e6/j.ax<>i is used of other 

Arians, vid. infra passim, also avTi/j.a- heretics, e. g. the Manichees, by Greg. 

Xoptvoi r<$ o-coTTjpi Ep. Encycl. . 5. Naz. Orat. 45. . 8. 
And in the beginning of the contro- i. e. " convicted themselves," infr. 

versy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 10. . J8. init. eavrw ael Kar^yopoi, ad Ep. 

b. c.p.!2.p. 13.Theod.Hit.i.3.p.729. ^g. .6. i.e. by their variations, vid. 

And so Oeo/j.dxos y\wffffa. Basil, contr. Tit. iii. 11. auroKaraKptros. 



Avi ecumenical Council cannot be reversed. 7 

adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church in CHAP. 
his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his _LL__ 
Epistle, by his not denying the " one in substance, "and " of 
the substance." And in this way he got into a difficulty; for 
while he was excusing himself, he went on to attack the 
Arians, as stating that " the Son was not before His gene 
ration," and thereby hinting at a denial of His existence 
before His birth in the flesh. And this Acacius is aware 
of also, though he too through fear may pretend otherwise 
because of the times and deny the fact. Accordingly I have 
subjoined at the end of these remarks the letter of Eusebius, 
that thou mayest know from it the inconsiderateness towards 
their own doctors, shewn by Christ s enemies, and singularly 
by Acacius himself p . 

3. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very .4. 
thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council ? are 
they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that 
good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by 
those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion ? And 
supposing, even after subscription, the Eusebians did change 
again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, 
do not the present gainsayers deserve still greater detestation, 
because they thus sacrifice l their souls liberty to others ; and 
are willing to take these persons, as masters of their heresy, 
who are, as James has said, double-minded men, and unstable de Syn. 
in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and j am e s 
fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dis- ^ 8 - 
honouring them, and in turn recommending what just now 
they were blaming. But this, as the Shepherd has said, is 
" the child of the devil q ," and the note of dealers rather 



P The party he is writing against is succeeded in the see of Csesarea. He 

the Acacian, of whom he does not seem attempted to defend Arianism neither 

to have had much distinct knowledge, under the cloak of Semiariani.sm, nor 

He contrasts them again and again in with the bold logic of the Anomceans, but 

the passages which follow with the Euse- by a pretended adherence to Scripture, 

bians of the Nicene Council, and says His formula wasthefyunoi , (like,) as the 

that he is sure that the ground they Semiarian was the 6/j.oiov(riov, (like in 

take when examined will be found sub- substance,) and the Anomcean, as the 

stantially the same as the Eusebian. word signifies, the av6fj.oiov, or unlike, 
vid. . 6. init. et alib. . 7. init. . 9. cir, q Hennas. Pastor, ii. 9. who is speak- 

fin- . 10. cir. fin. . 13. init. r6r /col ing immediately, as St. James, of wa- 

vvv. . 18. circ.fin. . 28. Jin. Acacius vering in prayer, 
was a pupil of Eusebius s, whom he 



8 Mutual agreement the note of doctors of the Church. 

NICEN. than of doctors. For, what our Fathers have delivered, this 
PEF - is truly doctrine ; and this is truly die token of doctors, to 
confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from 
themselves nor from their fathers ; whereas they who have 
not this character, are not to be called true doctors but evil. 
Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same doctrines, 
but quarrelling one with another, have no truth of teaching; 
but the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, 
not differ. For though they lived in different times, yet they 
one and all tend the same way, being prophets of the one 
God, and preaching the same Word harmoniously r . 
.5. -J. And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham observed; 
and what Abraham observed, that Noe and Enoch acknow 
ledged, discriminating pure for impure, and becoming accept 
able to God. For Abel too in this way witnessed, having 
knowledge in the truths which he had learned from Adam, 
who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He 

vid - came at the end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, " 1 

2, 7. give no new commandment unto you, but an old command 
ment, which ye have heard from the beginning." Where 
fore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from 
Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that 

i Tim. deacons, not to say bishops, should be double-tongued ; and 
in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration, 

Gal. i, If any one preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye 
have received, let him be anathema, as I have said, so say I 
again. If even an Angel from heaven should preach unto 
you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be 
anathema. Since then the Apostle thus speaks, let these 
men either anathematize the party of Eusebius, at least as 
changing round and professing what is contrary to their sub 
scriptions ; or, if they acknowledge that their subscriptions 
were good, let them not utter complaints against so great a 
Council. But if they do neither the one nor the other, they 
are themselves too plainly at the sport of every wind and 
surge, and are influenced by opinions, not their own, but 



* Thus S. Basil says the same of the Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Grjec. 

Grecian Sects, " \Ve have not the task Affect, i. p. 707. &c. August. Civ. Dei, 

Of rotating their tenets, for they suffice xviii. 41. and Vincentius s celebrated 

for the overthrow of each other." Comraonitorium passim. 



Occasion of the present Epistle. 9 

of others, and being such, are as little worthy of deference CHAP. 
now as before, in what they allege. Rather let them cease - 
to carp at what they understand not ; lest so it be that not 
knowing to discriminate, they at hazard call evil good and 
good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet bitter. 
Doubtless, they desire that doctrines which have been judged 
wrong and have been reprobated should gain the ascend 
ancy, and they make violent efforts to prejudice what was 
rightly defined. Nor is there reason on our part for any 
further explanation, or answer to their excuses, or for further 
resistance on theirs, but for an acquiescence in what the 
leaders of their heresy subscribed ; for though the subse 
quent change of those Eusebians was suspicious and immoral, 
their subscription, when they had the opportunity of at least 
some little defence of themselves, is a certain proof of the 
irreligion of their doctrine. For they did not subscribe with 
out thereby condemning the heresy, nor did they condemn 
it, without being encompassed with difficulty and shame; so 
that to change back again is a proof of their contentious zeal 
for irreligion. There is reason then, as I have said, that the 
present men should keep quiet; but since from an extra 
ordinary want of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able to 
advocate this diabolical 8 irreligion better than the others, 
therefore, though in my former letter written to thee, I have 
already argued at length against them, notwithstanding, 
come let us now also examine them, in each of their separate 
statements, as their predecessors; for now not less than then 
their heresy shall be shewn to have no soundness in it, but 
to be from evil spirits. 

* This is Athan. s deliberate judg- 5. Another reason of his so accounting 

uieiit. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin. where he them, was their atrocious cruelty to- 

sayn, " Who then will continue to call wards Catholics; this leads him el*e- 

these men Christians, whose leaderis the where to break out. "O new heresy, 

devil, and not rather diabolical ?" and that has put on the whole devil in ir- 

he adds, " not only Christ s foes, xp l ~ religious doctrine and conduct!" Hist. 

(rrofuixot,bot diabolical also." In . 24. Arian. . 66. also Alexander, " diaboli- 

be speaks of Arius s "hatred of the cal," ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 731. 

truth." Again, "though the diabolical " satanical," ibid. p. 741. vid. also 

men rave," Orat. iii. . 8. " friends of Socr. i. 9. p. 30. fin. Hilar. contr. 

the devil, and his spirits." Ad Ep. JEg. Const. 17. 



CHAP. TIL 

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

Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial; attempts of Arians to 
find a third meaning between these ; e. g. that our Lord only was created 
immediately by God; Asterius s view; or that our Lord alone partakes 
the Father. The second and true sense; Cod 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. 

NICEN. 1. THEY say then what the others held and dared to main- 
tain before them; "Not always Father, always Son; for the 
Son was not before His generation, but, as others, came to 
be from nothing ; and in consequence God was not always 
Father of the Son ; but, when the Son came to be and was 
created, then was God called His Father. For the Word is 
a creature and work, and foreign and unlike the Father in 
substance ; and the Son is neither by nature the Father s 
true Word, nor His only and true Wisdom ; but being a 
creature and one of the works, He is by a strong figure* 
called Word and Wisdom ; for by the Word which is in 
God was He made, as were all things. Wherefore the Son 
is not true God 1 ." 

2. Now it may serve to make them understand what they 
are saying, to ask them first this, what in fact a son is, and of 
what is that name significant". In truth, Divine Scripture 



This word is no- tained that the word implied a beginning 

ticed and protested against by Alex- of existence, they did not dare to say that 

ander, Socr. Hist. i.6. p. 11. a. by the He was Son merely in the sense in which 

Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Hser. 73. we are sons, though, as Athan. contends, 

n. 5. by Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 23. they necessarily tended to this conclu- 

and by Cyril, Dial. ii. p. 432, 3. sion, directly they receded from the 

I vid. ad Ep. Eg. 12. Orat. i. .5, Catholic view. Thus Arius said that 
6. de Synod. 15, 16. Athanas. seems He was a creature, " but not as one of 
to have had in mind Socr. i. 6. p. 10, the creatures." Orat. ii. . 19. Valens 
1 1. or the like. at Ariminum said the same. Jerom. adv. 

II vid. Orat. i. . 38. The controversy Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, that, notdaring 
turned on the question what was meant directly to deny that He was God, the 
by the word "Son." Though the Arians Arians merely asked "whether He was 
would not allow with the Catholics that a Son." de Trin. viii. 3. Athanasius 
our Lord was Son by nature, and main- remarks upon this reluctance to speak 



Our Lord s Sonship is not the reward of virtue. 1 1 

acquaints us with a double sense of this word : one which CHAP. 
Moses sets before us in the Law, When thou shall hearken^ 
to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all His command- 13, is ; 
ments which I command thee this day, to do that which is " 
right in the eyes of the Lord thy God, ye shall be children 
of the Lord your God ; as also in the Gospel, John says, 
But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to John 1 , 
become the sons of God: and the other sense, that in which 12 
Isaac is son of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac, and the Patri 
archs of Jacob. Now in which of these two senses do they 
understand the Son of God in such fables as the foregoing ? 
for I feel sure they will issue in the same irreligious tenet 
with the Eusebians. 

3. If in the first, which belongs to those who gain the 
name by grace from moral improvement, and receive power 
to become sons of God, (for this is what their predecessors 
said,) then He would seem to differ from us in nothing ; no, 
nor would He be Only-begotten, as having obtained the title 
of Son as others from His virtue. For granting what they say, 
that, whereas His qualifications were foreknown 1 , He there- 1 Theod. 
fore received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of 3. p s . 732. 
the name, from His very first beginning, still there will be 
no difference between Him and those who receive the name 
upon their actions, so long as this is the ground on which He 
as others has the character of son. For Adam too, though 
he received grace from the first, and upon his creation was 
at once placed in paradise, differed in no respect either from 
Enoch, who was translated thither after his birth on his 
pleasing God, or from the Apostle, who likewise was caught 
up to paradise after his actions ; nay, not from the thief, 
who on the ground of his confession, received a promise that 
he should be forthwith in paradise. 

out, challenging them to present " the zizW.i.l.Epiphanius too, User. 76. p. 949. 

heresy naked," de Sent. Dionys. 2. init. seems to say that the elder Arians held 

"No one," be says elsewhere, "puts the divine generation in a sense in which 

a light under a bushel; let them shew Aetius did not; that is, they were not 

the world their heresy naked." ad Ep. so consistent and definite as he. Athan. 

JEg. 1 8. vid. ibid. 1 0. In like manner, goes on to mention some of the attempts 

Basil says that (though Arius was really of the Arians to find some theory short 

like Eunomius, in faith, contt. Eunom. of orthodoxy, yet short of that extreme 

i. 4.) Aetius his master wa^Xhe first to heresy, on the other hand, which they 

teach openly, (<>ai/epws) thatthe Father s felt ashamed to avow, 
substance was unlike, d^uoios, the Son s. 



12 Nor does it mean that He was created to create others. 

NIC EN. 4. When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer 

. PEF _ which has brought them into trouble many times already ; 

$ 7 * " We consider that the Son has this prerogative over others, 

and therefore is called Only -begotten, because He alone was 

7670*6 brought to be by God alone, and all other things were created 
by God through the Son x ." Now I wonder who it was^ that 
suggested to you so futile and novel an idea as that the 
Father alone wrought with His own hand the Son alone, and 
that all other things were brought to be by the Son as by 

StvTTovp- an under-worker. If for the toil-sake God was content with 

7 D making the Son only, instead of making all things at once, 
this is an irreligious thought, especially in those who know 

Is. 40, the words of Esaias, The everlasting God, the Lord, the 
Creator of the ends of the earth, hungereth not, neither is 
weary ; there is no searching of His understanding. Rather 
it is He who gives strength to the hungry, and through 
His Word refreshes the labouring. Again, it is irreligious 
to suppose that He disdained, as if a humble task, to 
form the creatures Himself which came after the Son ; for 
there is no pride in that God, who goes down with Jacob 
into Egypt, and for Abraham s sake corrects Abimelec 
because of Sara, and speaks face to face with Moses, himself 
a man, and descends upon Mount Sinai, and by His secret 
grace fights for the people against Amalec. However, you 

Ps. loo, are false in your fact, for we are told, He made us, and not 
we ourselves. He it is who through His Word made all 
things small and great, and we may not divide the creation, 
and say this is the Father s, and this the Son s, but they are 

*8i v of one God, who uses His proper Word as a Hand 2 , and in 
Him does all things. As God Himself shews us, when He 

* This is celebrated as an explana- their heresy is alien, and not from the 

tion of the Anomoeans. vid. Basil, contr. Fathers." vid. ii. . 34. and Socr. i. 6. 

Eunom. ii. 20, 21. though Athan. speaks p. 11. c. 

of it as belonging to the elder Arians. z vid. infr. . 17- Orat. ii. . 31. 71. 

vid. Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11. Irenseus calls the Son and Holy Spirit 

i.e. whatisyourewMonYyfis itnota the Hands of God. Haer. iv. prcef. vid. 

novel, and therefore a wrong doctrine? also Hilar. de Trin. vii. 22. This image 

vid. infr. . 13.adSerap.i.3. Also Orat. i. is in contrast to that of instrument, 

. 8. " Who ever heard such doctrine ? opyavov, which the Arians would use of 

or whence or from whom did they hear the Son, vid. Socr. i. 6. p. 11. as imply- 

it? who, when they were under cate- ing He was external to God, whereas 

chising, spoke thus to them ? If they the word Hand implies His consubstan- 

themselves confess that they now hear tiality with the Father, 
it for the first time, they must grant that 



Nor that He alone could endure God s creative hand. 13 

says, All these things hath My Hand made ; and Paul taught CHAP. 
us as he had learned a , that There is one God, from whom all lg 66 2 
things ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things. 1 Cor. 8, 
Thus He, always as now, speaks to the sun and it rises, 
and commands the clouds and it rains upon one place ; and 
where it does not rain, it is dried up. And He bids the 
earth to bear fruit, and fashions Jeremias in the womb. But 
if He now does all this, assuredly at the beginning also He 
did not disdain to make all things Himself through the Word; 
for these are but parts of the whole. 

5. But let us suppose that the other creatures could not . 8. 
endure to be wrought by the absolute Hand of the Ingenerate 1 , ^ K f a r f ov 
and therefore the Son alone was brought into being by the-rou 
Father alone, and other things by the Son as an underworker , gTfin" 
and assistant, for this is what Asterius the sacrificed has 
written, and Arius has transcribed 2 and bequeathed to his 2 vid.also 
own friends, and from that time they use this form of words, 20.^ de 
broken reed as it is, being ignorant, the bewildered men, 
brittle it is. For if it was impossible for things generated 
to bear the hand of God, and you hold the Son to be one of 
their number, how was He too equal to this formation by 
God alone ? and if a Mediator became necessary that things 
generated might come to be, and you hold the Son to be 
generate, then must there have been some medium before 
Him, for His creation; and that Mediator himself again being 
a creature, it follows that he too needed another Mediator for 
his own constitution. And though we were to devise another, 
we must first devise his Mediator, so that we shall never come 
to an end. And thus a Mediator being ever in request, never 
will the creation be constituted, because nothing generate, as 
you say, can bear the absolute hand of the Ingenerate . And 
if, on your perceiving the extravagance of this, you begin to 
say that the Son, though a creature, was made capable of 



/. implying the tra- Orat. i. . 31. ii. . 24. 28. 37. 40. iii. 

ditional nature of the teaching. And . 2. 60. de Synod. . 18. 19. He was 

so St. Paul himself, 1 Cor. 15, 3. vid. by profession a Sophist, and a pupil of 

for an illustration, supr. . 5. init. also Lucian s. He lapsed in the persecution 

note y. of Maximian, and sacrificed, as inti- 

b Asterius is one of the most famous mated in the text. 

of the elder Arians, and his work in c vid. infr. . 24. Orat. i. . 15. fin. 

defence of the heresy is frequently ii. . 29. Epiph. Heer. 76. p. 951. 
quoted by Athanasius. vid. infr. 20. 



1 4 IftheSon only first made, He is not ofdifferentnaturefromothers 

NICEN. being made by the Ingenerate, then it follows that other 

-P EF things also, though generated, are capable of being wrought 
immediately by the Ingenerate ; for the Son too is but a 
creature in your judgment, as all of them. And accordingly 
the generation of the Word is superfluous, according to your 
irreligious and futile imagination, God being sufficient for the 
immediate formation of all things, and all things generate 
being capable of sustaining His absolute hand, 

6. These irreligious men then having so little mind amid 
their madness, let us see whether this particular sophism be 
not even more irrational than the others, Adam was created 
alone by God alone through the Word ; yet no one would 
say that Adam had any prerogative over other men, or was 
different from those who came after him, granting that he alone 
was made and fashioned by God alone, and we all spring 
from Adam, and consist according to succession of the race, 
so long as he was fashioned from the earth as others, and at 
9. first not being, afterwards came to be. But though we were 
to allow some prerogative to the Protoplast as having been 
vouchsafed the hand of God, still it must be one of honour 
not of nature. For he came of the earth, as other men ; and 
the hand which then fashioned Adam, now also and ever is 
fashioning and giving entire consistence to those who corne 
after him. And God Himself declares this to Jeremias, as 

Jer.l,5.I said before; Before 1 formed thee in the womb, I knew 
thee ; and so He says of all, All those things hath My hand 

Is 66,2. made ; and again by Esaias, Thus saith the Lord, thy 

Is. 44, redeemer, and He that formed thee from the wojnb, I am 
the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the 
heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself. 

Ps. 119, And David, knowing this, says in the Psalm, Thy hands 
have made me and fashioned me; and He who says in Esaias, 

Is. 49, 5. Thus saith the Lord who formed, Me from the womb to be 
His servant, signifies the same. Therefore, in respect of 
nature, he differs nothing from us though he precede us in 
time, so long as we all consist and are created by the same 
hand. If then these be your thoughts, O Arians, about 
the Son of God too, that thus He subsists and came to be, 
then in your judgment He will differ nothing on the score of 
nature from others, so long as He too was not, and came to be, 



His Sonship does not mean that He only partakes the Father. 15 

and the name was by grace united to Him in His creation CHAP. 
for His virtue s sake. For He Himself is one of those, from Hi- 
what you say, of whom the Spirit says in the Psalms, He Ps.33,9. 
spake the word, and they were made; He commanded, and 
they were created. If so, who was it to whom God gave 
command d for the Son s creation ? for a Word there must be 
to whom God gave command, and in whom the works are 
created ; but ye have no other to shew than the Word ye 
deny, unless indeed you should devise again some new 
notion. 

7. "Yes," they will say, "we have another;" (which indeed 
I have formerly heard the Eusebians use,) "on this score do 
we consider that the Son of God has a prerogative over 
others, and is called Only-begotten, because He alone par 
takes the Father, and all other things partake the Son." 
Thus they weary themselves in changing and varying their 
professions, like so many hues; however, this shall not save ad 
them from an exposure, as men who speak words to no pur- . e ?- 
pose out of the earth, and wallow as in the mire of their own 
devices. For if He were called God s Son, and we the . 10. 
Son s sons, their fiction were plausible; but if we too are said 
to be sons of that God, of whom He is Son, then we too 
partake the Father 6 , who says, / have begotten and exalted Is. 1,2. 
children. For if we did not partake Him, He had not 
said, I have begotten,- but if He Himself begat us, no other 
than He is our Father f . And, as before, it matters not, 
whether the Son has something more and was made first, but 

d In like manner, " Men were made vid. de Synod. . 51. contr. Gent. 46. 

through the "Word, when the Father tin. Hence St. Austin says, "As the 

Himself willed." Orat. i. 63. The Father has life in Himself, so hath He 

Word forms matter as injoined hy, given also to the Son to have life in 

and ministering to, God." irpo(TTaTT6- Himself, not by participating, but in 

juej/os Kal virovpySiV. ibid. ii. . 22. contr. Himself. For we have not life in our- 

Gent. 46. selves, but in our God. But that Fa- 

His argument is, that if the Son ther, who has life in Himself, begat a 

but partook the Father in the sense in Son such, as to have life in Himself, 

which we partake the Son, then the not to become partaker of life, but to be 

Son would not impart to us the Father, Himself life ; and of that life to make 

but Himself, and would be a separat- us partakers" Serm. 127. de Verb, 

ing as well as uniting medium between Evang. 9. 

the Father and us ; whereas He brings f " To say God is wholly par- 
Ms so near to the Father, that we are taken, is the same as saying that God 
the Father s children, not His, and begets." Orat. i. . 16. And in like 
therefore He must be Himself one with manner, our inferior participation in- 
theFather,ortheFathermustbeinHim volves such sonship as is vouchsafed 
with an incomprehensible completeness, to us. 



1(> No sense of Somhip can be maintained but the Catholic. 

NICEN. we something less, and were made afterwards, as long as we 
all partake, and are called sons, of the same Father s. For 



the more or less does not indicate a different nature ; but 
attaches to each according to the practice of virtue ; and one 
is placed over ten cities, another over five ; and some sit on 
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and others 
Mat. 25, hear the words, Come, ye blessed of My Father, and, Well 
fb.*5 si.done, good and faithful servant. With such ideas, how 
ever, no wonder they imagine that of such a Son God was 
not always Father, and such a Son was not always in being, 
but was generated from nothing as a creature, and was not 
before His generation ; for such an one is other than the 
True Son of God. 

8. But to persist in such teaching does not consist with 
piety k , for it is rather the tone of thought of Sadducees and 
Samosatene 1 ; it remains then to say that the Son of God 
is so called according to the other sense, in which Isaac 
was son of Abraham ; for what is naturally begotten from 
any one and does not accrue to him from without, that in 
the nature of things is a son, and that is what the name 
implies k . Is then the Son s generation one of human 1 af- 



g And so in Orat. ii. . 1922. was that our Lord became the Son by 
"Though the Son surpassed other things irpoKOTr)), or growth in holiness, (vid. 
on a comparison, yet He were equally Luke 2, 52. TrpoeKOTrre,) " advancing as 
a creature with them ; for even in those a man," Orat. iii. . 51. Or he may he 
things which are of a created nature, alluding to his doctrine of our Lord s 
we may find some things surpassing predestination, referred to supr. . 6. 
others. Star, for instance, differs dr. fin. for Paul spoke of Him as " God 
from star in glory, yet it does not fol- predestined before ages, but from Mary 
low that some are sovereign, and others receiving the origin of His existence." 
serve, &c." ii. . 20. And so Gregory contr. Apoll. i. 20. 
Nyssen contr. Eunom. iii. p. 132. D. k The force lies in the word 0u<rei, 
Epiph. Hser. 76. p. 970. "naturally," which the Council express- 
h i. e. since it is impossible they ed still more definitely by substance." 
can persist in evasions so manifest as Thus Cyril says, " the term Son de- 
these, nothing is left but to take the notes the substantial origin from the Fa- 
other sense of the word, ther." Dial. 5. p. 573. And Gregory 
Paul of Samosata is called Samo- Nyssen, " the title Son does not sim- 
satene, as John of Damascus Damas- ply express the being from another," 
cene, from the frequent adoption of the (vid. infra; . 19.) but relationship ac~ 
names Paul and John. Hence also cording to nature, contr. Eunom. ii. 
John Chrysostom, Peter Chrysologus, p. 91. Again St. Basil says, that Father 
John Philoponus. Paul was Bishop is " a term of relationship, " oiKeiaxTtws* 
of Antioch in the middle of the third contr. Eunom. ii. 24. init. And hence 
century, and was deposed for a sort of he remarks, that we too are properly, 
Sabellianism. He was the friend of Kvplcos, sons of God, as becoming related 
Lucian, from whose school the principal to Him through works of the Spirit. 
Arians issued. His prominent tenet, ii. 23. So also Cyril, loc, cit. Else- 
to which Athan. seems here to allude, 



Divine generation is not as human. 17 

fection ? (for this perhaps, as their predecessors 1 , they too CHAP. 
will be ready to object in their ignorance;) in no wise ; for - 
God is not as man, nor man as God. Men are created 



of matter, and that passible l ; but God is immaterial and * 
incorporeal. And if so be the same terms are used of God* 7 
and man in divine Scripture, yet the clear-sighted, as Paul 
injoins, will study it, and thereby discriminate, and dispose 
of what is written according to the nature of each subject, 
and avoid any confusion of sense, so as neither to conceive 
of the things of God in a human way, nor to ascribe the 
things of man to God m . For this were to mix wine with 
water 2 , and to place upon the altar strange fire with that* vi(3 -... 
which is divine. . 35. 

9. For God creates, and to create is also ascribed to men ; H- 
and God has being 3 , and men are said to be, having received 3 5 1 6 "" 
from God this gift also. Yet does God create as men do ? 
or is His being as man s being? Perish the thought; we 
understand the terms in one sense of God, and in another of 
men. For God creates, in that He calls what is not into 
being, needing nothing thereunto ; but men work some 
existing material, first praying, and so gaining the wit to 
make, from that God who has framed all things by His proper 
Word. And again men, being incapable of self-existence, 
are inclosed in place, and consist in the Word of God ; but 



who gives to another the origin of being and wishes to convey by it a religious 

according to a nature like his own ;" sense." vid. also .21. He says, that 

and a son " one who possesses the Catholics are able to " speak freely," 

origin of being from another by gene- or to expatiate, 7ra/5/$rj<na$/Ae0a, " out 

ration," contr. Eun. ii. 22. On the of Divine Scripture." Orat. i. . 9. vid. 

other hand, the Arians at the first de- de Sent. Dionys. . 20. init. Again : 

nied that " by nature there was any u The devil spoke from Scripture, but 

SonofGod." Theod. Hist. i.3. p. 732. was silenced by the Saviour; Paul 

1 vid. Eusebius, in his Letter sub- spoke from profane writers, yet, being 

joined: also Socr. Hist. i. 8. Epiphan. a saint, he has a religious meaning." 

Hser. 69. n. 8. and 15. de Syn. . 39. also ad Ep. JEg. 8. 

m One of the characteristic points in Again, speaking of the apparent con- 

Athanasius is his constant attention to trariety between two Councils, "It 

the sense of doctrine, or the meaning were unseemly to make the one conflict 

of writers, in preference to the words with the other, for all their members 

used. Thus he scarcely uses the sym- are fathers; and it were profane to de- 

bol 6fj.oovffioj/, one in substance, thiough- cide that these spoke well and those ill, 

out his Orations, and in the de Synod, for all of them have slept in Christ." 

acknowledges the Semiarians as bre- . 43. also . 47. Again: "Not the 

thren. Hence infr. . 18. he says, that phrase, but the meaning and the reM- 

orthodox doctrine " is revered by all, gious life, is the recommendation of the) 

though expressed in strange language, faithful." ad Ep. JEg. . 9. 
provided the speaker means religiously, 



18 As God creates, so He begets, incomprehensibly. 

NicEN.God is self-existent, inclosing all things, and inclosed by 
PEF> none ; within all according to His own goodness and power, 
yet without all in His proper nature n . As then men create 
not as God creates, as their being is not such as God s 
being, so men s generation is in one way, and the Son is 
from the Father in another . For the offspring of men are 
portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is 
riot uncompounded, but transitive P, and composed of parts ; 
e- an d men lose their substance in begetting, and again they 
gain substance from the accession of food. And on this 
account men in their time become fathers of many children ; 



" Vid. also Incarn. . 17. This 
contrast is not commonly found in 
ecclesiastical writers, who are used 
to say that God is present every 
where, in substance as well as by ener 
gy or power. S. Clement, however, 
expresses himself still more strongly in 
the same way, " In substance far off, 
(for how can the generate come close 
to the Ingenerate?) but most close in 
power, in which the universe is embo 
somed." Strom. 2. circ. init. but the 
parenthesis explains his meaning, vid. 
Cyril. Thesaur. 6. p. 44. The common 
doctrine of the Fathers is, that God is 
present every where in substance, vid. 
Petav. de Deo, iii. 8. and 9. It may 
be remarked, that S. Clement continues 
u neither inclosing nor inclosed." 

In Almighty God is the perfection 
and first pattern of what is seen in sha 
dow in human nature, according to the 
imperfection of the subject matter ; and 
this remark applies, as to creation, so to 
generation. Athanasius is led to state 
this more distinctly in another connec 
tion in Orat. i. . 21. fin. " It belongs 
to the Godhead alone, that the Father is 
properly (Kvpicas) Father, and the Son 
properly (Kvpivs) Son; and in Them 
and Them only does it hold that the 
Father is ever Father, and the Son ever 
Son." Accordingly he proceeds, short 
ly afterwards, as in the text, to argue, 
" [The heretics] ought in creation also to 
supply God with materials, and so to 
deny Him to be Creator ; but if the bare 
idea of God transcends such thoughts, 
and a man believes that He is in beinsr, 
not as we are, and yet in being, as God, 
and that He creates not as man creates, 
but yet creates as God, therefore He 
begets also not as men beget, but 
begets as God. For God does not 



make men His pattern, but rather we 
men, for that God is properly and alone 
truly Father of His Son, are also called 
fathers of our own children, for of 
Him is every fatherhood in heaven 
and en earth named. . 23. The Se 
mi avians at Ancyra quote the same 
text for the same doctrine. Epiphan. 
Hser. 73. 5. As do Cyril in Joan, 
iii. p. 24. Thesaur. 32. p. 281. and Da 
mascene de Fid. Orth. i. 8. The same 
parallel, as existing between creation 
and generation, is insisted on by Isidor. 
Pel. Ep. iii. 355. Basil. contr. Eun.iv.p. 
280. A. Cyril Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Epipb. 
Ha?r. 69. 36. and Gregor. Naz. Orat. 
20. 9. who observes that God creates 
with award, Ps. 148, 5. which evidently 
transcends human creations. Theodorus 
Abucara with the same object, draws 
out the parallel of life, w}/, as A than, 
that of bfing, e?/cu. Opusc. iii. p. 420 
422. 

P vid. de Synod. . 51. Orat. 5. . 
15. 16. pva-Tji. vid. Orat. i. . 28. 
Bas. in Eun. ii. 23. pvffiv. Bas. in Eun. 
ii. 6. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 22. Vid. contr. 
Gentes, .41. where Athan. without 
reference to the Arian controversy, draws 
out the contrast between the Godhead 
and human nature. "The nature of 
things generated, as having its subsist 
ence from nothing, is of a transitive 
(pevffT^]) and feeble and mortal sort, 
considered by itself; seeing then that it 
was transitive and dissoluble, lest this 
should take place, and it should be re 
solved into its original nothing, God go 
verns and sustains it all, by His own 
Word, who is Himself God,"" and who, 
as he proceeds, .42. "remaining Him 
self irnmoveable with the Father, moves 
all things in His own consistence, a 
each may seem fit to His Father." 



Divine generation is not material, but spiritual. 1!) 

but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without CHAP. 
partition or passion ; for there is neither effluence 1 1 of 
Immaterial, nor accession from without, as among men; a 
being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only 
Son. This is why He is Only-begotten, and alone in the 
Father s bosom, and alone is acknowledged by the Father to 
be from Him, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am Mat. 3, 
well pleased. And He too is the Father s Word, from which ]/ 
may be understood the impassible and impartitive nature of 
the Father, in that not even a human word is begotten with 
passion or partition, much less the Word of God r . Where 
fore also He sits, as Word, at the Father s right hand ; for 
where the Father is, there also is His Word ; but we, as 
His works, stand in judgment before Him ; and He is 
adorable, because He is Son of the adorable Father, but we 
adore, confessing Him Lord and God, because we are 
creatures and other than He. 

10. The case being thus, let who will among them consider . 12. 
the matter, so that one may abash them by the following ques 
tion ; Is it right to say that what is God s offspring and proper 
to Him is out of nothing? or is it reasonable in the very idea, 
that what is from God has accrued to Him, that a man should 
dare to say that the Son was not always ? For in this again 
the generation of the Son exceeds and transcends the 
thoughts of man, that we become fathers of our own children 
in time, since we ourselves first were not and then came into 
being; but God, in that He ever is, is ever Father of the Son 8 . 

i S. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505, E. Wisdom is one, substantial and sub- 

speaks of the 6pv\\ov/j.Gvri a-noppor) , and .sisling." Athan. Orat. iv. J. tin. 
disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Atha- * " Man," says S. Cyril, " inasmuch 

nasius disclaims it, Expos. . 1. Orat. i. as he had a beginning of being, also 

. 21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. has of necessity a beginning of beget- 

Hist. i. 3. p. 743. On the other hand, ting, as what is from him is a thing 

Athacasius quotes it in a passage which generate, but if God s substance 

he adduces from Theognostus, infra, transcend time, or origin, or interval, 

. 25. and from Dionysius, de Sent. D. His generation too will transcend these; 

.23.andOrigenusesit, Periarchon,i. 2. nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of 

It is derived from Wisd. vii 25. the power cf generating, that it doth 

r The title " Word" implies the in- not this in time. For other than hu- 

effable mode of the Son s generation, as man is the manner of divine generation ; 

distinct from material parallels, vid. and together with God s existing is His 

Gregory "Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iii. generating implied, and the Son was in 

p. 107. Chrysostom in Joan. Horn. 2. Him by generation, nor did His gene- 

. 4. Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5. p. 37. ration precede His existence, but He 

Also it implies that there is but One * was always, and that by generation." 

Son. vid. infra, . 16. " As the Origin Thesaur. v. p. 35. 
is one substance, so its Word and 



20 As is symbolized by the words Light, Fountain, Life, $c. 

NICEN. And the generation of mankind is brought home to us from 

jj^y- things that are parallel ; but, since no one knoweth the Son but 

27. the Father, and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and 

he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him, therefore the sacred 

writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a 

Heb. i, certain image from things visible, saying, Who is the brightness 

p s 36 of His glory, and the Expression of His Person; and again, 

9 - For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we 

Bar. 3, see light ; and when the Word chides Israel, He says, Thou 

hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom ; and this Fountain it 

Jer. 2, is which says, They have forsaken Me the fountain of living 

j vi d>Ep waters . And mean indeed and very dim is the illustration 1 

i.ad compared with what we desiderate; but yet it is possible 

Serap. . 

20. p. from it to understand something above man s nature, instead 
>69.a.b. Q f thinking the Son s generation to be on a level with ours. 
For who can even imagine that the radiance of light ever was 
not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not always, 
or that the Son was not before His generation ? or who is 
capable of separating the radiance from the sun, or to conceive 
of the fountain as ever void of life, that he should madly say, 
John 14, " The Son is from nothing," who says, 1 am the life, or 
l"b. v. 9. " alien to the Father s substance," who says, He that hath 
seen Me, hath seen the Father ? for the sacred writers wish 
ing us thus to understand, have given these illustrations ; 
and it is indecent and most irreligious, when Scripture con 
tains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from 
others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious 
bearing. 

.13. 11. Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what 
tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour? 
Pro\. 8, f( We have read," they will say, "in the Proverbs, The Lord 
2 -via hath created Me a beginning of His ways unto His works 2 ; 
Orat. ii. this the Eusebians used to insist on u , and you write me word. 

through 
out. 

1 vid. infra passim. All these titles, is neither creature, nor part of Him 

" Word, Wisaom, Light," &c. serve whose Word He is, nor an offspring 

to guard the title "Son" from any passibly begotten." Orat. i. . 28. 
notions of parts or dimensions, e. g. u Eusebiusof Nicomedia quotes it in 

" He is not composed of parts, but his Letter to Paulinus, ap. Theodor. 
being impassible and single, He is im- Hist. i. 5. And Eusebius of Csesarea 

passibly and indivisibly F.ather of the Demonstr. Evang. v. 1. 
Son. ..for. ..the Word and Wisdom 



Creation is an external act, generation an internal. 21 



that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted CHAP. 
by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in 
every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one 



of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things generated 1 . 
But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this 
passage also ; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, 
which, had they understood, they would not have blasphemed 
the Lord of glory. For on comparing what has been above 
stated with this passage, they will find a great difference between 
them x . For what man of right understanding does not perceive, 
that what are created and made are external to the maker ; 
but the Son, as the foregoing argument has shewn, exists not 
externally, but from the Father who begat Him ? for man too 
both builds a house and begets a son, and no one would 
mismatch things, and say that the house or the ship were be 
gotten by the builder 2 , but the Son was created and made by 2 Scrap. 
him ; nor again that the house was an image of the maker, n " 
but the Son unlike Him who begat Him; but rather he will 
confess that the Son is an image of the Father, but the house 
a work of art, unless his mind be disordered, and he beside 
himself. Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than 
any the nature of every thing, says through Moses, of the 
creatures, In the beginning God created the heaven and the Gen. 1 , 
earth; but of the Son it introduces the Father Himself 
saying, / have begotten Thee from the womb before the p s. no, 
morning star; and again, Thou art My Son, this day havep Sf <2 7. 
/ begotten Thee. And the Lord says of Himself in the 
Proverbs, Before all the hills He begets Me ; and concerning Prov. 8, 
things generated and created John speaks, All things were John], 
made by Him; but preaching of the Lord, he says, The^ 
Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He 
hath declared Him. If then son, therefore not creature ; 
if creature, not son ; for great is the difference between 
them, and son and creature cannot be the same, unless his 
substance be considered to be at once from God, and external 
to God. 

x i. e. " Granting that the primd His creatu n, that we must interpret 

Jade impression of this text is in favour this text by them. It cannot mean 

of our Lord s being a creature, yet so that our Lord was simply created, be- 

many arguments have been already cause we have already shewn that He 

brought, and may be added, against is not external to His Father." 



22 The Son ivas created when He came in our flesh. 

NICEN. 12. " Has then the passage no meaning?" for this, like a 
_DEF._ gwarm O f g na ts, they are droning about us^. No surely, it is not 
* without meaning, but has a very apposite one ; for it is true 
to say that the Son was created too, but this took place when 
He became man; for creation belongs to man. And any one 
may find this sense duly given in the divine oracles, who, 
instead of accounting their study a secondary matter, in 
vestigates the time and characters 2 , and the object, and thus 
studies and ponders what he reads. Now as to the season 
spoken of, he will find for certain that, whereas the Lord 
M&VUV always is, at length in fulness of the ages 1 He became man ; 
and whereas He is Son of God, He became Son of man also. 
And as to the object he will understand, that, wishing to 
annul our death, He took on Himself a body from the Virgin 
Mary ; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for 
all,. He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all 
Heb. 2, our life through subject to bondage. And as to the character, 
it is indeed the Saviour s, but is said of Him when He took 
Prov. 8, a body and said, The Lord has created Me a beginning of 
His ways unto His works. For as it properly belongs to 
God s Son to be everlasting, and in the Father s bosom, so 
on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, The Lord 
created Me. For then it is said of Him, and He hungered, 
and He thirsted, and He asked where Lazarus lay, and 
2Sent.T).He suffered, and He rose again 2 . And as, when we hear 
iii. f Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand 
2641. jjim as being from the Father, so on hearing, The Lord 
created, and Servant, and He suffered, we shall justly ascribe 
this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must 
interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes; for to 
it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other s than 
the Word s, And if we wish to know the object attained by this, 



So in ad Afros. 5.init. meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. ii. 

And Sent. D. . 19. irepiepxovTanrtpi- 2. and 10; though it there approxi- 

fanPovrrfs. And Gregory Nyssen, contr. mates (even in phrase, OVK eV Siaipeffei 

Eun. viii. p. 234. C. wsbv TOI>S airetpovs Trpoadnrwi ) to its ecclesiastical use, 

rats TrXaruviKais Ka\\{.(puv!ais irepL&o/j.- which seems to have been later. Yet 

&-{)(Tiv. vid. also irfpifpxovTai us ol persona occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27 ; 

Kavdapoi. Orat. iii. fin. it may be questioned, however, whether 

z irpoa-uira. vid. Orat. i. . 54. ii.. 8. in any genuine Greek treatise till the 

Sent. D. 4. notpcrsom, but characters; Apollinarians. 
which muft also be considered the 



By the Word becoming man, men become gods. 23 

we shall find it to be as follows ; that the Word was made flesh CHAP. 
in order to offer up this body for all, and that we, partaking - 



of His Spirit, might be made gods, a gift which we could riot 
otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our 
created body 1 ; for hence we derive our name of "men of IOrat -"- 
God" and " men in Christ." But as we, by receiving the 
Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, 
when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God ; 
for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body, 
but rather deified it and rendered it immortal a . 

a < remaining Himself unalterable, nomy and presence in the flesh." Orat. 
and not changed by His human eco- ii. 6. 



CHAP. IV. 

PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON. 

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

NIC EN. 1. THIS then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the 

P^L. Ariaii heresy ; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own 

^* " words is irreligion brought home to them b . 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 

1 Cor. 1, the Father. For the Apostle says, Christ the power of God 

John l an d tf ie Wisdom of God; and John after saying, And the Word 

l4 - was made flesh, at once adds, And we have seen His glory, 

the glory as of the Only -begotten of the Father, full of grace 

and truth; 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 Foun- 

1 vid. tain we have learned from 1 Baruch, by Israel s being charged 

r U ^ with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they 

deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and 

b The main argument of the Arians begot the Son, he that was begotten 

was that our Lord was a Son, and there- had a beginning of existence; and from 

fore was not eteinal, but of a substance this it is plain that once the Son was 

which had a beginning. "With this not ; and it follows of necessity that He 

Arius started in his dispute with Alex- had His subsistence out of nothing." 

ander. u Arius, a man not without Socr. i. 5. Accordingly, Athanasius 

dialectic skill, thinking that the Bishop says, " Having argued with them as to 

was introducing the doctrine of Sabel- the meaning of their own selected term, 

lius the Libyan, out of contention fell Son, let us go on to others, which on 

off into the opinion diametrically oppo- the very face make for us, such as 

site,.... and he says, If the Father Word, Wisdom, &c." 



To deny God*s Wisdom, is to deny that God is wise. 25 

may fitly be called of all men atheists , 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 c ; and let 
them in their madness 2 say, " There was once when He was 
not," and, " before His generation, Christ was not d ;" 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 6 . 

2. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt 
who has ever so little understanding. But since they whisper 
something about Word and Wisdom, being only names of 
the Son 1 , we must ask then, If these are only names of the 




2 vid. 

above, 
i. 2. 



. 16, 



c &\oyos, &cro(pos. vid. infra, $. 26. 
This is a frequent argument in the con 
troversy, \iz. that to deprive the Father 
of His Son or substantial Word, (\6yos,) 
is as great a sacrilege as to deny His 
Eeason, \6yos, from which the Son re 
ceives His name. Thus Orat. i. . 14. fin. 
Athan. says, " imputing to God s na 
ture an absence of His Word, (aXoyiav 
or irrationality,) they are most irre 
ligious/ vid. . 19. tin. 24. Else 
where, he says, " Is a man not mad 
himself, whoeven entertainsthe thought 
that God is word-less and wisdom-less? 
for such illustrations and such images 
Scripture hath proposed, that, consider 
ing 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. 14. 
Serap. ii. 2. 

d These were among the original 
positions of the Arians; the former is 
mentioned by Socrates, vid. note b. the 
latter is one of those specified in the 
Nicene Anathema. 

e And so 777777^7 frpd. 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. 
u If He be not a Son, let Him be called 
a work, and let God be called, not 



Father, but Framer only and Creator, 
and wot of a generative nature. But if 
the divine substance be not fruitful, 
(Kapiro")6vos,) 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 cre 
ative energy ? vid. also 77777^7 (MrrjTos. 
Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. 77777^7 e K 
77777775, of the Son. Epiphan. Ancor. 19. 
And Cyril, " If thou take from God His 
being Father, thou wilt deny the gene 
rative power (Kapir6yovov) 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 
(fftypiiyis) to the Father that He is per 
fect." Thesaur. p. 37- 

f 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. 
p. 11. Theod. Hist. 1, 3. p. 731. Athan. 
asks, Is the Son then more than wis 
dom ? if on the other hand He be less, 
still He must be so called because of 
some gift or quality in Him, analogous 
to wisdom, or of the nature of wisdom, 
and admitting of improvement and 
growth. But this was the notorious doc 
trine of Christ s TrpoKoir^ or advance 
ment. " I am in wonder," he says, 



26 The Arian objection that God had many words. 

NICEN. 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 honour 
able appellation ; and this implies His advance, which is an 
irreligion equal to any thing that has gone before. For He 
who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who 

Johnio, says, I and the Father are one, whom He that hath seen, hath 

^%\n- seen the Father, to say that He has been improved 1 by any 

ot)o-0cu thing external, is the extreme of madness. 

3. However, when they are beaten hence, and like the Euse- 
bians are in these great straits, then they have this remaining 
plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia 2 , 
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 g ?" Insensate, and any thing but Chris- 



3 vid. 
. y J6. 



Orat. ii. . 37. " how, whereas God is 
one, these men introduce after their 
private notions, many images, and wis 
doms, and words, and say that the Fa 
ther s proper and natural Word is other 
than the Son, by whom He even made 
the Son, and that the real Son is but 
notionally called Word, as vine, and 
way, and door, and tree of life ; and 
Wisdom also only in name, the proper 
and true Wisdom of the Father, which 
co-exists with Him without generation, 
being other than the; Son, by which He 
even made the Son, and named Him 
Wisdom as partaking of it. He goes 
on to observe in . 38. that to be con 
sistent they should explain away not 
only word, wisdom, &c. but the title of 
being as applied to Him; "and then 
what is He? for He is none of these 
Himself, if they are but His names, and 
He has but a semblance of being, and 
is decorated with these names by us." 
s 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. . 3436. which precedes 
the passage quoted in the last note. 
" As our word is proper to us and from 
us, and not a work external to us, so 
also the word of God is proper to Him 



and from Him, and is not made, yet not 
as the word of man, else one must con 
sider God as man. Men have many 
words, and after those many, not any 
one of them all; for the speaker has 
ceased, and thereupon his word fails. 
But God s Word is one and the same, 
and as it is written, "remaineth for 
ever," not changed, not first one and 
then another, but existing the same 
always. For it behoved that God being 
one, one should be His Image, one His 
Word, oue His Wisdom." . 36. vid. 
contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. yg. 16. Epiph. 
Hser. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p, 349. 
Origen,(in a passage, however, of ques* 
tionable doctrine,) says, "As there are 
gods many, but to us one God the Father, 
and many lords, but to us one Lord 
Jesus Christ, so there are many words, 
but we pray that in us may exist the 
Word that was in the beginning, with 
God, and God." in Joan. torn. ii. 3. 
Many things, it is 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. Haer. 73. 12, 
The Semiarians are speaking against 
Sabellianism, which took the same 
ground here as Arianism; so did the 
heresy of Samosatene,who, according to 



If our Lord is the Word, He is the Son and the Image. 27 

tiansM for first, on using such language about God, they CHAP. 
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. 

4. O that they would consent to confess the truth from this . 17. 
their own statement ! for if they once grant that God produces 
words, they plainly know Him to be a Father ; and acknowledg 
ing 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 altogether Father of the Word, wherefore is not 
He a Son that is begotten ? And again, Son of God who should 
be, 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 *. For if you say the 

Epiphanius, considered our Lord, the > All the title? of the Son of God are 

internal Word, or thought. Haer. 65. consistent with each other, and various- 

The term word in this inferior sense is ly represent one and the same Person, 

often in Greek p%m. Epiph. supr. and " Son" and " Word/ denote His deriv 

Cyril. de Incarn. Unig. init. p. 679. ation ; "Word" and " Image, }} His 

h " If they understood and acknow- Similitude; " Word" and " Wisdom," 

ledged the characteristic idea (xa-pa-K- His immateriality ; " Wisdom" and 

T%>a)ofChristianity,tbeywouldnothave " Hand," His co-existence. " If He 

said that the Lord of glory was a crea- is not Son, neither is He Image." 

ture." ad Scrap, ii. 7. In Orat. i. . 2. Orat. ii. . 2. " How is there Word 

he says, Arians are not Christians be- and Wisdom, unless there be a proper 

cause they are Arians, for Christians offspring of His substance P ii. . 22. 

are called, not from Arius, but from vid. also Orat. i. .20, 21. and at great 

Christ, who is their only Master, vid. length Orat. iv. .20. <fec. vid. also Naz. 

also de Syn. . 38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil, contr. Eunom. i, 

Afros. 4. Their cruelty and cooperation 18. Hilar. de Trin. \ii. 11. August, 

with the heathen populace was another in Joan, xlviii. 6. and in Psalm 44, 

reason. Greg. Naz. Orat, 25. 12. (45,) 5. 



28 The Names of the Son 

NICEN. Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature ; and 
PEF if you imagine 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 substance; 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 laid 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 ; 

Is. 48, for God Himself says by Esaias the Prophet ; My hand also 
hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand 

Is. 51, hath spanned the heavens. And again, And I have covered 
them in the shadow of My Hand, that 1 may plant the 
heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth. And David 
being taught this, and knowing that the Lord s Hand was 

Ps. 104, nothing else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, In wisdom hast 
Thou made them all; the earth is full of Thy riches. Solomon 

Prov. 3, also received the same from God, and said, The Lord by 
wisdom hath founded the earth; and John, knowing that 

John 1, 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 any thing made. And the Apostle, understanding 
that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing 

Heb. 1, else than the Son, says, God, ivlio at sundry times and in 
divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the 
Prophets, hath m these last days spoken unto us by His Son, 
whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He 

l Cor. &, made the ages. And again, There is one Lord Jesus Christ, 
through whom are all things, and we through Him. And 
knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son was the 
Image Himself of the Father, He says in the Epistle to the 

Col. 1, 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 



imply His divinity. 29 

dear Son; in whom we have redemption 1 , even the remission CHAP. 
of sins ; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First- 



l through 

born of every creature; for by Him were all things created, His 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invi- T t 
sible, 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. 
For as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is 
the Image, are they also created in Him k . And thus any one 
who directs His thoughts to the Lord, will avoid stumbling 
upon the stone of offence, but rather will go forward to that 
brightness which is reflected from the light of truth; for this 
is really the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men 
burst with spite 1 , neither religious towards God, nor abashed 
at their confutation. 



k vid. a beautiful passage, contr. he speaks of Wisdom as being infused 

Gem. 42. &c. Again, of men, " He into the world on its creation, that it 

made them after His own image, im- might possess " a type and semblance 

parting to them of the power of His of Its Image." 

proper Word, that, having as it were fiiafyaySxnv , and so Scrap, ii. fin. 

certain shadows of the Word, and be- Siapfayvvwi/Tai. de Syn. 34. ^la^yvv- 

coming rational, \oyiKol, they might be taffiv eavrovs. Orat. ii. . 23. ffTrapar- 

enabled to continue in blessedness." TeVaxrai/ eavrovs. Orat. ii. . 64. rpi^Tca 

Incarn. 3. vid. also Orat. ii. 78. where TOUS bSAvras. Sent. D. 16. 



CHAP. V. 

DEFENCE OFTHECOUNCIL SPHRASES,"FROMTHE SUBSTANCE," 
AND "ONE IN SUBSTANCE." 

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

NICEN. 1. Now the Eusebians were at the former period examined 

~- EF 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 111 ; 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, 

v. sup. or who is the Saint 1 by which they have been taught, that they 

P^ 2 have heaped together the phrases, " out of nothing 2 ," and " He 

2 e| OVK 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 

Heb.i!,his Epistle to the Hebrews says, By faith we understand that 

the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that things 

which are seen were not made of things which do appear. But 

nothing is common to the Word with the ages 11 ; for He it 

m After the Nicene Council, the a sort of positive existence, though not 

Eusebians did not dare avow their an ovaia or substance, and means the 

heresy in Constaritine s lifetime, but same as "world," or an existing system 

merely attempted the banishment of of things viewed apart from time and 

Athanasius, and the restoration of motion, vid. Theodor. in. Hebr. i, 2. 

Arius. Their first Council was A,D. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages 

34J, four years after Constantine s tlms considered, as the Apostle also tells 

death. us? Hebr. 11,3. and God is the King of 

n By afar, age, seems to be meant the ages, i Tim. 1,1 7. or is before all ages, 
duration, or the measure of duration, be- as being eternal, or irpoaicai ios. How- 
fore or independent of the existence of ever, sometimes the word is synonymous 
motion, which is the measure of time, with eternity ; " as time is to things 
As motion, and therefore time, are which are under time, so ages to things 
creatures, so are the ages. Considered which are everlasting." Uamasc. Fid. 
as the measure of duration, an age has Orth. ii. 1. and " ages of ages 1 stands 



The Son before all ages, because their Creator. 31 

is who is in existence before the ages, by whom also the ages CHAP. 
came to be. And in the Shepherd 1 , it is written, (since they t 
allege this book also, though it is not of the Canon ,) " First ii.i.vid. 
of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and r%5 
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. 

2. Why then, when they have invented on their part unscrip- 
tural phrases, for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse 
those who are religious in their use of themi 1 ? For irre- 
ligiousness is utterly forbidden, though it be attempted to 



for eternity; and then the " ages" or 
measures of duration, may be supposed 
to stand for the fSeai or ideas in the 
Divine Mind, which seems to have 
been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. 
Hence Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses 
the Almighty as cuWJroKe, parent of the 
ages. Hence sometimes God Himself 
is called the Age, Clem. Alex. Hymn. 
Psed. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages, 
Pseudo-Dion, de Div. Nom. 5. p. 580. or 
again, alwvios. T heodoret sums up what 
has been said thus: "Age is not any 
subsisting substance, but is an interval 
indicative of time, now infinite, when 
Gcd is spoken of, now commensurate 
with creation, now with human life. 
Ha?r. v. 6. If then, as Athan. says in 
the text, the "Word is Maker of the 
ages, He is independent of duration al 
together; 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, there 
fore, whereas no interval at all exists 
prior to Him, it were madness to say, 
There was once when the Everlasting 
(al&vios} 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, pre 
cedes that Wisdom of God which framed 
all things. " Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 736. 
vid. also Basil, de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. 
de Trin. xii. 34. 

And so in Ep. Fe>st. fin. he enu 
merates it with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticu-s, 
Esther, Judith, Tobit, and others, "not 
canonized but appointed by the Fathers 
to he read by late converts and persons 
under teaching." He calls it elsewhere 
a most profitable book. Incarn. 3. 

P Athan. here retorts the charge 
brought against the Council, as it was 
obvious to do, which gave occasion for 
this Treatise. If the Council went be 
yond Scripture in the use of the word 
"substance," (which however can hard - 
lybe gran ted,) who made thisnecessary, 
but they who had already introduced 
the phrases, " the Son was out of no 
thing," &c. (fee.? "Of the substance," 
and " one in substance, were directly 
intended to contradict and supplant the 
Arian nnscriptural innovations, as he 
says below, . 20. fin. 21. init. vid. also ad 
Atros.6.deSynod..36,37. He observes 
in like manner that the Arian ay^ros, 
though allow able as used by religious 
men, de Syn. . 46. was unscriptural, 
Orat .i. . 30, 34. Also Epiph. Hcer. 
76. p. 941. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5. 
Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. In 
carn. 80. 



32 History of the Nicene symbol, " Of the Substance." 

NICEN. disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms ; 

PEF but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though 

ivid. presented in strange phrases 1 , provided only they are used 

note^m w ^ a re %i us 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 3. The Council 2 wishing to negative the irreligious phrases 

2 vid. ad of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of 

r * the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but from 

God, and is Word and Wisdom, nor creature or work, but 

the proper offspring from the Father, the party of Eusebius, 

out of their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase/rom 

God as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God 

1 Cor. 8, differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, There 

2 Cor 5 ** one God, from whom all things ; and again, Old things are 
!7. passed away, behold, all things are new, and all things are 

from God. But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the 
cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more dis 
tinctly the sense of the words from God. Accordingly, they 
wrote "from the substance of God q ," in order that from God 

i Hence it stands in the Creed, and illuminating all things visible 

"from the Father, that is, from the and invisible, gathers them within 

substance of the Father." vid. Euse- Himself and knits them in one, leav- 

bius s Letter, infra. According to the ing nothing destitute of His power, but 

received doctrine of the Church all ra- quickening and preserving all things 

tional beings, and in one sense all beings and through all, and each by itself, and 

whatever, are from God," over and the whole together." contr. Gent. 42. 

above the fact of their creation ; and of Again, " God not only made us of no- 

this truth the Eusebians made use to thing, but also vouchsafed to us a life 

deny our Lord s proper divinity. Athan. according to God, and by the grace of 

lays down elsewhere that nothing re- the Word. But men, turning from 

mains in consistence and life, except things eternal to the things of corrup- 

from a participation of the Word, which tion at the devil s counsel, have brought 

is to be considered a gift from Him, on themselves the corruption of death, 

additional to that of creation, and se- who were, as 1 said, by nature corwtptcd, 

parable in idea from it. vid. above, hut hy the grace of the participation 

note k. Thus he says that the all- of the Word, had escaped their natural 

powerful and all-perfect, Holy Word state, had they remained good." Incarn. 

of the Father, pervading all things, 5. Man thus considered is, in his 

and developing every where His power, first estate a son of God and born of 



Necessity of it, to explain "of God" 33 

might not be considered common and equal in the Son and CHAP. 

in things generate, but that all others might be acknowledged V 

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 crea 
tures, * of God" is said of them on this account, in that they exist 
not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance *, i vid. de 
according to those philosophers who refer them to the com- ^35 
bination 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 substance of the Father," for to 
no creature does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that 
all things are from God, he immediately adds, and one Lord \ Cor.8, 
Jesus Christ, through whom all things, by way of shewing 6 
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 r , 

God, or, to uee the term which occurs the Father, this is done on y to the 

so frequently in the Arian controversy, exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, 

in the number, not only of the creatures, not to the exclusion of His Son who is 

hut of things generate, yevrjTa. This implied in the mention of Himself, 

was the sense iu which the Arians said Thus when God is called only wise, or 

that our Lord was Son of God; where- the Father the only God. or God is said 

as, as Athan. says, "things generate, to he ingenerate, ayej/rjTos, this is not 

being works, cannot be called generate, in contrast to the Son, but to all things 

except so far as, after their making, which are distinct from God. vid. 

they partake of the begotten Son, and Athan. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Oat. 30, 13. 

are therefore said to have been gene- Cyril. Thesaur. p. 142. u The words 

rated also; not at all in their own na- one and only ascribed to God in 

ture, but because of their participation Scripture, "says S.Basil, * are not used 

of the Son in the Spirit." Orat. i. 56. in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit, 

The question then was, as to the dis- but with reference to those who are not 

Unction of the Son s divine generation God, and falsely called so." Ep. 8. n. 3. 

over that of holy men ; and the Catho- On the other hand, when the Father is 

lies answered that He was e ovaias, mentioned, the other Divine Persons 

from the substance of God ; not by par- are implied in Him, i4 The Blessed and 

ticipation of grace, not by resemblance, Holy Trinity," says S. Athan. is indi- 

not in a limited sense, but really and visible and one iu itself; and when the 

simply, and therefore by an internal Father U mentioned, His Word is 

divine act. vid. below, . 22. and infr. added, and the Spirit in the Son; and 

. 31. note k. if the Son is named, in the Son is the 

r "When characteristic attributes and Father, and the Spirit is not external 

prerogatives are ascribed to God. or to to the Word." ad Serap. i. 14. 



34 History of the Nicene Synod " One in substance." 

NICEN. and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. 
-5^- 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 substance 8 of the Father, that we might believe the 
Word to be other than the nature of things generate, 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 substance. * 

. 20. 4. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be 
described as the True Power and Image of the Father, like 
*&irapd\- to the Father in all things and unvarying 1 , and as unalterable, 
\a.KToi> an( j ag a ] wavSj anc | as i n jjim without division ; (for never 
was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly 
with the Father, as the radiance of light,) the party of Euse- 
bius 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 
| C 2 r to " like," they said that it is written of us, Man is the image 
2 Cor. 4, and glory of God; "always," that it was written, For we 
Acts 17 which ^ ve are alway ; "in Him," In Him we live and 
28. move and have our being; "unalterable," that it is written, 
Rom. 8. Noihing shall separate us from the love of Christ ; as to 
"power," that the caterpillar and the locust are called 
p ower > an d great power, and that it is often said of the 
25. people, for instance, All the power of the Lord came out of 
41." the land of Egypt; and others are heavenly powers, for 
Ps. 46,8. S cr ipture says, The Lord of powers is with us, the God 



shall 



s Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, " I 
am, Tb &*/, 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 tin. Also Cyril Dial. i. 
p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 9. and 
the Semiarians at Ancyra,Epiph. Hser. 
73. 12 init. By the " essence," how 
ever, or "substance of God, the Council 
didnotmeananytlrngdistinctfromGod, 
v ; d.notea,infr. but Gocl 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 some 
thing distinct from God, and in conse 
quence of created substance. Moreover 
the term expresses the idea of God 
positively, in contradistinction to nega 
tive epithets, such as infinite, immense, 
eternal, &c. Dama=c. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. 
and as little implies any thing distinct 
from God as those epithets do. 



Necessity of it to explain "Image of God." 35 

of Jacob is our refuge. Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, CHAP. 

had said the like in writing, having taken it from them, and 

before Him Arius 1 having taken it also, as has been said. But vid - 
the Bishops, discerning in this too their simulation, and is^efS. 
whereas it is written, Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious Prov. 
that imagine evil, were again compelled on their part to 
concentrate 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 substance 1 " with the Father; 
by way of signifying that the Son was from the Father, and 
not merely like, but is the same in likeness u , 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 command 
ments. 

5, For bodies which are like each other, may be separated and 
become at distances from each other, as are human sons rela 
tively to their parents, (as it is written concerning Adam and 
Seth, who was begotten of him, that he was like him after his Gen. 5, 
own pattern ;) but since the generation of the Son from the 



1 vid. ad Afros. 5. 6. ad Scrap, ii. 5. ther, but in the sense in which a picture 
S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter is like the original, differing from it in 
written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in substance and in fact. In this sense 
which he said, "If we call Him true they even allowed the strong word 
Son of the Father and uncreate, then airapa\\a.KTos unvarying image, vid.be- 
are we granting that He is one in sub- ginning of . 20. which had been used 
stance, dfj-ooiKriov," determined the Coun- by the Catholics, (vid. Alexander, ap. 
cil on the adoption of the term, de Fid. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the 
iii.n. 125. He had disclaimed "ofthe sub- Semiarians afterwards, who even added 

stance, "in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. the words /car* ovaia.v y or according to 

Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had dig- substance." Even this strong phrase, 

claimed b^oovaiov already. Epiph. Haer. however, /car oiiaiav cbrapaAAa/CTos <- 

C9. 7. It was a word of old usage in K&V, or airapa.\\ditT<as ofjLoios, did not 

the Church, as Eusebiusof Csesareacon- appear to the Council an adequate safe- 

fesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in guard of the doctrine. Athan. notices 

Prax. 13. fin. has the translation " unius de Syn. that " like" applies to qualities 

pubstantiee, "(vid. Lucifer de non Pare, rather than to substance, 53. Also 

p. 218.) as he has "desubstantia Patris," Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. " while in itself," says 

in Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the the same Father, " it is frequently used 

word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theo- of faint similitudes, and falling very far 

gnostus and the two Dionysius s, infra, short cf the original." Ep. 9. ii. 3. Ac- 

.25.26. And before them Clement had cordingly, the Council determined on the 

spoken oftheeVoxrtsTfjs/ioi/aSiKfjsouo-tns, word bfjiooixnov as implying, as the text 

"the union of the single substance," expresses it, " the same in likeness," 

vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Ortli. Ta.vr bv rfj 6fj,oiuffei, that the likeness 

i- 8. Novatian too has "per substan- might not be analogical, vid. the pas- 

tiae communionem." de Trinit. 31. sage about gold and brass, p. 40. below, 

u The Eusebians allowed that our Cyril, in Joan. 1. v. p. 302. 
Lord was like and the image of the Fa- 

D 2 



36 Those, who do not reject the Council s sense, will not its words. 

NICEN. Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only 

JE^-like, but also inseparable from the substance 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 substance," that they might both 

defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and shew that the 

Word was other than generated 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 substance, these the Holy Catholic 

1 -vul. Church anathematizes 1 ." And in saying this, they shewed 

Letter * c l eai *ly that " of the substance," and " one in substance," do 

infr. negative 2 those syllables of irreligion, such as "created," 

SL not. and "work," and generated," and "alterable," and "He 

V 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 comprehend 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 . 6. 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 ana 
thematized ; 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 
3 vid. p. it is conveyed; whereas if it be the sense 3 which they wish to 
m ntlte complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the 
wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. 

7. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if 
they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very com 
plaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talking idly 
and disordered in mind ; and next why they should 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, 



Its sense in Scripture) if not its words. 87 

and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their CHAP. 
hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this circum 



stance it is for thee to consider, and for those illinstmcted men 
to learn. It has been shewn above, and must be believed as 
true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring* 
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 was bursting of a good Word, and, From the womb Ps.45,i. 
before the morning star I begat Thee ; and the Son signifies 3." 
to the Jews about Himself, If God were your Father, ye John 8, 
would love Me ; for I proceeded forth from the Father. 42t 
And again ; Not that any one has seen the Father, save He John 6, 
which is from God, He hath seen the Father. And more- 4(i * 
over, I and My Father are one, and, 1 in the Father and John 10, 
the Father in Me, is equivalent with saying, " I am from the j j inl4 
Father, and inseparable from Him." And John in saying, 10. 
The Only -begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, John 1, 
He hath declared Him, spoke of what he had learned from 18 
the Saviour. Besides, what else does in the bosom intimate, 
but the Son s genuine generation from the Father ? 

8. If then any man conceives as if God were compound, so . 22. 
as to have accidents in His substance 7 , or any external 



x 7Vf7)]U.o, offspring ; this word is of vineyard," and "Who art thou, my 

very frequent occurrer.ee in Athan. He son? moreover that fruits of the earth 

speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually are called offspring, ("I will not drink of 

Scriptural. " If any one declines to the offspring of this vine, 5 ) rarely ani- 

say offspring, and only says that the mated things, except indeed in such 

Word exists with God, let such a onefear instances as, generation (offspring) 

lBat,dectiningan expression of Scripture of vipers." Nyasen defends his brother, 

(rb Aeyrfycevo* ) he fall into extrava- contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p. 105. In the 

gance, &c." Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. Ai ian formula* an offspring, but not 

ii. 6 8. explicitly disavows the word, as one of the offsprings," it is synony- 

as an unscriptural invention of Euno- nious with "work" or "creature." 

mius. " That the Father begat we are On the other hand Epiphanius uses 

taught in many places : that the Son is it, e. g. Hser. 70. n. 3. and Naz. Orat. 

an offspring we never heard up to this 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 

day, for Scripture says, "unto us a child 2. Pseudo-Basil, adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. 

is born, unto us a son is given. " c. 7- fin. 

He goes on to say that" it is fearful to y (Tuju/Se/SrjKJs. And so elsewhere, when 

give Him names of our own, to whom resisting the Arian andSabellian notion 

God has given a name which is above thatthewisdomof Godisonly a quality in 

every name;" and observes that offspring the Divine nature,"In that case God will 

is notthe word which even a human lather be com pounded of substance and quality ; 

would apply to his son, as for instance for every quality is in the substance, 

we read, "Child, (TKVOV,} go into the And at this rate, whereas the Divine 



38 To speak of God s substance is to speak of God. 

NicEN.envelopement 2 , and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught 

DEF - about Him which completes the substance, so that when we 

say "God," or name "Father," we do not signify the invisible 

and incomprehensible substance, but something about it, 

then let them complain of the Council s stating that the Son 

was from the substance of God ; but let them reflect, that in 

thus considering they commit two blasphemies ; for they 

make God material, and they falsely say that the Lord is not 

l TT P lav- Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him 1 . But if 

Tb " God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying " God" 

and naming " Father," we name nothing as if about 

Him, but signify His substance itself. For though to 

comprehend what the substance 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 

Ex - 3 > and Lord. When then He says, I am that 1 am, and I am 

the Lord God, or when Scripture says, God, we understand 

nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible 

substance Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of a . Therefore 

Unity (/j.ovas} is indivisible, it will be that " not every thing which is said to 

considered compound, being separated be in God is said accordingto substance." 

into substance and accident." Orat. de Trin.v.6. Andhence, while Athan.in 

iv. 2. vid. also Orat. i. 36. This is the text denies that there are qualities 

the common doctrine of the Fathers, or the like belonging to Him, TreplavTbv, 

Athenagoras, however, speaks of God s it is still common in the Fathers to 

goodness as an accident, u as colour to speak of qualities, as in the passage of 

the body," " as flame is ruddy and the S. Gregory just cited, in which the 

sky blue," Legat. 24. This, however, is words irepl 0ebj/ occur. There is no dif- 

but a verbal difference, for shortly before ficulty in reconciling these statements, 

he speaks of His being, rb tWcos&j/, and though it would require more words 

His unity of uature, rb p-ofo^ves, as in than could be given to it here. Petavius 

the number of eTriffv/j.l3epr)K6Ta ai>T$. has treated the subject fully in his work 

Eusebiu* uses the word ffv^e^Kos in de Deo i. 7 11. and especially ii. 3. 

the same way, Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no 

And hence St. Cyril, in controversy difference between the divine propri- 

with the Arians, is led by the course of etates and essence, they speak of the 

their objections to observe, "There are fact, considering the Almighty as He 

cogent reasons for considering these is ; when they affirm a difference, they 

things as accidents (rv/j.f$fl3 r)K6TainGcd, speak of Him as contemplated by us, 

though they be not." Thesaur. p. 263. who are unable to grasp the idea of Him 

vid. the following note. as one and simple, but view His Di vine 

z 7Tpi)3oA$7. and so de Synod. . 34. Natureasif inprojecfion,(ifsvcha,word 

which is very much the same passage, may be used,) and thus divided into 

Some Fathers, however, seem to say the substance and quality as man maybe 

reverse. E. g. ISazianzen says that divided into genus and difference, 
"neither the immateriality of God nor a In like manner de Synod. . 31. 

ingenerateness, present to us His sub- Also Basil, " The substance is not any 

stance. Orat. 28. 9. And St. Augustine, one of things which do not attach, but is 

arguing on the word ingenitus, says, the very being 01 God." contr. Eunom. 



" Of the substance" only brings out the meaning of " Son." 39 

let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from CHAP. 
the substance of the Father ; rather let him accept the 



explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equiva 
lent language have for from God written " of the sub 
stance." For they considered it the same thing to say that 
the Word was of God and "of the substance of God," since 
the word " God," as I have already said, signifies nothing 
but the substance of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not 
in such sense from God, as to be Son, genuine and natural, 
from the Father, but only as creatures because they are 
framed, and as all things are from God, then neither is He 
from the substance of the Father, nor is the Son again Son 
according to substance, 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 let the Son, as is reasonable, 
be called from the substance of God. 

9. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has . 23. 
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 b , thereby to signify His being from the substance, 
proper and 1 indivisible, and His oneness with the Father. A&tdjpi- 
This also will secure His true 2 unalterableness and immuta- * T & &. 
bility; for how can these be His, unless He be proper ^T^ 

\oiwrov 

i. 10 fin. "The nature of God is no Father as a light from a light or as 

other than Himself, for He is simple a lamp divided into two, which after 

and uncompounded." Cyril Thesaur. all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius 

p. 59. " "When we say the power of refers to fire, Orat. iv. . 2 and 10. but 

the Father, we say nothing else than still to fire and its radiance. However, 

the substance of the Father. August, we find the illustration of fire from fire, 

de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Grsec. 

Eusebius, "Let no one deride, if I say 5. At this early day the illustration of 

that the name of the Immaterial is sub- radiancemighthaveaSabellian bearing, 

stance and being." Prsep. Evang. xi. as that of fire in Athan. s had an Arian. 

10. Hence Justin protests against those 

b Athan. s ordinary illustration is, as who considered the Sou as "like the sun s 

here, not from " fire," but from " ra- light in the heaven," which " when it 

diance," cbrairyao-jua, after St. Paul sets, goes away with it," whereas it is 

and the Author of the Book of Wisdom, as " fire kindled from fire." Tryph. 128. 

meaning by radiance the light which Athenagoras,however,like Athanasius, 

a light diffuses by means of the atmo- says " as light from fire," using also 

sphere. On the other hand Arius in the word a.ir6pf)oia, effluence: vid. also 

his letter to Alexander, Epiph. H<cr. Orig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull. Ap. 

69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of 21. Theognostus infr. . 25. 
Hieracas that the Son was from the 



40 "One in substance" but brings out the meaning of "Image" 

NIC RN. Offspring of the Father s substance? for this too must be 

^vrT taken to C01inrm His identity with His own Father. 

njra 10. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect, 

Christ s enemies should not be startled at the " One in 

substance" either, since this term also admits of being soundly 

expounded and defended. Indeed, if we say that the 

Word is from the substance 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 substance from which 

He is begotten ? for it is not different in kind, lest it be 

combined with the substance 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 substance, as 

brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign 

and of other nature, and are separated off from each other in 

nature and qualities, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the 

^ vid. <3epjg eon k orn from the dove 2 ; but though they are considered 

41. Hyp. like, yet they differ in substance. If then it be thus with the 



e a creature as we are > an( l not One in sub 
stance; but if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, 
Radiance, He must in all reason be One in substance. For 
3 , et I* e> unless 3 it be proved that He is not from God, but an instru- 
4 o/>7ai/oj/ment 4 different in nature and different in substance, surely 
the Council was sound in its doctrine and apposite in its 
decree . 

. 24. i \ t Further, let every corporeal thought be banished on this 
subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, 
with the pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend 
ti ie Son s genuine 5 relation towards the Father, and the Word s 
j- proper 6 relation towards God, and the unvarying 7 likeness 
7 faa- 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 substance," 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 

c As "of the substance" declared " likeness," even "like in substance" 

that onr Lord was uncreate, so " one answering for this purpose, for such 

in substance" declared that He w&scqual phrases might all be understood of re- 

with the lather; no term derived from semblance or representation, vid.notet. 



The Son the one Mediator between the Father and creation. 41 

preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity CHAP. 

of light; for this is proper to the Son as regards the Father, X: 

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 d . Who will presume to say that the radiance 
is unlike and foreign from the sun ? rather who, thus con 
sidering 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 possession 1 ,! i^rri- 
what should it be named by those who believe and see aright, ra 
but Offspring one in substance ? and God s Offspring what 
should we fittingly and suitably consider, but the Word, and 
Wisdom, and Power? which it were a sin to say was foreign 
from the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than 
with Him everlastingly. 

I 2. 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 substance 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 substance as being a creature. Yet 
this issimply the belief of Caiaphas and Samosatene, which the 
Church cast out, but they 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 2 , that there be no 2^ p. 
medium introduced between Himself and the Father? Other- 15 - note 

A 

wise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by 
the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes 6 . And if 

d A than, has just used the illustration His different titles to be those of dif- 

of radiance in reference to " of the ferent beings or subjects, or not really 

substance:" and now he says that it and properly to belong to one and the 

equally illustrates "one in substance;" same person ; so that the \Vord was not 

the light diffused from the sun being at the Son, or the Radiance not the Word, 

once contemporaneous and homogeneous or our Lord was the Son, but only im- 

with its original. properly the Word, not the true Word, 

e The point in which perhaps all the Wisdom, or Radiance. Paul of Samo- 

ancient heresies concerning our Lord s sata, Sabellius, and Arius, agreed in 

divine nature agreed, was in considering considering that the Son was a creature, 



4*2 The Son partaken of all in the Spirit. 

NICEN. 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 generated partake of 
Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He 
cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather the 
proper Offspring from the Father as the radiance from light. 



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. 



CHAP. VI. 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL. 

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

1. THIS then is the sense in which the Fathers at Nicaea CHAP. 
made use of these expressions ; but next that they did not g~~^~ 
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 a , a learned man, did not decline the phrase 
" of the substance," for in the second book of his Hypo- 
typoses, he writes thus of the Son : 

" The substance of the Son is not any thing procured from 
without, nor accruing out of noihing b , hut it sprang from the 
Father s substance, as the radiance of light, as the vapour of 
water; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water 
itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien ; but it is an effluence of the 
Father s substance, which, however, suffers no 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 substance suffer change, 
though it has the Son as an Image of Itself d ." 

Theognostus then, after first investigating in the way of an 

a Athanasius elsewhere calls him alone, "says Tertullian, "because there 
" the admirable and excellent." ad was nothing external to Him, cjrtrin- 
Serap. iv. 9. He was Master of the secus; yet not even then alone, for He 
Catechetical school of Alexandria to- had with Him, what He had in Hitn- 
wards the end of the 3d century, being self, His Reason." in Prax. 5. Non 
a scholar, or at least a follower of per adoptionem spiritus filius fit extrin- 
Origen. His seven books of Hypo- secus, sed naiura films est. Origen. 
typoses treated of the Holy Trinity, Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. 
of angels, and evil spirits, of the Incar- c From Wisdom 7, 25. and so Ori- 
nation, and the Creation. Photius, gen. Periarch. i. 2. n. 5. and 9. and 
who gives this account, Cod. 106, ac- Athan. de Sent. Dionys. 15. 
cuses him of heterodoxy on these d It is sometimes erroneously sup- 
points ; which Athanasius in a measure posed that such illustrations as this are 
admits, as far as the wording of his intended to explain how the Sacred 
treatise went, when he speaks of his Mystery in question is possible, whereas 
" investigating by way of exercise." they are merely intended to shew that 
Eusebius does not mention him at all. the words we use concerning it are not 

h Vid. above . 15. fin. " God was self-contradictory, which is the objec- 



44 



Theognostus. Dionysius of Alexandria. 



NIC EN. exercise 6 , proceeds to lay down his sentiments in the 
DBF. _ 

- foregoing words. 

2. 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 was made flesh, as John has said, was suspected of 
saying that the Son was a thing made and generated, and not 
one in substance with the Father ; on this he writes to his 
namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to explain that this 
was a slander upon him f . And he assured him that he had 
not called the Son made, nay, did confess Him to be even 
one in substance. And bis words run thus : 

"And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false 



tion most commonly brought against 
them. To say that the doctrine of the 
Son s generation does not intrench upon 
the Father s perfection and immuta 
bility, 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 effect of the mind 
to enter into the Mystery, but is a safe- 
guard against any one image, nay, any 
collection of images being supposed suffi 
cient. If it be said that the language 
used concerning the sun and its radi 
ance is but popular not philosophical, 
so again the Catholic language con 
cerning 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. 

e eV 7u/iya<ria e^eracras. And so .27. 
of Origen, faruv Kal yvfiydfav. Con- 
stantine too, writing to Alexander and 
Arius, speaks of altercation, tyvcriKiis 
TIVOS yv/jLvaffias eVe/co. Socr. i. 7. In 
somewhat a similar way, Athanasius 
sspeaks of Dionysius writing /car ot/co- 
voniav, economically, or with reference 
to certain persons addressed or objects 
contemplated, de Sent. P. 6. and 26. 

f It is well known that the great 
development of the power of the See 
of Rome was later than the age of 



Athanasius; but it is here in place, to 
state historically some instances of an 
earlier date in which it interfered in 
the general conduct of the Church. S. 
Clement of Rome wrote a pastoral 
letter to the Corinthians, at a time 
when they seem to have been without a 
Bishop. The heretic Marcion, on his 
excommunication at home, came to 
Rome upon the death of Hygiuus the 
ninth Bishop, and was repulsed by the 
elders of the see. Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 
1. Polycarp came to Anicetus on the 
question of Easter. Fuseb.Hist. iv. 14. 
Soter, not only sent alms to the 
Churches of Christendom generally, 
according to the primitive custom of 
his Church, but exhorted affection 
ately the brethren who came up thither 
as a father his children." ibid. iv. 23. 
Victor denounced the Asian Churches 
for observing Easter after the Jewish 
custom, ibid. v. 24. Paul of Samosata 
was put out of the see house at An- 
tioch by the civil power, on the decision 
of " the Bishops of Italy and of 
Rome." ibid. vii. 30. For a consider 
ation of this subject, as far as it is an 
objection to the Anglican view of ecclesi 
astical polity, the reader is referred to 
Mr. Palmer s Treatise on the Church, 
vii. 3 and 4. where five reasons are as 
signed for the early pre-eminence of the 
Roman Church ; the number of its 
clergy and people, its wealth and 
charity, its apostolical origin, the 
purity of its faith, and the temporal 
dignity of the city of Rome. 



Dionysius of Rome. 45 

charge they bring against me, that I deny lhat Christ was one in CHAP. 
substance with God. For though I say that I have not found VI. 
this term any where in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which ~~ 
follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with 
that belief. For I instanced a human production as being evidently 
homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably parents differred 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 pro 
duce ; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather 
a copy of it all, which, if 1 have an opportunity, I will do still. 
But I am sure from recollection lhat 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 g : and that a stream flowing 
from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain 
was called stream, nor the ^ream fountain, and both existed, and the 
stream was the water from the fountain." 

3. And that the Word of God is not a work or creature, * ^ 
but an offspring proper to the Father s substance and indivi 
sible, 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 reasonably turn to those who divide and cut into pieces 
and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the 
Divine Monarchy 11 , making it certain three powers and partitive 1 i 



g The Eusebians at Nicsea objected 15. also Orat. 20. 7- and Epiph. Hser. 

to this image, Socr. i. 8. as implying 57. 5. Tertullian, before Dionysius, 

that the Son was a 7rpo/3o\r/, issue or uses the word Monarchia, which Prax- 

development, as Valehtinus taught, eas had perverted into a kind of Uni- 

Epiph. tissr. 69. 7- Athanasius else- tarianism or Sabellianism, in Prax. 3. 

where uses it himself. Irenseus too wrote on the Monarchy, 

h By the Monarchy is meant the i. e. against the doctrine that God is 

doctrine that the Second and Third the author of evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20. 

Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity And before him was Justin s work de 

are ever to be referred in our thoughts Monarchia, where the word is used in 

to the First as the Fountain of God- opposition to I oly theism. The Mar- 

head, vid. p. 25. note e. and p. 33. note cionites, whom Dionysius presently 

r. It is one of the especial senses in mentions, are also specified in the above 

which God is said to be one. "We extract by A than. vid. also Cyril. Hier. 

are not introducing three origins or Cat. xvi. 4. Epiphanius says that 

three Fathers, as the Marcionites and their three origins were God, the Cre- 

Manichees, just as our illustration is ator, and the evil spirit. Ha3r.42,3.or as 

not of three suns, but of sun and its Augustine says, the good, the just, and 

radiance." Orat. iii. . 15. vid also iv. the wicked, which may be taken to mean 

. 1. " The Father is union, eVoxns," nearly the same thing. Eider. 22. The 

says S.Greg. Naz. "from whom and Apostolical Canons denounce those who 

unto whom are the others." Orat. 42. baptize into Three Unoriginate ; vid. 



46 



Heresy of Tritheism. 



NIC EN. subsistences 1 and godheads 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 Holy Unity 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 one, and 
t h e Holy Ghost must repose 1 and habitate in God; thus in one as 
j n a surm riit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine 
Trinity k 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 Trinity is preached by divine Scrip 
ture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three 
Gods. 

4. 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 



also Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5. Naz. 
Orat. 20. 6. Basil denies rpeis apxiital 
inroffrdfffis, de Sp. S. 38. which is a 
Platonic phrase. 

And so Dionysius of Alexandria in 
a fragment preserved by S. Basil, " If 
because the subsistences are three, they 
say that they are partitive, fiejuepio-^eVas, 
still three there are, though these per 
sons dissent, or they utterly destroy the 
Divine Trinity." de Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. 
expresses the same more distinctly, ov 
rpeis viroffTaffeis /ueyuep/o /ueVas , Expos. 
Fid. . 2. In S. Greg. Naz. we find a/j.4- 
piaTOS eV ^eyuepKT/LteVots ^ 6e6Tr)s. Orat. 
31. 14. Elsewhere for pep. he substi 
tutes 07rep^7J7jueVas. Orat. 20. 6. a7re|ej/w- 
jueVas aAA^Awj/ /cat SietTTrafl-jiieVas. Orat. 
23.6. as infra |evcts aAA^Aoij ira.vraTra.ffL 
Kex^pifffJ-f^as- The passage in the text 
comes into question in the controversy 
about the e| viroffTaffecos $ ovcrtas of the 
Nicene Creed, of which infra on the 
Creed itself in Eusebius s Letter. 

k The word rpias translated Trinity 
is first used by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 
15. Gibbon remarks that the doctrine of 
* a numerical rather than a generical 
unity," which has been explicitly put 
forth by the Latin Church, is " favoured 
by the Latin language ; rpias 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 ex 
presses Tptas 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 con 
sequence, that the Latins held an ab 
stract unity or a unity of qualities, 
while the Greeks by f^ova,s taught the 
doctrine of " a one" or a numerical 
unity. u Singularitatem hanc dico, says 
S. Ambrose, quod Graece /AOI^TTJS dici- 
tur; 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 sy 
nonymous with " three persons." Hu 
manity 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. 



Heresy of making the Son a creature. 47 

even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. CHAP. 
For if He came to be Son, once He was not ; hut He was always, VI * 
if (that is) He he in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the 
Christ be Word and Wisdem 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 ex 
travagant. And why say more on these points to you, men full 
of the Spirit and well aware of the extravagances 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 Prov. 8, 
hath created Me a beginning of His ways unto His works. For the 22 * 
sense of He created, as ye know, is not one, for we must under 
stand 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 Deut - 
not made thee and created thee ? says Moses in his great song in 33 
Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O men of great hazard, 
is He a work, who is the First-born of every creature, who is 6of^ol. 1, 
from the womb before the morning star, who said, as Wisdom, p 5 ]() 
Before all the hills He begets Me? And in many passages of the 3. 
divine oracles is the Son said to have been 1 generated, but now here Prov. 8, 
to have 2 come into being; which manifestly convicts those of mis- 25. 
conception about the Lord s generation, who presume to call His l 7 67e " 
divine and ineffable generation a making 1 . Neither then may we 
divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Unity; nor vai 
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. For 
/, says He, and the Father are one; and, I in the Father and the 



1 This extract discloses to us, (in con - of the heresy, and that not at first sight 

nexion with the passages from Piony- an obvious one, which is found among 

sius Alex. here and in the de Sent. D.) the Arians, Prov. 8, 22. 3. The same 

a remarkable anticipation of the Arian texts were used by the Catholics, 

controversy in the third century. 1. It which occur in the Arian controversy, 

appears that the very symbol of ^vfrreou/c e. g. Deut. 32, 6. against Prov. 8, 22. 

?iv, " once He was not," was asserted or and such as Ps. 110, 3. Prov. 8, 25. 

implied; vid. also the following extract and the two John 10, 30. and 14, 10. 

from Origen, . 27. and Origen Peri- 4. The same Catholic symbols and 

arch on, iv. 28. where mention is also statements are found, e. g. u begotten 

made of ihe e| OVK bvrwv, "out of riot made," " one in substance," Tri- 

ncthing," which was the Arian symbol nity,"aSiat/)To^,^j/apx oi/ > 6t 7 ej/ , light 

in opposition to " of the substance." from light, &c. Much might be said 

Allusions are made besides, to "the on this circumstance, as forming part 

Father not being always Father," de of the proof of the very early date of 

Sent. D. 15. and "the Word being the development and formation of the 

brought to be by the true Word, and Catholic theology, which we are at first 

"Wisdom by the true Wisdom;" ibid. 25. sight apt to ascribe to the 4th and 5fh 

2. Thesame special text is used in defence centuries. 



48 The labour-loving Origen. 

NICRN. Father in Me. For thus both the Divine Trinity, and the holy 
PEF- preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved." 

. 27. 5. And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word 
with the Father, and that He is not of another substance or 
subsistence, but proper to the Father s, as the Bishops in 
the Council said, hear again from the labour-loving" 1 Origen 
also. For what he has written as if inquiring and exercising 
himself, that let no one take as expressive of his own sen 
timents, but of parties who are disputing in the investigation, 
but what he n definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the 
1 vid. p. labour-loving man. After his exercises 1 then against the 
e . * heretics, straightway he introduces his personal belief, 
thus : 



"If there be an Ima^e 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 else was that God, who, ac 
cording to John, is called Light, (for God is Light,} without the 
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 P for let him understand well who dares to 
sav, Once ihe Son was not, that he is saving, Once Wisdom was 
not, and Word was not/ and Life was not. " 

6. 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 



m </>iA.07r<Wu, and so Serap. iv. 9. <pp6i>v)/ji.d eVrt. " a\\a. Certe legendura 

n & fj.f us frTwv Kai yv/jLvdfav eypa- a\\ &, idque omnino exig-it sensus." 

\l/e, raura /x^ cbs avrov (ppovovvros Se- Montfaucon. Rather for dSecDs read & 

is, d/VAa rS>v vpbs epiv (piXovei- 8e a>s, and put the stop at Vreti/ instead 

fv T(f ^VjTetV, dSews opifav of Se^eVSco ris. 
TOVTO rov (pi\oir6i>ov rb 



The Nicene Council did but consign tradition to writing. 49 

your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for CHAP. 
all abhor you. but the devil alone 1 ; none but he is your. 

J 1 supr. p. 

father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered 9. notes. 
on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to 
slander the Ecumenical Council , for committing to writing, 
not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those 
who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed 
down to us p . 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 



vid. supr. . 4. Orat. i. . 7. Ad 
Afros. 2 twice. Apol. contr. Arian. 7. 
ad Ep. ^Eg. 5. Epiph. Haer. 70. 9. 
Euseb.Vit. Const, iii. 6. The Council 
was more commonly called /j.yd\r) 
vid. supr. . 26. The second General 
Council, A.D. 381, took the name of 
ecumenical. vid. Can. 6. tin. but inci 
dentally. The Council of Ephesus so 
styles itself in the opening of its Sy nodi 
cal Letter. 

P 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 eyypatyus eeTe#?j with 
reference to them. Thus Damasus, 
Theod.Hist v. 10. speaks of that" apo 
stolical faith, which was set forth in 
writing by the Fathers in Nicaea." On 
the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch, 
speaks of the doctrine of our Lord s 
perfect humanity being "inculcated by 
our Holy Fathers, but not as yet [i. e. 
till the Council of Chalcedon] being 
confirmed by the decree of an ecumeni 
cal Council." Phot. 229. p. 801 . (tyypa- 
<{>u>s, however, sometimes relate* to the 
act of subscribing. Phot. ibid, or to Scrip 
ture, Clement. Strom, i. init. p. 321.) 
Hence Athan. says ad Afros. 1 and 2. 
that "the Word of the Lord which 
was given through the ecumenical 
Council in Niceea remainethfor ever;" 
and uses against its opposers the texts, 
" Remove not the ancient landmark 
which thy fathers have set," (vid. also 
Dionyiriusin Eus. Hist.vii. 7.) and " He 
that curseth his father or his mother, 
shall surely be put to death." Prov. 22, 
28. Ex. 21, 17. vid. also Athan. ad Epict. 
1. And the Council of Chalcedon pro 
fesses to "drive away the doctrines of 
error by a common decree, and rcneiv 
the unswerving faith of the Fathers," 



Act. v. p. 452. " as, 1 they proceed, 
"from of old the prophets spoke of 
Christ, and He Himself instructed us, 
and the creed of the Fathers has de 
livered 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. vid. S. Leo. supr. 
p. 5. note m. This, however, did not 
interfere with their adding without un 
doing. "For," says Vjgilius, " 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 ihe 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. 950. and Naz. Ep. 102. init. 
excepting, however, the doctrine of the 
Holy Spirit; which explains his mean 
ing. 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 pro 
fess to draw up an exposit on of faith, 
and that Cyril and Leo did but in 
terpret the Greedy Cone. t. 2. p. 428. 
Leo even says that the Apostles 
Cried is sufficient against all heiesies, 
and that Eutyches erred on a point 
" of which our Lord wished no one 
of either sex in tlie Church to be igno 
rant," and he wishes Eutych<s to take 
the plenitude of the Creed " puro et 
simplici corde." Ep. 31. p. 857, 8. 



E 



50 Arians quarrelled with the sense, not the words merely. 

NICEN. condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why 

PEF * these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is 

supr. .not the terms which trouble them 1 , but that those terms 

2i.imt. p rove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other 

heresies. 



CHAP. VII. 



This term afterwards adopted by them; and why; three senses of it. 
A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes (rod in contrast to His creatures, 
not to His Son ; Father the scriptural title instead ; Conclusion. 

1. THIS in fact was the reason, when the unsound nature CHAP. 
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 Ingenerate*, 
that, under shelter of it, they might reckon among the things 
generate 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 learn of those who gave it 
them, and who have not scrupled to say that even in 
tellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul which 
proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be 
known, are notwithstanding ingenerate, for they understand 
that by so saying they do not disparage that first Origin 
of which the others come b . This being the case, let them 

a a.yevTi rov- Opportunity will occur tal ; but Athan. is referring to an- 

for noticing this celebrated word on other subject, the Platonic, or rather 

Orat. i. 30 34. where the present the Eclectic Trinity. Thus Theodoret, 

passage is partly re-written, partly " Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining 

transcribed. Mention is also made of the sense of Plato, say, that he taught 

it in the De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius Three principles beyond time and eter- 

would seem to have been but partially nal, Good, Intellect, and the Soul of 

acquainted with the writings of the all," de Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750. And so 

Anomceans, whose symbol it was, and Plotinus himself, " It is as if one were 

to have argued with them from the to place Good as the centre, Intellect 

writings of the elder Arians, who had like an immoveable circle round, and 

also made use of it. Soul a moveable circle, and moveab e 

b Montfaucon quotes a passage from by appetite." 4 Ennead. iv. c. 16. vid. 

Plato s Phsedrus, in which the human Porphyry in Cyril, contr. Julian, viii. p. 

soul is called " ingenerate and immor- 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennead. 

E 2 



52 Arians used phrases, neither in nor according to Scripture. 

NICEN. 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 c the ex- 
isupr.p.pression is not from divine Scripture 1 , but they are con- 
si, note tentious, as elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as I 
have related the reason and sense, with which the Council 
and the Fathers before it denned and published " of the 
substance," and " one in substance," 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 Ingenerate ? 

2. In truth, I am told d , 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 
generated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and 
indestructible 6 ." Now perhaps they will wish to pass over the 



v. 2 and 3. Athan. s testimony that 
the Piatonists considered their three 
vTroffTaffeLs all ingenerate is perhaps a 
singular one. In 5 Ennead. iv. 1. 
Plotinus says what seems contrary to 
it, rj Se apxri ayewnros, speaking of His 
-ra.ya.Q6v. Yet Plato, quoted by Theo- 
doret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of efre apxV 
eire ap^ds. 

c eTrel /j.d\t(TTai, on /j.d\iffTa, Orat. i. 
. 36. de Syn. .21. tin. orav /J.d\i(rra 
Apol. ad Const. 23. Kal /j.d\icrTa, de 
Syn. . 42. 54. 

d 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 ^yej/rj-roj/." Orat. i. . 30. 
This is remarkable, for Athan. was a 
man of liberal education, as his Orat. 
con tr. Gent, and delncarn. shew, especi 
ally his acquaintance with the Platonic 
philosophy. Sulpicius too speaks of 
him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. Hist. ii. 
50. St. Gregory Naz. says, that he 
gave some attention, but not much, to 
the subjects of general education, T<OV 
e 7/cu/cAiW, that he might not be alto 
gether 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 
liis own philosophical knowledge. He 
wntes of his " neglecting his own 



weakness, and being utterly unex- 
ercised 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 intoprincipal, co-operative, 1 &c. 
Elsewhere he speaks of having "ex 
pended much time on vanity, and 
wasted nearly all his youth in the 
vain labour of pursuing the studies of 
that w r isdom which God has made 
foolishness," Ep. 223. 2. In truth, 
Chiistianity has a philosophy of its own. 
Thus in the commencement of his Vise 
Dux Anastasius says, " It is a first point 
to be understood, that the tradition of 
the Catholic Church does not proceed 
upon, or follow, the philosophical de 
finitions in all respects, and especially 
as regards the mystery of Christ, and 
the doctrine of the Trinity, but a cer 
tain rule of its own, evangelical and 
apostolical." p. 20. 

e Four senses of aywrirov are enu 
merated, Orat. i. . 30. 1. "What is 
not as yet, but is possible; 2. what 
neither has been, ncr 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. 



The equivocation of the tvord Ingenerate. 53 

first two senses, from the absurdity which follows; for according CHAP. 
to the first, things that already have come to be, and things that _ZHl 
are expected to be, are ingenerate ; and the second is more 
extravagant 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 Ingenerate 
they mean what has no origin of being, nor is generated 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 f such madmen? for, when they are 
ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases which they 
fabled, and which were condemned, the bad men have taken 
another way to signify them, by means of what they call 
Ingenerate. For if the Son be of things generate, 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 nots. If these are their sentiments, they ought . 29. 
to signify their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to 
hide their perverseness under the cloke of the Ingenerate. 
But instead of this, the evil-minded men are busy with their 
craftiness after their father, the devil ; for as he attempts to 
deceive in the guise of others, so these have broached the 
term Ingenerate, that they might pretend to speak piously of 



f BaAAeVfloxrai/ iraph rdrrtov, Orat. leopard, let him die spots and all,"&c. 

ii. . 28. An apparent allusion to the &c. Orat. 28. 2. 

punishment of blasphemy and idolatry The Arians argued that the word 

under the Jewish Law. vid. reference to Ingenerate implied generate or creature 

Ex.21, 17, in page 49, note p. Thus, e.g. as its correlative, and therefore indi- 

Nazianzen : u While I go up the mount rectly signified Creator ; so that the 

with good heart, that I may become Son being not ingenerate, was not the 

within the cloud, and may hold converse Creator. Athan. answers, that in the 

with God, for so God "bids; if there use of the word, whether there be a Son 

be any Aaron, let him go up with me does not come into the question. As the 

and stand near. And if there be any idea of Father and Son does not in- 

Nadab or Abiud, or of the elders, let elude creation, so that of creator and 

him go up, but stand far off, according creature does not include generation ; 

to the measure of his purification and it would be as illogical to infer 

But if any one is an evil and savage that there are no creatures because 

beast, and quite incapable of science there is a Son, as that there is no Son 

and theology ; let him stand off still because there are creatures. Or, more 

further, and depart from the mount; or closely, as a thing generate, though 

he will be stoned and crushed ; for the not the Father, is not therefore Son, so 

wicked shall be miserably destroyed, the Son though not Ingenerate is not 

For as stones for the bestial are true therefore a thing generate, vid. p. 33, 

words and strong. Whether he be note r. 



54 Ingenerate does not exclude the idea of Son but of creature. 

NicEN.God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against the 
^- Lord, and under this covering might teach it to others. 

3. However, on the detecting of this sophism, what remains 
to them ? "We have found another," say the evil-doers ; and 
then proceed to add to what they have said already, that 
Ingenerate means what has no author of being, but stands 
itself in this relation to things generate. Unthankful, and 
in truth deaf to the Scriptures ! who do every thing, and 
say every thing, not to honour God, but to dishonour 
the Son, ignorant that he who dishonours the Son, dis 
honours the Father. For first, even though they denote 
God in this way, still the Word is not proved to be of 
things generated. For if He be viewed as offspring of the 
substance 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 Ingenerate 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 ingenerate, 
names Him from His works, signifying, not only that He is 
not generate, but that He is maker of things which are so ; 
yet is aware withal that the Word is other than the things 
1 ftiov generate, and alone a proper 1 offspring of the Father, through 

whom all things came to be and consist 11 . 

. 30. 4 U In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of God as All- 
powerful, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were 
3 eVa TU>V included in that All 2 ; (for they knew that the Son was other than 
t hi n g s generate, and Sovereign over them Himself, according 
to His likeness to the Father ;) but because He is Sovereign 
over all things which through the Son He has made, and 

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



As Lord of Hosts does not exclude a Son, so not Ingenerate. 55 

has given the authority of all things to the Son, and having CHAP. 
given it, is Himself once more the Lord of all things through the 

Word. Again, when they called God, Lord of the powers 1 , 1 i- e. 

, of hosts, 

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 ingenerate, if it so please 
him ; not however as if the Word were of generate things, but 
because, as I said before, God not only is not generate, 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 substance with Him; and being 
His Image, He must be distinct from things generate, and from 
every thing; for whose Image He is, to Him hath He it to be 
proper 2 and to be like : so that he who calls the Father inge- ^ T ^l5i6 
nerate and almighty, perceives in the Ingenerate and the T7?Ta 
Almighty, His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But 
these wondrous men, and prompt for irreligion, hit upon the 
term Ingenerate, not as caring for God s honour, but from 
malevolence towards the Saviour ; for if they had regard to 
honour and blessing, it rather had been right and good to 
acknowledge and to call God Father, than to give Him 
this name ; for in calling God ingenerate, 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. 

5. Therefore it will be much more accurate to denote God .31 
from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him 
and call Him Ingenerate 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 substance. And whereas the 
Word surpasses things generate, by so much and more also 
doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Ingenerate ; 



56 



Father, not Ingenerate, the Scripture term. 



NicEN.for the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, as it has various 

- 1 - senses; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more 

accurate, and alone implies the Son. And " Ingenerate" is 

a word of the Greeks who know not the Son: but "Father" 

has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord ; for He, 

John 14, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, I in the Father 

John 10, and the Father in Me; and, He that hath seen Me hath 
seen the Father; and, / and the Father are one; but no 
where is He found to call the Father Ingenerate. Moreover, 
when He teaches us to pray, He says not, " When ye pray, 

Mat. 6, say, O God Ingenerate," but rather, WJien ye pray, say, Our 
Father, which art in heaven. 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 Ingenerate 
and generate, not into the name of uncreate and creature, but 
into the -name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 5 ; for with 
such an initiation we too are made sons verily k , and using the 



And so St. Basil, " Our faith was 
not in Framer and Work, but in Father 
and Son were we sealed rhrough the 
grace in baptism." contr. Eunom. ii. 22. 
And a somewhat similar passage occurs 
Orat. ii. . 41. V /-5 

k vioTrotov/j.eOa aAr)8ics. 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 St. Basil says, that 
we are sons, Kvpias, "properly," and 
Trpctmur " primarily," in opposition to 
TpoiriKws, "figuratively," contr. Eunom. 
ii. 23. St. Cyril too says, that we are 
sons "naturally" <pv<riKu>s as well as /car& 
Xapw, v id. Suicer Thesaur. v. v!6s. i. 3. 
Of these words, a\ f]ews,(pv(nK&s,Kvpi(as, 
and Trpt&TcoS) the first two are commonly 
reserved for our Lord ; e. g. riv a\r)9>s 
uibv, Orat. ii. . 37. 7//we?s viol, OVK &s 
6/ce?j/os tyvffti Ka\ aA7?0efa, iii. $. 19. 
Hilary seems to deny us the title of 
u proper" sons ; de Trin. xii 15; but 
his "proprium" is a translation of ?5toi/, 
not Kvpius. And when Justin says of 
Christ, 6 p.6vos teySpevos Kvpicos vibs, 
Apol. ii. 6. Kvpicas seems to be used 
in reference tn the word Kvpios Lord, 
which he has just been using, Kvpio\o- 
yelv, being sometimes used by him as 
others in the sense of " naming as 
Lord," like QtoXoysiv. vid. Tryph. 56. 



There is a passage in Justin s ad 
Grgec. 21. where he (or the writer) 
when speaking of eyda el/j-i 6 &v, uses 
the word in the same ambiguous sense ; 
ov8ev yap ovo^a. eVJ 0eoG KvpioXoye iorOai 
Swarfo, 21; as if Kvpios, the Lord, 
by w hich " I am" is translated, 
we re 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 pri- 
mar y an d secondary sense in which 
t h e word Son is used, primary when it 
h as jt s formal meaning of continuation 
o f nature, and secondary when it is 
use( j nominally, or for an external 
resemblance to the first meaning, it 
j s applied to the regenerate, not in 
the secondary sense, but in the 
primary. St. Basil and St. Gre- 
gory Nyssen consider Son to be u a 
term of relationship according to na- 
ture" (vid. supr. p. 16, note k,) also 
Basil in Psalm 28, 1. The actual 
presence of the Holy Spirit in the rege- 
nerate in substance, (vid. Cyril. Dial. 7- 
p. 638.) constitutes this relationship of 
nature; and hence after the words 
quoted from St. Cyril in the be- 
ginning of this note, in which he 
says, that we are sons, ^utrt/cws, he pro 
ceeds, " naturally, because we arc in 
Him, and in Him alone." vid. Athan. s 



Novel terms of heresy met by new terms of orthodoxy. 57 

name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name, the Word CHAP. 
in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own _ZIL_ 
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 T in us, therefore by reason iyfyovev 
of the Word in us, is God called our Father. For the Spirit eV ^ : " 
of the Word in us, names through us His own Father as 
ours, which is the Apostle s meaning when he says, 6roc?Gal. 4, 
hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, 6 - 
Abba, Father. 

6. But perhaps being refuted as touching the term Ingenerate j 30. 
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 2 what is there written of Him, and not to ^upr.p. 
introduce unscriptural expressions." Yes, it behoved, say I 
too ; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from 
Scripture, than from other sources 1 ; but the ill disposition 
and the versatile and crafty irreligion of the Eusebians, com 
pelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more dis 
tinctly the terms which overthrow 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 expressions, and evil in their dispositions. 

words which follow in the text at on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the 

the end of . 31. And hence Nys- fulness of the Christian privileges, vid. 

sen lays down, as a received truth, supr. p. 33. note q. 
that "*to none does the term proper, "The holy and inspired Scriptures 

KvpiuTdTov, apply, hut to one in whom are sufficient of themselves for the 

the name responds with truth to the preaching of the truth : yet there are 

nature," contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. also many treatises of our blessed 

And he also implies, p. 117, the inti- teachers composed for this purpose." 

mate association of our sonsbip with contr. Gent. init. " For studying and 

Christ s, when he connects together mastering the Scriptures, there is need 

regeneration with our Lord s eternal of a good life and a pure soul, and 

generation, neither being 5i TraGovs, virtue according to Christ," Incarn. 57. 

or, of the will of the flesh. If it be " Since divine Scripture is more suf- 

asked, what the distinctive words are ficient than any thing else, I recom- 

which are incommunicably the Son s, mend persons who wish to know fully 

since so much is man s, it is obvious to concerning tuese things," (the doctrine 

answer, ftios inbs and povo-yev^s, which of the blessed Trinity,) " to read the 

are in Scripture, and the symbols " of divine oracles/ ad Ep. JEg. 4. " The 

the substance," and "one in substance," Scriptures are sufficient for teaching; 

of the Council; and this is the value of but it is good for us to exhort each 

the Council s phrases, that, while they other in the faith, and to refresh each 

guard the Sons divinity, they allow other with discourses." Vit. S. Ant. 16. 

full scope, without risk of entrenching And passim in Athan. 



58 Conclusion. 

NICEN. The term Ingenerate, 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 con tentiously maintaining, like giants m , their fight 
with God. But as they did not escape condemnation when 
they adduced these former phrases, so when they misconceive 
of the Ingenerate which in itself admits of being used well 
and religiously, they were detected, being disgraced before 
all, and their heresy every where proscribed. 

7. This then, as I could, have I related, by way of explain 
ing 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 

Jer. 13, as the Prophet speaks, If the Ethiopian change his skin, or 
the leopard his spots, 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 for 
each other ; 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. 

m And so, Orat. ii. . 32. Kara rovs ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10. p. 268. 

HvBevo/j.tj ovsyiyai Tas. AndsoNazian- d. Sometimes the Scripture giants are 

zen, Orat. 43. 26. speaking of the dis- spoken of, sometimes the mythologi- 

orderly Bishops during the Arian cal. 



APPENDIX. 



LETTER OF EUSEBIUS OF C^SAREA TO THE PEOPLE OF HIS 

DIOCESE a . 

1. WHAT was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at APPEN- 
the Great Council assembled at Nicsea, you have probably - 
learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont 

to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But 
lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been 
misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, 
first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, 
the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions 
to our words. Our own paper then, which was read in the 
presence of our most pious b Emperor, and declared to be 
good and unexceptionable, ran thus : 

2. As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and . 2. 
in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Lavev, 

a This Letter is also found in Socr. to the brilliancy of the imperial purple. 

Hist. i. 8. Theod. Hist. i. Gelas. Hist. He confesses, however, he did not sit 

Nic. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii. down until the Bishops bade him. 

22. Again at the same Council, "with 

b And so infr. " most pious," . 4. pleasant eyes looking serenity itself 
u most wise and most religious," ibid, into them all, collecting himself, and 
" most religious," . 8. . 10. Euse- in a quiet and gentle voice" he made 
bius observes in his Vit. Const, the an oration to the Fathers upon peace, 
same tone concerning Coustantine, and Constantine had been an instrument in 
assigns to him the same office in deter- conferring such vast benefits, humanly 
mining the faith (being as yet un- speaking, on the Christian body, that it 
baptized). E. g. " When there were dif- is not wonderful that other writers of the 
ferences between persons of different day besides Eusebius should praise him. 
countries, as if some common bishop Hilary speaks of him as " of sacred 
appointed by God, he convened Coun- memory," Fragm. 5. init. Athanasius 
cils of God s ministers; and not dis- calls him "most pious," Apol. contr. 
daining to be present and to sit amid A ri an. 9. l of blessed memory," ad Ep. 
their conferences," c. i. 44. When /Eg, 18. 19. Epiphanius " most re- 
he came into the Nicene Council, "it ligious and of ever-blessed memory," 
was," says Eusebius, " as some hea- Hser. 70. 9. Posterity, as was na- 
venly Angel of God," iii. 10. alluding tural, was still more grateful. 



60 Letter of Eusebius of C&sarea 

NICEN. and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we 
DEF. believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, 
so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, 
and it is this c : 

. 3. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of 
all things visible and invisible. 

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from 
God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, 
first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from 
the Father, by whom also all things were made ; who for our 
salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, 
and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and 
will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. 

And we believe also in One Holy Ghost ; believing each of 
These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son 
truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our 
Mat. 28, Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, 
19. teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we con 
fidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have 
held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathe 
matizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought 
from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and 
now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord 
Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to shew and to 
convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief 
and preaching. 

. 4. 3. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for 



c "The Children of the Church have suing from Apostolical teaching and 

received from their holy Fathers, that the Fathers tradition, and confirmed 

is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; by New and Old Testament." ad 

and withal to deliver and preach it to Adelph. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as 

their own children Cease not, faith- "declared by the Church and esta- 

ful and orthodox men, thus to speak, blished from all Scripture," Cat. v. 12. 
and to teach the like from the divine " Let us? guard with vigilance what we 
Scriptures, and to walk, and to cate- have received. .. .What then have we 
ehise, to the confirmation of yourselves received from the Scriptures but alto- 
and those who hear you; namely, that gether this? that God made the world 
holy faith of the Catholic Church, as by the Word," <fec. cfec. Procl. ad Ar- 
the holy and only Virgin of God re- men. p. 612. " That God, the Word, 
ceived its custody from the holy Apostles after the union remained such as He 
of the Lord ; and thus, in the case of was, &c. so clearly hath divine Scrip- 
each of those who are under cate- (ure, and moreover the doctors of the 
chising, who are to approach the Holy Churches, and the lights of the world 
Laver, ye ought not only to preach taught us." Theodor. Dial. 3. init. 
faith to your children in the Lord, but " That it is the tradition of the Fathers 
also to teach them expressly, as your is not the whole of our case; for they 
common mother teaches, to say: We too followed the meaning of Scripture, 
believe in One God, " <fec. Epiph. starting from the testimonies, which 
Ancor. 119 fin. who thereupon proceeds just DOW we laid before you from Scrip- 
to give at length the Niceno-Constan- ture." Basil de Sp. . 16. vid. also a re- 
tinopolitan Creed. And so Athan. markable passage in de Synod. . 6. tin. 
speaks of the orthodox faith, as " is- infra. 



to the people of his Diocese. 6 1 

contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before APPEN- 
any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox state 
merits. He confessed moreover that such were his own 
sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to 
subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion 
of the single word, One in substance, which moreover he 
interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, 
nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the way of 
division, or any severance ; for that the immaterial, and 
intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject 
of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive 
of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such 
were the theological remarks of our most wise and most 
religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of 
One in substance, drew up the following formula: 

4. The Faith dictated in the Council. 

"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all 
tilings visible and invisible : 

" And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of 
the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the 
Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very 
God, begotten not made, One in substance with the Father, by 
whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in 
earth ; who for us men and for our salvation came down and 
was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third 
day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. 

" And in the Holy Ghost, 

"But those who* say, Once He was not, and Before His 
generation He was not, and He came to be from nothing, or 
those uho pretend that the Son of God is Of other subsistence or 
substance d , or created, or alterable/ or mutable, the Catholic 
Church anathematizes." 

5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it . 5. 
pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced " of the 
substance of the Father," and " one in substance with the 
Father." Accordingly questions and explanations took place, 



A The only clauses of the Creed the former shall be reserved for a later 

which admit "of any question in their part of the volume; the latter is treated 

explanation, are the "He was not of in a note at the end of this Treatise; 

before His generation," and a of other infr, p. 66, 
subsistence or substance." Of these 



62 



Letter of Eusebius of Casarea 



NicEN.and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of 
reason. And they professed, that the phrase " of the sub 
stance" was indicative of the Son s being indeed from the 
Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with 
this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of 
such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was 
from the Father, not however a part of His substance . On 
this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without 
declining even the term " One in substance," peace being 
the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the 
orthodox view. 

6. In the same way we also admitted " begotten, not 
made ;" since the Council alleged that " made" was an ap 
pellative common to the other creatures which came to be 
through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Where 
fore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things 
which through Him came to be f , but was of a substance 



.6. 



e Eusebius does not commit himself 
to any positive sense in which the 
formula " of the substance is to be 
interpreted, but only says what it does 
not mean. His comment on it is "of 
the Father, but not as a part;" where, 
what is not negative, instead of being 
an explanation, is but a recurrence to 
the original words of Scripture, of 
which e ov<rias itself is the explanation ; 
a curious inversion. Indeed it is very 
doubtful whether he admitted the e| 
ovffias at all. He says, that the Son is 
not like the radiance of light so far as 
this, that the radiance is an inseparable 
accident of substance, whereas the Son 
is by the Father s will, KO.T&. yvdi^f\v Kal 
Trpoaipeffw, Demostr. Ev. iv, 3. And 
though he insists on our Lord being 
alone, e/c 6eov, yet he means in the sense 
which Athan. refutes, supr. . 7. viz. that 
He alone was created immediately from 
God, vid. next note f. It is true that 
he plainly condemns with the Nicene 
Creed the e OVK ovraw of the Arians, 
" out of nothing," but an evasion was 
at hand here also; for he not only adds, 
according to Arian custom, "as others," 
(vid. note following,) buthe has atheory 
that no being whatever is out of nothing, 
for non-existence cannot be the cause 
of existence. God, he says, " proposed 
His own will and power as a sort of 



matter and substance of the production 
and constitution of the universe, so that 
it is not reasonably said, that any 
thing is out of nothing. For what is 
from nothing cannot be at all. How 
indeed can nothing be to any thing a 
caxise of being ? but all that is, takes 
its being from One who only is, and 
was, who also said, I am that I am. " 
Demonstr. Ev. iv. 1. Again, speaking 
of our Lord, "He who was from no 
thing would not truly be Son of God, 
as neither is any other of things gene 
rate." Eccl. Theol. i. 9. fin. 

f Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. 
Ev. iv, 2. that our Lord is a creature. 
" This offspring," he says, " did He 
first produce Himself from Himself as 
a foundation of those things which 
should succeed, the perfect handywork, 
S-rifj-iovpyfj/jLa, of the Perfect, and the 
wise structure, apx iTe K T <^?M> f tne 
Wise," &c. Accordingly his avowal 
in the text is but the ordinary Arian 
evasion of " an offspring, not as the 
offsprings." E. g. " It is not without 
peril to say recklessly that the Son is 
generate out of nothing similarly to the 
other generates. Dem. Ev. v. 1. vid. 
also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And he 
considers our Lord the only Son by a 
divine provision similar to that by which 
there is only one sun in the firmament, 



to the people of his Diocese. 



63 



which is too high for the level of any work 1 , and which 
the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the 
Father^, the mode of generation being inscrutable and in- 
calculable to every generated nature. 

7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying, 
that the Son is " one in substance" with the Father ; not in 
the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such 
by division of substance, or by severance 2 , no nor by any 
affection 3 , or alteration, or changing of the Father s substance 
and power h , (since from all such the ingenerate nature of 



APPEN 

DIX - 





. 7. 



as a centre of light and heat. " Such 
an Only-begotten Son, the excellent 
artificer of His will and operator, did 
the supreme God and Father of that 
operator Himself first of all beget, 
through Him and in Him giving sub 
sistence to the operative words (ideas 
or causes) of things which were to be, 
and casting in Him the seeds of the 
constitution and governance of the uni 
verse;.. .Therefore the Father being 
one, it behoved the Son to be one also ; 
but should any one object that He con 
stituted not more, it is fitting for such 
a one to complain that He constituted 
not more suns, and moons, and worlds, 
and ten thousand other things." Dem. 
Ev. iv. 5. fin. vid. also iv. 6. 

g Eusebius does not say that our 
Lord is from the substance of the 
Father, but has a substance from the 
Father. This is the Semi-arian doc 
trine, which, whether confessing the 
Son from the substance of the Father 
or not, implied that His substance was 
not the Father s substance, but a 
second substance. The same doctrine 
is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra, 
though they seem to have confessed "of 
the substance." And this is one object 
of the 6/j.oovcnov, to hinder the confession 
"of the substance" from implying a 
second substance, which was not ob 
viated or was even encouraged by the 
o/j.oiovffioj . The Council of Ancyra, 
quoting the text " As the Father hath 
life in Himself, so," &c. says, " since 
the life which is in the Father means 
substance, and the life of the Only- 
begotten which is begotten from the 
Father means substance, the word so 
implies a likeness of substance to sub 
stance." Ha3r. 73. 10 fin. Hence 
Eusebius does not scruple to speak of 
" two substances," and other writers of 



three substances, contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 
25. He calls our Lord " a second 
substance." Dem. Ev. vi. Praef. Prsep. 
Ev. vii, 12. p. 320. aod the Holy Spirit 
athird substance, ibid. 15. p. 325. This 
it was that made the Latins so sus 
picious of three hypostases, because the 
Semi-arians, as well as they, understood 
viroffrdcns to mean substance. Eusebius 
in like manner calls our Lord " another 
God," " a second God." Dem. Ev. v. 
4. p. 226. v. fin. "second Lord." ibid. 
3 init. 6 fin. " second cause." Dem. 
Ev. v. Prsef. vid. also frepov e^owa 
rb war 1 ovffiav uTro/ce/^ej/oi/, Dem. Ev. 
v. l.p. 215. Kaff eavrb]/ ovcricaiJ.evos.ibid. 
iv. 3. And so erepos irapa rbv -rrarepa. 
Eccl. Theol. i. 20. p. 90. and &}}v ftiav 
eX cav - ibid, and (av Kal ixpccrrus /col rov 
irarpbs virdpx^v HKTOS. ibid. Hence 
Athan. insists so much, as in this 
treatise, on our Lord not being external 
to the Father. Once admit that He 
is in the Father, and we may call the 
Father, the only God, for He is in 
cluded. And so again as to the In 
generate, the term does not exclude the 
Sun, for He is generate in the Ingene 
rate. 

h This was the point on which, as 
we have partly seen aheady, the Semi- 
arians made their principal stand 
against the " one in substance," 
though they also objected to it as 
being of a Sabellian character. E. g. 
Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d. p. 
149. a, b. v. 1. p. 213215. contr. 
Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. 
p. 73. in laud. Const, p. 525. de Fide i. 
ap. Sirmond. torn. i. p. 7- de Fide ii. p. 
16. and apparently his de Incorporali. 
And so the Semi-arians at Ancyra, 
Epiph. Hser. 73. 11. p. 858. a, b. And 
so Meletius, ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril 
Hier. Catech. vii, 5. xi, 18. though of 



64 Letter of Eusebius of Ccesarea 

NICEN. the Father is alien,) but because " one in substance with the 
Father" suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance 
to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who 
begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He 
is not of any other subsistence and substance, but from the 
Father 1 . To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared 
well to assent; since we were aware that even among the 
ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers 11 
have used the term (< one in substance," in their theological 
teaching concerning the Father and Son. 

. 8. 8, So much then be said concerning the faith which was 
published ; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, 
but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the 
most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the fore- 
mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism 
published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain 
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from 
which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church 
have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has 
used the phrases, " out of nothing," and " once He was not," 
and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for 
using or teaching them ; to which also we assented as a good 
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use 
these terms. 

. 9. 9. Moreover to anathematize " Before His generation He 
was not," did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed 



course Catholics would speak as strongly confess Him also the true God, as in an 

on this point as their opponents. image, and that possessed ; so that the 

1 Here again Eusebius does not say addition of only may belong to the 

from the Father s substance, but Father alone as archetype of the image 

" not from other substance, but from the As, supposing one king held sway, 

Father." According to note e. supr. he and his image was carried about into 

considered the will of God a certain mat- every quarter, no one in his right mind 

ter or substance. Montfaucon inloc.and would say that those who held sway 

Collect. Nov. Prsef. p, xxvi. translates were two, but one who was honoured 

without warrant "ex Patris hypostasi through His image; in like manner," 

et substantial As to the Son s perfect tfec. de Eccles. Theol. ii, 23. vid. ibid, 

likeness to the Father which he seems 7. pp. 109. 111. 

here to grant, it has been already k Athanasius in like manner, ad 

shewn, p. 35. note u, how the admission Afros. 6. speaks of "testimony of an- 

was evaded. The likeness was but cient Bishops about 130 years since ;" 

a likeness after its own kind, as a and in de Syn. . 43. of " long before" 

picture is of the original. " Though the Council of Antiocb, A.D. 269. viz. 

our Saviour Himself teaches," he says, the Dionysii, &c. vid. supra p. 35. note 

" that the Father is the only true t. 
God, still let me not be backward to 



to the people of his diocese. 65 

by all, that the Son of God was before the generation ac 
cording to the flesh 1 . Nay, our most religious Emperor 
did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being 
even according to His divine generation which is before 
all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, 
He was in virtue m with the Father ingenerately, the Father 
being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, 
having all things in virtue, and being always in the same 
respects and in the same way. 

10. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, 
as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and 
assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last 
minute as long as we were offended at statements which 
differed from our own, but received without contention what 
no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of 
the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with 
what we ourselves have professed in the faith w r hich we have 
already published. 



~. 



11. 



1 Socrates, who advocates the ortho 
doxy (<f Eusebius, leaves out this he 
terodox paragraph altogether. Bull, 
however, Defens. F. N. Hi. 9. n. 3. 
thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius 
alludes to the early part of the clause, 
supr. p. 7. and ad Syn, . 13. where he 
says, that Eusebius implied that the 
Arians denied even our Lord s existence 
before His incarnation. As to Con- 
stantine, he seems to have been 
used on these occasions by the court 
Bishops who were his instructors, 
and who made him the organ of their 
own heresy. Upon the first rise of the 
Arian controversy he addressed a sort 
of pastoral letter to Alexander and 
Arius, telling them that they were 
disputing about a question of words, 
and recommending them to drop it and 
live together peaceably. Euseb. vit. C. 
ii. 69. 72. 

m Theognis, another of the Nicene 
Arians, says the same, according to Phi- 
lostorgius; viz. u that God even before 
He begat the Son was a Father, as having 
the power, 8vi/a/m, of begetting." Hist, 
ii. ]o. Though Bull pronounces such 
doctrine to be heretical, as of course it is, 
still he considers that it expresses what 
otherwise stated may be orthodox, viz.the 
docirine that our Lord was called the 



Word from eternity, and the Son upon 
His descent to create the worlds. And 
he acutely and ingeniously interprets 
the Arian formula, " Before His gene 
ration He was not." to support this 
view. Another opportunity will occur 
of giving an opinion upon this question ; 
meanwhile, the parallel on which the 
heretical doctrine is supported in the 
text is answered by many writers, on 
the ground that Father and Son are 
words of nature, hut Creator, King, 
Saviour, are external, or what may be 
called accidental to Him. Thus Atha- 
nasius observes, that Father actually 
implies Son, but Creator only the power 
to create, as expressing a 8ui/a/m; " a 
maker is before his works, but he who 
says Father, forthwith in Father implies 
the existence of the Son. Orat. iii. 
. 6. vid. Cyril too, Dial. ii. p. 459. 
Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eun.iv. 1. fin. On 
the other hand Origen argues the 
reverse way, that since God is eternally 
a Father, therefore eternally Creator 
also. " As one cannot be father with 
out a son, nor lord without possession, 
so neither can God be called Allpower- 
ful, without subjects of His power;" 
Periarch. i. 2. n. 10. hence he argued 
for the eternity of mattt-r. 



NOTE on page 61. 

On the meaning of the phrase If krtgac uTroo-racrso)? rj ov<riat$ in 
the Nicene Anathema. 

ft ic EN. Bishop Bull has made it a question, whether these words in the 
J>EF- Nicene Creed mean the same thing, or are to be considered dis- 
tinct from each other, advocating himself the latter opinion against 
Petavius. The history of the word VTTOOTTCKTIS is of too intricate a 
character to enter upon here; but a few words may be in place 
in illustration of its sense as it occurs in the Creed, and with 
reference to the view taken of it by the great divine, who has 
commented on it. 

Bishop Bull, as I understand him, (Defer.s. F. N. ii. 9. . 11.) 
considers that two distinct ideas are intended by the words ovaia 
and vTToo Taa is, in the clause e erf pas v7ro(TTd(rea)s *} ovaias , as if the 
Creed condemned those who said that the Son was not from the 
Father s substance, and those also who said that He was not from 
the Father s hypostasis or subsistence; as if a man might hold at 
least one of the two without holding the other. And in matter of 
fact, he does profess to assign two parties of heretics, who denied 
this or that proposition respectively. 

Petavius, on the other hand, (de Trin. iv. 1.) considers that the 
word vTroa-Tao-is, is but another term for oiWa, and that not two but 
one proposition is contained in the clause in question; the word 
vTroorraa-ts not being publicly recognised in its present meaning till 
the Council of Alexandria, in the year 362. Constant. (Epist. 
Pont. Rom. pp. 2?4. 290. 4-62.) Tillemont, (Memoires S. Denys. 
d Alex. . 15.) Huet, (Origenian. ii. 2. n. 3.) Thomassin, (de 
Incarn. iii. 1.) and Morinus. (de Sacr. Ordin. ii. 6.) take sub 
stantially the same view; while Maranus (Pra?f. ad S. Basil. . 1. 
torn. 3. ed. Bened.) Natalis Alexander, Hist. (Saec. 1. Diss. 22. circ. 
fin.) Burton, (Testimonies to the Trinity, No. 71.) and the President 
of Magdalen, (Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 189.) differ from Petavius, 
if they do not agree with Bull. 

Bull s principal argument lies in the strong fact, that S. Basil 
expressly asserts, that the Council did mean the two terms to be 
distinct, and this when he is answering the Sabellians, who 
grounded their assertion that there was but one vrroa-raa-is, on 
the alleged fact, the Council had used ova- La and vTroaraarts indif 
ferently. 

Bull refers also to Anastasius, Hodeg. 21. (22. p. 343.?) who says, 
that the Nicene Fathers defined that there are three hypostases or 
Persons in the Holy Trinity. Petavius considers that he derived 
this from Gelasius of Cyzicus, a writer of no great authority ; but, 
as the passage occurs in Anastasius, they are the words of Andrew 
of Samosata. But what is more important, elsewhere Anastasius 
quotes a passage from Amphilochius to something of the same effect. 






Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 67 

c. 10. p. 164. He states it besides himself, c. 9. p. 150. and c. 24. NOTE. 
p. S6 % 4.. In addition, Bull quotes passages from S. Dionysius of ~ 
Alexandria, S. Dionysius of Rome, (vid. above, pp. 44 48. 
and note i p. 46.) Eusebius of Caesarea, and afterwards Origen ; 
in all of which three hypostases being spoken of, whereas, anti 
quity early or late, never speaks in the same way ot three ovo-iai, 
it is plain that vnoo-rao-ts then conveyed an idea which ovaia did 
not. To these may be added a passage in Athanasius, in Illud, 
Omnia, c. . 6. 

Bishop Bull adds the following explanation of the two words as 
they occur in the Creed: he conceives that the one is intended to 
reach the Arians, and the other the Semi-arians; that the Semi- 
arians did actually make a distinction between ovaia and viroaTaois, 
admitting in a certain sense that the Son was from the vnoo-raais of 
the Father, while they denied that He was from His ovaia. 
They then are anathematized in the words e erepas ovaias ; and, as 
he would seem to mean, the Arians in the e| ertpas vTroo-Tao-ews. 

Now I hope it will not be considered emy disrespect to so great 
an authority, if 1 differ from this view, and express my reasons 
for doing so. 

1. First then, supposing his account of the Semi-arian doctrine 
ever so free from objection, granting that they denied the e ovo-ias, 
and admitted the e vaoo-Tdaeas, yet who are they who, according to 
his view, denied the e vnoardaetos, or said that the Son was e erepay 
vTj-oaracrecos? he does not assign any parties, though he implies 
the Arians. Yet though, as is notorious, they denied the If- 
ovo-ias, there is nothing to shew that they or any other party 
of Arians maintained specifically that the Son was not of the 
viroo-Taa-is, or subsistence of the Father. That is, the hypothesis 
supported by this eminent divine, does not answer the very ques 
tion which it raises. It professes that those who denied the e 
vTroo-Tao-fws, were not the same as those who denied the e ovo-ias , 
yet it fails to tell us who did deny the e vTroo-raerecos, in a sense 
distinct from e ovo-ias. 

2. Next, his only proof that the Semi-arians did hold the e vno- 
o-rao-ecos as distinct from the e^ovo-ias, lies in the circumstance, that the 
three (commonly called) Semi-arian confessions of A. D. 341, 344, 
351, known as Mark s of Arethusa. the Macrostiche, and the first 
Sirmian, anathematize those who say that the Son is e erepas 

VTrotrrao-ecos KOL p.r) e< rod $eov, not anathematizing the ft;Tpas ovo-ias, 

which he infers thence was their own belief. Another explanation 
of this passage will be offered presently; meanwhile, it is well to 
observe, that Hilary, in speaking of the confession of Philippopolis 
which was taken from Mark s, far from suspecting that the clause 
involved an omission, defends it on the ground oj ils retaining the 
Anathema, de Synod. 35. thus implying that e| erepasvnoo-TdaeuisKal /ii) 
(K TOV dfov was equivalent to e frepus vnoo-Taoews TJ ovo-ias. And it may 
be added, that Athanasius in like manner, in his account of the 
Nicene Council above translated, (de Decret. . 20. fin.) when 
repeating its anathema, drops the e t-Troo-raaeeos altogether, and 
reads TOVS 8e Af yoi/ras e OVK ovrw, . . . . rj Tro^/ua, ^ e| eVepas ovaias, 
TOVTOVS avaOf^aTL^L K. r. X. 

F 2 



68 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 

NJCKN. 3 Further, Bull gives us no proof whatever that the Semi-arians 
F did deny the e ovo-ias; while it is very clear, if it is right to contra 
dict so great a writer, that most of them did not deny it. He says 
that it is ""certissimum" that the heretics who wrote the three con 
fessions above noticed, that is, the Semi-arians, " nimquam /imo.v, 
nunquam fassuros fuisse filium e ovaias, e substantia, Patris pro- 
genitum." His reason for not offering any proof for this naturally 
is, that Petavius, with whom he is in controversy, maintains it 
also, and he makes use of Petavius s admission against himself. 
Now it may seem bold in a writer of this day to differ not only with 
Bull but with Petavius; but the reason for doing so is simple; it 
is because Athanasius asserts the very thing which Petavius and 
Bull deny, and Petavius admits that he does; that is, he allows it by 
implication when he complains that Athanasius had not got to the 
bottom of the doctrine of the Semi-arians, and thought too favour 
ably of them. " Horum Semi-arianorum, quorum antesignanus 

fuit Basilius Ancyree episcopus, prorsus obscura fuit haeresis 

ut ne ipse quidem Athanasius satis illam exploratam habuerit." de 
Trin. i. x. . 7- 

Now S. Athanasius s words are most distinct and express ; " As 
to those who receive all else that was defined at Nicaea, but dis 
pute about the One in substance only, we must not feel as 
towards enemies .... for, as confe.;>,hg that I he So?i is from the sub 
stance of the Father and not of other subsistence, e /c TIJS ovaias TOV 
irarpos eiWu, KOI p.r) e erepas vrroaTaaeuis TOV vlbv, , . . they are not far 
from receiving the phrase One in substance also. Such is Basil 
of Ancyra, in what he has written about the faith " de Syn. 
. 41; a passage, not only express for the matter in hand, but 
remarkable too, as apparently using vrrcaTaais and ovcria as sy 
nonymous, which is the main point which Bull denies. What 
follows in Athanasius is equally to the purpose: he urges the 
Semi arians to accept the opoova-iov, in consistency, became they 
maintain the e ovo-ias and the 6jj.oLovonov would not sufficiently 
secure it. 

Moreover Hilary, while defending the Semi-arian decrees of 
Ancyra or Sirmium, says expressly, that according to them, among 
other truths, " non creatura est Filius genitus, sed a naturd Patris 
indiscreta substantia est." de Syn. 27- 

Petavius, however, in the passage to which Bull appeals, refers 
in proof of this view of Semi-arianism to those Ancyrene do 
cuments, which Epiphanius has preserved, User. 73. and which 
he considers to shew, that according to the Semi-arians the Son 
was not e ovaias TOV 7rarp6$. He says, that it is plain from their 
own explanations that they considered our Lord to be, not CK r^y 

ovo~ias, but K TTJS 6fj.oL(>7r)Tos Qhe does not say tiTrocrrao-eco?, as Bull 

wishes]] TOV naTpbs and that, eWpyei a yfvvrjTucfj, which was one of the 
divine eWpyemt, as creation, f) KTIO-TIKTJ, was another. Yet surely 
Epiphanius does not bear out this representation better than 
Athanasius; since the Semi-arians, whose words he reports, 
speak of "vlbv OJJLOLOV KO\ K.O.T ovcriav e /c TOV traTpbs, p. 825. b. Jj? 
Y) (ro<pia TOV (TOCp^v vibs, ovcria ovo-ias. p. 853. C. Kar ovaiav vlbv TOV 
GO Ka\ Trarpoy. p. 854. C. eot>(ria 6/.iov Kal oucria TraTpbs p-ovoytvovs vlov. 



Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 69 



p. 858. d besides the strong word yvi^rios, ibid, and A than, de NOTE. 
Syn. . 41. not to insist on other of their statements. 

The same fact is brought before us even in a more striking way 
in the conference at Constantinople., A.D. 360, before Con stanti us, 
between the Anomoeans and Semi-arians, where the latter, ac 
cording to Theodoret, shew no unwillingness to acknowledge 
even the opocva-mv, because they acknowledge the e ovo-ias. When 
the Anomoeans wished the former condemned, Silvanus of Tarsus 
said, " If God the Word be not out of nothing, nor a creature, nor 
of other substance, ovaias, therefore is He one in substance, opoova-ios, 
with God who begot Him, as God from Gocl, and Light from Light, 
and He has the same nature with His Father." Hist. ii. 23. Here 
again it is observable, as in the passage from Athanasius above, 
that, while apparently reciting the Nicene Anathema, he omits e| 
crepes vTToo-rao-ecoy, as if it were superfluous to mention a synonyme. 

At the same time there certainly is reason to suspect that the 
Semi-arians approximated towards orthodoxy as time went on ; 
and perhaps it is hardly fair to determine what they held at 
Nicaea by their statements at Ancyra, though to the latter Peta- 
vius appeals. Several of the most eminent among them, as Mele- 
tius, Cyril, and Eusebius of Samosata conformed soon after ; on 
the other hand in Eusebius, who is their representative at Nicaea, 
it will perhaps be difficult to find a clear admission of the e ovaias. 
But at any rate he does not maintain the e vTroo-rdaews, which Bull s 
theory requires. 

On various grounds then, because the Semi-arians as a body did 
not deny the e olaias, nor confess the e uTroo-raaeco?, nor the Arians 
deny it, there is reason for declining Bishop Bull s explanation 
of these words as they occur in the Creed; and now let us 
turn to the consideration of the authorities on which that ex 
planation rests. 

As to Gelasius, Bull himself does not insist upon his testimony, 
and Anastasius is too late to be of authority. The passage indeed 
which he quotes from Amphilochius is important, but as he was a 
friend of St, Basil, perhaps it does very much increase the weight 
of St. Basil s more distinct and detailed testimony to the same 
point, and no one can say that that weight is inconsiderable. 

Yet there is evidence the other way which overbalances it. 
Bull, who complains of Petavius s rejection of St. Basil s testi 
mony concerning a Council which was held before his birth, 
cannot maintain his own explanation of its Creed without rejecting 
Athanasius s testimony respecting the doctrine of his contempo 
raries, the Semi-arians; and moreover the more direct evidence, 
as we shall see, of the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, S. Jerome, 
Basil of Ancyra, and Socrates. 

First, however, no better comment upon the sense of the Coun 
cil can be required than the incidental language of Athanasius and 
others, who in a foregoing extract exchanges ovaia for vnoa-rao-is 
in a way which is natural only on the supposition that he used 
them as synonymes. Elsewhere, as we have seen, he omits the 
word ?/ vTrocrrao-ecos in the Nicene Anathema, while Hilary consideis 
the Anathema sufficient with that omission. 



70 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 

NICEN In like manner Hilary expressly translates the clause in the 
DEJ^ Creed by ex alter substantia vel essentia. Fragm. ii. 27. And 
somewhat in the same way Eusebius says in his letter, e eVe/xiy 
TWOS VTToardo-fMs re KCU waius. 

But further, Athanasius says expressly, ad Afros. " Hypostasis 
is substance, ovo-ia, and means nothing else than simply being, 
which Jeremiah calls existence when he says," &c. . 4. It is 
true, he elsewhere speaks of three Hypostases, but this only 
shews that he attached no fixed sense to the word. This 
is just what I would maintain; its sense must be determined 
by the context, and, whereas it always stands in all Catholic 
writers for the Una Res, (as the 4th Lateran speaks,) which 
ovo-ia denotes, when Athanasius says, "three hypostases/ he 
takes the word to mean ovo-ia in that particular sense in which 
it is three, and when he makes it synonymous with ovo-ia, he 
uses it to signify Almighty God in that sense in which He 
is one. 

Leaving Athanasius, we have the following evidence concerning 
the history of the word vnoa-raa-Ls. St. Jerome says, "The whole 
school of secular learning understanding nothing else by hypo- 
stasis than usia, substance." Ep. xv. 4. Where, speaking of the 
Three Hypostases he uses the strong language, " If you desire it, 
then be a new faith framed after the Nicene, and let the orthodox 
confess in terms like the Arian " 

In like manner, Basil of Ancyra, George, and the other Semi- 
arians, say distinctly, " This hypostasis our Fathers called sub 
stance," ova-i a. Epiph. Haer. 74. 12. fin.; in accordance with which 
is the unauthorized addition to the Sardican Epistle, " vnoo-raviv, 
r]v avToi ol alperiKoi ovaiav Trpoaayopfvovai" 1 heod. Hist. ii. 6. 

If it be said that Jerome from his Roman connection, and Basil 
and George as Semi-arians, would be led by their respective 
theologies for distinct reasons thus to speak, it is true, and may 
have led them to too broad a statement of the fact; but then on the 
other hand it was in accordance also with the theology of St. Basil, 
so strenuous a defender of the formula of the Three Hypostases, 
to suppose that the Nicene Fathers meant to distinguish vrroo-Tao-ts 
from ovaia in their anathema. 

Again, Socrates informs us that, though there w r as some dispute 
about hypostasis at Alexandria shortly before the Nicene Council, 
yet the Council itself " devoted riot a word to the question." Hist, 
iii. 7. ; which hardly consists with its having intended to rule that 
e ertpas t Trocrrao-ecos was distinct from e Irepas ovo-ias. 

And in like manner the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, in 
deciding that the sense of Hypostasis was an open question, not 
only from the very nature of the case goes on the supposition 
that the Nicene Council had riot closed it, but says so in 
words again and again in its Synodal Letter. If the Nicene 
Council had already used " hypostasis" in its present sense, what 
remained to Athanasius at Alexandria but to submit to it? 

Indeed the history of this Council is perhaps the strongest 
argument against the supposed discrimination of the two terms by 
the Council of Nicaea. Bull can only meet it by considering that 



Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 71 

an innovation upon the " veterem vocahuli usum" began at the NOTE. 
date of the Council of Sardica, though Socrates mentions the 
dispute as existing at Alexandria before the Nicene Council, Hist, 
iii. 4. 5. while the supposititious confession of Sardica professes to 
have received the doctrine of the one hypostasis by tradition as 
Catholic 

Nor is the use of the word in earlier times inconsistent with 
these testimonies; though it occurs so seldom, in spite of its being 
a word of St. Paul, that testimony is our principal evidence. 
Socrates s remarks deserve to be quoted ; " Those among the 
Greeks who have treated of the Greek philosophy, have defined 
substance, ovo-ia, in many ways, but they had made no mention at all 
of hypostasis. Irenseus the Grammarian, in his alphabetical Atticist, 
even calls the term barbarous; because it is not used by any of the 
ancients, and if any where found, it does not mean what it is now 
taken for. Thus in the Phoenix of Sophocles it means an am 
bush; but in Menander, preserves/ as if one were to call the 
wine lees in a cask hypostasis. However it must be observed, 
that, in spite of the old philosophers being silent about the term, 
the more modern continually use it for substance, ovo-ias." Hist, 
iii. 7- The word principally occurs in Origen among Ante Nicene 
writers, and he, it must be confessed, uses it, as far as the context 
decides its sense, to mean subsistence or person. In other words, it 
was the word of a certain school in the Church, which afterwards 
was accepted by the Church ; but this proves nothing about 
the sense in which it was used at Nicaea. The three Hypo- 
stases are spoken of by Origen, his pupil Dionysius, as after 
wards by Eusebius of Caesarea, (though he may notwithstand 
ing have considered hypostasis synonymous with substance,) and 
Athanasius ; (Origen in Joan. ii. 6 . Dionys. ap. Basil de Sp. S. n. 72. 
Euseb. ap. Socr. i. 23. Athan. in Illud Ornnia. &c. 6.) and the Two 
Hypostases of the Father and the Son, by Origen, Ammonius, and 
Alexander, (Origen in Cels. viii. 2. Ammon. ap. Caten. in Joan. 
x. 30. Alex. ap. Theod. i. 3. p. 740.) As to the passage in which 
two hypostases are spoken of in Dionysius s letter to Paul of 
Samosata, that letter certainly is not genuine, as might be shewn 
on a fitting occasion, though it is acknowledged by very great 
authorities. 

I confess that to my mind there is an antecedent probability 
that the view which has here been followed is correct. Judging by 
the general history of doctrine, one should not expect thatthe formal 
ecclesiastical meaning of the word should have obtained every 
where so early. Nothing is more certain than that the doctr.nes 
themselves of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation were de 
veloped, or, to speak more definitely, thatthe propositions containing 
them were acknowledged, from the earliest times ; but the parti 
cular terms which now belong to them are most uniformly of a later 
date. I deas were brought out, but technical phrases did not obtain. 
Not that these phrases did not exist, but either not as technical, or 
in use in a particular School or Church, or with a particular writer, or 
as wag \fyofjieva, as words discussed, nay resisted, perhaps used by 
some local Council, and then at length accepted generally from their 



72 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 

NICEN. obvious propriety. Thus the words of the Schools pass into the 
service of the Catholic Church. Instead then of the word v-rroa-Tao-is 
being, as Maran says, received in the East"summo consensu," 
from the date of Noetus or at least Sabellius, or of Bull s opinion 
"apud Calholicos Dionysii aetate ralum et jixum illud fuisse, tres 
esse in divinis hypostases," I would consider that the present 
use of the word was in the first instance Alexandrian, and that 
it was little more than Alexandrian till the middle of the fourth 
century. 

Lastly, it comes to be considered how the two words are to be 
accounted for in the Creed, if they have not distinct senses. 
Constant supposes that e oucrias was added to explain e tm-oo-rao-ecos 1 , 
let the latter should be taken in a Sabellian sense. On which we 
may perhaps remark besides, that the reason why VTTOVTCKTIS was 
selected as the principal term was, that it was agreeable to the 
Westerns as well as admitted by the Orientals. Thus, by way of 
contrast, we find the second General Council, at which there were no 
Latins, speaking of Three Hypostases, and Pope Damasus and the 
Roman Council speaking a few years sooner of the Holy Ghost as of 
the same hypostasis and usia with the Father and the Son. Theod. 
Hist. ii. 17. Many things go to make this probable. For instance, 
Coustant acutely points out, though Maran and the President of Mag 
dalen dissent, that this probably was a point of dispute between 
the two Dionysii; the Bishop of Alexandria asserting, as we know 
he did assert, Three Hypoctases, the Bishop of Rome protesting 
in reply against " r lhree partitive Hypostases," as involving 
tritheism, and his namesake rejoining, " If because there are 
Three Hypostases, any say that they are partitive, three there 
are, though they like it not." Again, the influence of the West 
shews itself in the language of Athanasius, who, contrary to the 
custom of his Church, of Origen, Dionysius, and his own 
immediate patron and master Alexander, so varies his own use of 
the word, as to make his writings almost an example of that 
freedom which he vindicated in the Council of Alexandria. 
Again, when Hosius went to Alexandria before the Nicene 
Council, and a dispute arose with reference to Sabellianism about 
the words vTroaraa-is and ovaia, what is this too, but the collision of 
East and West? It should be remembered moreover that Hosius 
presided at Nicaea, a Latin in an Eastern city; and again at 
Sardicaj where, though the decree in favour of the One Hypostasis 
was not passed, it seems clear from the history that he was resisting 
persons with whom in great measure he agreed. Further, the 
same consideration accounts for the omission of the e ovaias from 
the Confession of Mark and the two which follow, on which Bull 
relies in proof that the Semi-arians rejected this formula. These 
three Semi-arian Creeds and these only, were addressed to the 
Latins, and therefore their compilers naturally select that synonyme 
which was most pleasing to them, as the means of securing a 
hearing; just as Athanasius on the other hand in his de Decretis, 
writing to the Greeks, omits vTroo-rao-eoos , and writes overtax. 



EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS, 

ARCHBISBOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 

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



CHAP. I. 

HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

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

1. PERHAPS news has reached even yourselves concerning CHAP. 
the Council, which is at this time the subject of general con- 



versation ; for letters both from the Emperor and the Prefects" 
were circulated far and wide for its convocation. However, 
you take that interest in the events which have occurred, 
that I have determined upon giving you an account of what 
I have seen myself b or have ascertained, which may save you 
from the suspense attendant on the reports of others ; and 
this the more, because there are parties who are in the prac 
tice of misrepresenting what is going on. 

2. At Nicaea then, which had been fixed upon, the Council 
did not meet, but a second edict 6 was issued, convening the 

a There were at this time four prse- b From these words Tillemont and 

torian prefects, who divided between Gibbon infer that Athanasius was pre- 

thern this administration of the Em- sent at least at Seleucia, but, as Mont- 

pire. They had been lately made merely faucon observes, such a supposition is 

civil officers, Constantine having sup- not required by the words, and is in 

pressed the celebrated troops which they itself improbable. 

used to command. At Ariminum, one of c The Council was originally to have 

them, Taurus, was present, and was been held at Nicsea, but the party of 

the instrument of the Emperor in over- Basil did not like a second meeting in 

awing the Council. the same place, and Nicpmedia was 



74 Circumstances of the calling of the Two Councils. 

COUNC. Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at 

AND Seleucia the Rugged, as it is called, in Isauria. The professed 

SELEU. reason of such a meeting was to treat of the faith touching our 

Lord Jesus Christ; and those who alleged it, were Ursacius, 

Valens d , and one Germinius 6 from Pannonia; and from Syria, 

Acacius, Eudoxius f , and Patrophilus of Scythopolis g . These 

men who had always been of the Arian party, and understood 

neither how they believe or whereof they affirm, and were 

silently deceiving first one and then another, and scattering 

1 "P r - the second sowing 1 of their heresy, influenced some persons of 

notek. consequence, and the Emperor Constantius among them, 

2i "fr- being a heretic 2 , on some pretence about the Faith, to call a 

note p. Council; under the idea that they should be able to put into 



substituted. The greater number of 
Bishops had set out, when an earth 
quake threw the city into ruins. Nicsea 
was then substituted again at Basil s 
wish, Soz.iv. 16. but it was considered 
too near the seat of the earthquake to 
be sate. Then the Eusebian or Aca- 
cian influence prevailed, and the Coun 
cil was divided into two; but at first 
Ancyra, BasiFs see, was to have been 
one of them, (where a celebrated Coun 
cil of Semi-arians actually was held 
at the time.) Hil. de Syn. 8. but this 
was changed for Seleucia. A delegacy 
of Bishops from each Province was 
summoned to Nicomedia; but to 
Nicsea, all Bishops whatever, whose 
health admitted of the journey, ac 
cording to Sozomen ; but Hilary .says, 
only one or two from each province of 
Gaul were summoned to Ariminum ; 
he himself was at Seleucia, under com 
pulsion of the local magistrate, being in 
exile there for the faith, Sulp. Sev. 
ii. 57. 

d Ursacius, Bishop of Singidon, and 
Valens, Bishop of Mursa, are generally 
mentioned together. They were pupils 
of Arius; and as such are called young 
by Athan. ad Ep. JEg. 7. by Hilnry ad 
Const, i. 5. (imperiti? et improbis duo- 
bus adolescentibus,) and by the Council 
of Sardica, ap. Hilar. Fragm. ii. 12. 
They first appear at the Council of 
Tyre, A.D. 335. The Council of Sar 
dica deposed them ; in 349, they pub 
licly retracted their charges against 
Athanasius, who has preserved their 
letters. Apol. contr. Arian. 58. Valens 
was the more prominent of the two ; 
he was a favourite Bishop of Con- 



stantius, was an extreme Arian in 
his opinions, and the chief agent at 
Ariminum in effecting the lapse of the 
Latin Fathers. 

e Germinius was made Bishop of 
Sirmium by the Eusebians in 351, in 
stead of Photinus whom they deposed 
for a kind of Sabellianism. However, 
he was obliged in 358 to sign the 
Semi-arian formula of Ancyra; yet he 
was an active Eusebian again at Ari 
minum. At a later date he approached 
very nearly to Catholicism. 

f Acacius has been mentioned, p. 7. 
note p. Eudoxius is said to have been 
a pupil of Lucian, Arius s Master, 
though the dates scarcely admit it. 
Eustathiu-3, Catholic Bishop of Antioch, 
whom the Eusebians subsequently de 
posed, refused to admit him into orders. 
Afterwards he was made Bi?hop of 
Germanicia in Syria, by his party. He 
was present at the Council of Antioch 
in 341, spoken of infra, .22. and carried 
into the West in 345, the fifth Confes 
sion, called the Long, jua/c^tmxos. infr. 
. 9,6. He afterwards passed in succes 
sion to the .sees of Antioch, (vid. supr. 
p. 1. note a.) and Constantinople, and 
baptized the Emperor Valens into the 
Arian profession. 

g Patrophilus was one of the original 
Arian party, and took share in all their 
principal acts, but there is nothing 
very distinctive in his history. Sozo 
men assigns to these six Bishops the 
scheme of dividing the Council into 
two, Hist. iv. 1 6. and Valens undertook 
to manage the Latins, Acacius the 
Greeks. 



No necessity for them. 75 

the shade the Nicene Council, and prevail upon all to turn CHAP. 
round, and to establish irreligion every where instead of the * 
Truth. 

3. Now here I marvel first, and think that I shall carry every . 2. 
thinking man whatever with me, that, whereas a Catholic 
Council had been fixed, and all were looking forward to it, 
it was all of a sudden divided in two, so that one part met 
here, and the other there. However, this would seem provi 
dential, in order in the respective Councils to exhibit the faith 
without guile or corruption of the one party, and to expose 
the dishonesty and duplicity of the other. Next, this too was 
on the mind of myself and my true brethren here, and made 
us anxious, the impropriety of this great gathering which 
we saw in progress ; for what pressed so much, that the whole 
world was to be put in confusion, and those who at the time 
bore the profession of clerks, should run about far and near, 
seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ? 
Certainly, if they were believers already, they would not have 
been seeking, as though they were not. And to the catechu 
mens, this was no small scandal ; but to the heathen, it was 
something more than common, and even furnished broad 
merriment 11 , that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this 
time of day, should be making out how they were to believe 
concerning Christ ; while their professed clerks, though 
claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers, were infidels 
on their own shewing, in that they were seeking what they 
had not. And the party of Ursacius, who were at the 
bottom of all this, did not understand what wrath they were 
storing up against themselves, as our Lord says by His 
saints, Woe unto them, through whom My Name is blas-i s ,52,5. 
phemed among the Gentiles ; and by His own mouth in the ^ m - 2 
Gospels, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it wereMat.lS, 
better for him that a millstone were hanged about his 
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea } 

h The heathen Ammianus speaks of bius, " that at length in the very midst 

"the troops of Bishops hurrying to and of the theatres of the unbelievers, the 

fro at the public expense," and " the solemn matters of divine teaching were 

Synods, in their efforts to bring over the subjected to the basest mockery." in 

whole religion to theirside,beingtheruin vit. Const, ii. 61. Heathen Philosophers 

of the posting establishments." Hist, attended the Nicene Council, " from 

xxi. 16. " The spectacle proceeded to an interest to learn what the Christian 

that pitch of indecency," says Euse- doctrine was." Soz. i. 18. 







SELEU. 



Absurdity of dating the Catholic Faith. 
, as Luke adds, that he should offend one of these little 






4. What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the 
Catholic Church 5 , that they .should search after faith now, and 
should prefix this year s Consulate to their profession of it ? 
Yet Ursacius, and Valens, and Germinius, and their friends 
have done, what never took place, never was heard of among 
Christians. After putting into writing what it pleased them 
to believe, they prefix to it the Consulate, and the month and 
the day of the current year k ; thereby to shew all thinking 
men, that their faith dates, not from of old, but now, from the 
reign of Constantius 1 ; for whatever they write has a view to 
their own heresy. Moreover, though pretending to write 



1 " Who is there, who when he 
heard, upon his first catechisings, that 
God had a Son, and had made all 
things in His proper Word, did not so 
understand it in that sense which we 
now intend? who, when the vile Arian 
heresy began, but at once, on hearing 
its teachers, was startled, as if they 
taught strange things ?" Orat. ii. . 34. 
And Hilary with the same sense, <; I 
call the God of heaven and earth to 
witness, that, before I had heard either 
term, I always felt concerning the two 
words that by one in substance ought to 
be understood like in substance, that is, 
that nothing can be like Him in nature, 
but That which is of the same nature. 
Regenerated long since, and for a while 
a Bishop, yet 1 never heard the Ni- 
cene Creed till I was in exile, but 
Gospels and Apostles intimated to me 
the meaning of one in substance and 
like in substance. " de Syn. 91. Aid. 
also ad Const, ii. 7. 

k " Faith is made a thing of dates 
rather than Gospels, while it is written 
down by years, and is not measured by 
the confession of baptism." ad Const, ii. 
4. * We determine yearly and monthly 
creeds concerning God, we repent of 
our determinations; we defend those who 
repent, we anathematize those whom we 
have defended ; we condemn our own 
doings in those of others, or others in 
us, and gnawing each other, we are 
well nigh devoured one of another." 
ibid. 5. 

1 " Who are you ? whence and when 
came ye ? what do ye on my property 
being none of mine? by what right, O 
M arcion, cuttest thou my w ood ? by what 



license, Valentinus, turnest thou my 
springs? by what power, O Apelles, 
movest thou my landmarks ? Mine is pos 
session... I possess of old, I have prior 
possession. ..I am heir of the Apostles." 
Tertull. de Prsescr. 37- Tardily for me 
hath this time of day put forth these, in 
my judgment, most impious doctors. 
Full late hath that faith of mine, which 
Thou hast instructed, encountered these 
Masters. Before these names were 
heard of, I thus believed in Thee, I thus 
was new born by Thee, and thenceforth 
1 thus am Thine." Hil. deTrin. vi. 21. 
What heresy hath ever burst forth, but 
under the name of some certain men, 
in some certain place, and at some cer 
tain time ? who ever set up any heresy, 
who first divided not himself from the 
consent of the universality and antiquity 
of the Catholic Church? Vincent Lir. 
Ccmmonit.24. I will telltheemy mind 
briefly and plainly, that thou shouldest 
remain in that Church which, being 
founded by the Apostles, endures even to 
this day. When thou hearest that those 
who are called Christ s, are named, not 
after Jesus Christ, but after some one, 
say Marcionites, Valentinians,&c.know 
then it is not Christ s Church, but the 
synagogue of Antichrist. For by the 
very fact that they are formed after 
wards, they shew that they are those 
who the Apostle foretold should come." 
Jerom. in Lucif.27. " If the Church 
was not ... whence hath Donatus ap 
peared? from what soil has he sprung? 
out of what sea hath he emerged? from 
what heaven hath he fallen?" August, 
de Bapt. contr. Don. iii. 3. 



No authority for it from Scripture. 77 

about the Lord, they nominate another sovereign for them- CHAP. 
selves, Constantius, who has bestowed on them this reign 
of irreligion m ; and they who deny that the Son is everlasting, 
have called him Eternal Emperor ; such foes of Christ are 
they in behalf of irreligion. 

5. But perhaps the dates in the holy Prophets form their 
excuse for the Consulate ; so bold a pretence, however, will 
serve but to publish more fully their ignorance of the subject. 
For the prophecies of the sacred writers do indeed specify 
their times ; (for instance, Esaias and Osee lived in the days 
of Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, and Ezekias; Jeremias, in the days 
of Josias ; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied unto Cyrus and 
Darius; and others in other times;) yet they were not laying 
the foundations of divine religion ; it was before them, and 
was always, for before the foundation of the world had God 
prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were they signifying the 
respective dates of their own faith ; for they had been be 
lievers before these dates, which did but belong to their own 
preaching. And this preaching chiefly related to the Saviour s 
coming, and secondarily to what was to happen to Israel and 
the nations ; and the dates denoted not the commencement 
of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, that 



m Athan.says,thatafterEusebiushad judgments. Butnow a new spectacle, and 
taken up the patronage of the heresy, this the discovery of the Arian heresy," 
he made no progress till he had gained &c. . 52. Again, " In what then is he 
the Court, Hist. Arian. 6. shewing behind Antichrist? what more will he 
that it was an act of external power by do when he comes? or rather, on his 
which Arianism grew, not an inward coming willhe notfind the wayby [Con- 
movement in the Church, which indeed stantius] prepared for him unto his cle- 
loudly protested against the Emperor s ceiving without effort? for he too is to 
proceeding. " [f Bishops are to judge, claim thejudgments for the court instead 
he says shortly before, * what has the of the Churches, and of these he is tobe- 
Emperor to do with this matter? if the come head. . 76- And so Hosius to 
Emperor is to threaten, what need of Constantius, Cease, I charge thee, and 
men styled Bishops? wherein the world remember that thou art a mortal man. 
was such a thing heard of? where had Fear the day of judgment; keep thyself 
the Church s judgment its force from clear againstit. Interfere not with things 
the P^mperor. or his sentence was at ecclesiastical, nor be the man to charge 
all recognised? many Councils have us in a matter of the kind ; rather learn 
been before this, many judgments them thyself from us. God has put into 
of the Church, but neither the Fa- thy hand the kingdom ; to us He hath 
thers ever argued with the Emperor intrusted the things of the Church; and 
about them, nor the Emperor meddled as he who is traitorous to thy rule speaks 
with the concerns of the Church. Paul against God who has thus ordained, so 
the Apostle had friends of Csesar s fear thou, lest drawing to thyself the 
household, and in bis Epistle he saluted things of the Church, thou fallest be- 
the Philippians in their name, but he neath a great accusation." Apud Athan. 
took them not to him as partners in his ibid. 44. vid. infr. p. 90. note p. 



78 Difference between decree of faith and rule of discipline. 

CouNc.is, when it was they thus prophesied. But our modern sages, 
A * ND not in historical narration, nor in prediction of the future, but, 
SELEU - after writing, "The Catholic Faith was published," imme 
diately add the Consulate and the month and the date; that, 
as the sacred writers specified the dates of their histories, and 
of their own ministries, so these may mark the date of their 
own faith. And would that they had written, touching 
" their own n ;" (for it does date from to-day ;) and had not made 
their essay as touching " the Catholic," for they did not write, 
" Thus we believe," but "the Catholic Faith was published." 
. 4. 6. The boldness then of their design shews how little they 
understand the subject ; while the novelty of their phrase befits 
their heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they began 
their own faith, and that from that same time present they 
would have it proclaimed. And as according to the Evan 
gelist Luke, there was made a decree concerning the taxing, 
and this decree before was not, but began from those days in 
which it was made by its framer, they also in like manner, by 
writing, " The Faith is now published," shewed that the 
sentiments of their heresy are young, and were not before. 
But if they add "of the Catholic Faith," they fall before they 
know it into the extravagance of the Phrygians, and say 
with them, " To us first was revealed," and " from us dates 
the Faith of Christians." And as those inscribe it with the 
* vid. names of Maximilla and Montanus *, so do these with " Con- 
Orat iii s ^ an ^ us > Sovereign," instead of Christ. If, however, as they 
. 47. would have it, the faith dates from the present Consulate, 
what must the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs ? nay, 
what will they themselves do with their own catechumens, 
who departed to rest before this Consulate ? how will they 
wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former 
lessons, and may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which 
they have now put into writing ? So ignorant they are on 



n " He who speaketh cf his own, nius at Seleucia cried out, " If to pub- 

K TWV Itiicav, speaketh a lie." A than, lish day after day our own private 

contr. Apoll. i. fin. u They used to call (iSiav) will, be a profession of faith, 

the Church a virgin, "says Hegesippus, accuracy of truth will fail us." Socr. 

u for it was not yet defiled by pro- ii. 40. 

fane doctrines the Simonists, Dosi- " However the error was, certainly 

thians,<fec. each privately (tSuos) and error reigned so long as heresies were 

separately has brought in a private opi- not. Truth needed a rescue, and looked 

nion." ap. Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. Sophro- out for Marciouites and Valentinians. 



Reasons for convening the Nicene Council. 



79 



the subject; with no knowledge but that of making excuses, 
and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with 
them their own refutation. 

7. As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, 
but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable 
object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were 
out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter with 
the JewsP; on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up 
against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in the 
Eusebians, who w r ere both zealous for the heresy, and con 
ducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion 
for an Ecumenical 1 Council, that the feast might be every 
where celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was 
springing up might be anathematized. It took place then ; 
and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the 
Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist^, and drew up 



. 



1 sur. 



Meanwhile, gospelling was nought, faith 
was nought, nought was the baptism of 
so many thousand thousand, so many 
works of faith performed, so many 
virtues, so many gifts displayed, so 
many priesthoods, so many ministries 
exercised, nav, so many martyrdoms 
crowned." Teftull. Prtescr. 29. " Pro 
fane novelties, which if we receive, of 
necessity the faith of our blessed ances 
tors, either all or a great part of it must 
be overthrown ; the faithful people of 
all ages and times, all holy saints, all 
the chaste, all the continent, all the 
virgins, all the Clergy, the Deacons, 
the Priests, so many thousands of con 
fessors, so great armies of martyrs, so 
many famous populous cities and com 
monwealths, so many islands, provinces, 
kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, to con 
clude, almost now the whole world, in 
corporated by the Catholic Faith to 
Christ their head, must needs be said, 
so many hundred years, to have been 
ignorant, to have erred, to have blas 
phemed, to have believed they knew not 
what." Vine. Comm. 24. " O the ex 
travagance ! the wisdom, hidden after 
Christ s coming, they announce to us 
to-day, which is a thing to draw tears. 
For if the faith bepan thirty years since, 
while near four hundred are past since 
Christ was manifested, no .ight hath 
been our gospel that long while, and 
nought our faith, and fruitlessly have 



martyrs been martyred, and fruitlessly 
have such and so great rulers ruled the 
people." Greg. Naz. ad Cledon. Ep. 
102. p. 97. 

P This seems to have been an inno 
vation in these countries of about fifty 
years old , or from about the year 276. It 
is remarkable, that the Quartodeciman 
custom had come to an end in Procon 
sular Asia, where it had existed from 
St. John s time, before it began in Syria. 
Tillemont refers the change to Anato- 
lius of Laodicea ; the writer of this note 
has attempted in a former work to prove 
Paul of Samosata the author of it. 

1 Trp68po/jios, prsecursor. is almost a 
received word for the predicted apostasy 
or apostate, (vid. note on St. Cyril s Cat. 
xv. 9. also infr. note p.) but the dis 
tinction was not always carefully drawn 
between the apostate and the Anti 
christ. Constantius is called Antichrist 
by Athan. Hist. Arian. 67- his acts are 
the irpooi/j-iov /cal irapacrKevr] of Anti 
christ. Hist. Arian. 70. fin. 71. and 80. 
Constantius is the image, efrciw, of Anti 
christ 74. and 80. and shews the like 
ness, 6/JLoi(a/j.a, of the malignity of- Anti 
christ. 75. vid. also 7J.Trp68po/j.os 77. "Let 
Christ be expected, for Antichrist is in 
possession." Hilar. contr. Const, init. 
Constantius, Antichrist, ibid. 5. Speak 
ing of Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of 
Milan, he says, "Of one thing I warn 
you, beware of Antichrist; it is ill that 




1 infr 

p. 84 
note c. 



80 Councils declare the ancient Apostolical faith. 

a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they 
are > tne y ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these 
three or four men 8 . Without prefixing Consulate, month, and 
day, they wrote concerning the Easter, "It seemed good as 
follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a 
general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, "It 
seemed good," but, " Thus believes the Catholic Church ;" 
and thereupon they confessed how the faith lay, in order to 
shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apo 
stolical ; and what they wrote down, was no discovery of 
theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles *. 



a love of walls has seized you, it is ill 
that your veneration for God s Church 
lies in houses and edifices; it is ill that 
under this plea ye insinuate the name 
of peace. Is there any doubt that Anti 
christ is to sit in ihpse ? Mountains 
and woods and lakes and prisons and 
pits are to me more safe ; for in these 
did prophets, sojourning or sunk, still 
by God s spirit prophesy." contr. Aux. 
12. Lucifer calls Constantiu? precursor 
Antichristi. p. 89. possessed with the 
spirit of Antichrist, p. 219. friend of 
Antichrist, p. 259. Again, S. Jerome, 
writing against Jovinian, says that he 
who so says that there are no differences 
of rewards is Antichrist, ii. 21. S. Leo, 
alluding to 1 John 4, 10. calls Nesto- 
rius and Eutyches, Antichristi preecur- 
sores. Ep. 75. p. 1022. Again, Anti 
christ, whoever opposes what the 
Church has once settled, with an allu 
sion to opposition to the see of St. Peter. 
Ep. 156. c. 2. Anastasius speaks of 
the ten horns of Monophysitism, Hodeg. 
6. also 8. and 24. and calls Severus, 
Monophysite Bp. of Antioch, Anti 
christ, for usurping the judicial powers 
of Christ and His Church, ibid. p. 92, 
r "Theyknownottobereverenteven 
to their leaders. And this is why com 
monly schisms exist not among heretics; 
because while they are, they are not vi 
sible. Schism is their very unity. I am 
a liar if they do not dissent from their 
own rules, while every man among them 
equally alters at his private judgment 
(suo arbitrio) what he has received, just 
as he who gave to them composed it at 
his private judgment. The progress of 
the thing is true to its nature and its 
origin. What was a right to Valenti- 
nus, was a right to Valentinians, what 



to Marcion was to the Marcionites, to 
innovate on the faith at their private 
judgment. As soon as any heresy is tho 
roughly examined, it is found in many 
points dissenting from its parent. Those 
parents for the most part have no 
Churches ; they roam about without 
Mother, without see, bereaved of the 
faith, without a country, without a 
home/ Tertull. Pra?scr. 42. At Seleu- 
cia Acacius said, " If the Nicene faith 
has been altered once and many times 
since, no reason why we should not 
dictate another faith new." Eleusius 
the Semi-arian answered, " This Coun 
cil is called, not to learn what it does 
not know, not to receive a faith which 
it does not possess, but walking in the 
faith of the Father," (meaning the Semi- 
arian Council of the Dedication, A.D. 
341. vid. infr. . 22.) "it swerves not 
from it in life or death." On this So 
crates (Hist. ii. 40.) observes, " How 
call you those who met at Antioch 
Fathers, O Eleusius, you who deny 
their Fathers? for those who met at 
Nicasa, and unanimously professed the 
Consubstantial, might more properly 
receive the name, &c. But if the 
Bishops at Antioch set at nought their 
own fathers, those who come after 
are blindly following parricides ; and 
how did they receive a valid ordination 
from them, whose faith they set at 
nought as reprobate ? But if those had 
not the Holy Ghost, which .cometh 
through laying on of hands, neither did 
these receive the priesthood ; for did 
they receive from those who have not 
wherewith to give ?" 

s bxiyoi rives, says Pope Julius, ap. 
A than. Apol. 34. eypatydi rives Trepl 
, says A than, ad Ep. ./Eg. 5. 



New Councils for new heresies. 81 

8. But the Councils which they have set in motion, what co- CHAP 

lourable pretext have they J ? If any new heresy has risen since \- 

the Arian, let them tell us the positions which it has devised, ^ jfj; 
and who are its inventors ? and in their own formula, let 
them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this Council of 
theirs, among which is the Arian, as the Nicene Fathers did, 

that it may be made appear that they too have some cogent 
reason for saying what is novel 2 . But if no such event has 2v id. 
happened, and they have it not to shew, but rather they infr - 
themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius s irreligion, and c. 
and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift their 
ground*, what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is 
sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which 
it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith ? 
For even the notorious Aetius, who was surnamed godless 3 , 3 v \$ m p . 
vaunts not of the discovering of any mania of his own, but 3 notef * 
under stress of weather has been wrecked upon Arianism, 
himself and the persons whom he has beguiled. Vainly then 
do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded 
Councils for the faith s-sake ; for divine Scripture is sufficient 
above all things ; but if a Council be needed on the point, 
there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene 
Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine 
so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot 
but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ 
announced in divine Scripture 4 . 4 yid 

9. Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in dif- 57. note 
ficulty whi ch ever way they turn , in spite of their pretences, they n Jg ^ 
have nothing left but to say; "Forasmuch as we contradict . 7. 

1 vid. de Deer. init. and . 4. and p. 2. sometimes with rash presumption, they 

note c. We shall have ahundant in- allow such things as seem uncertain, at 

stances of the Arian changes as this another time of pusillanimity they are in 

Treatise proceeds. u It happens to fear even about those things which are 

thee," says S. Hilary to Constantius, certain; doubtful which way to take, 

"as to unskilful builders, always to be which way to return, what to desire, 

dissatisfied with what thou hast done ; what to avoid, what to hold, what to let 

thou art ever destroying what thou art go, &c. Vincent. Comm. 20. " He 

ever building. 7 contr. Constant. 23. writes," says Athan. of Constantius, 

" O miserable state ! with what seas of "and while he writes repeats, and 

cares, with what storms, are they while he repeats is exasperated; and 

tossed ! for now at one time, as the then he grieves again, and not knowing 

wind driveth them, they are carried how to act, he shews how bereft the 

away headlong in error; at another soul is of understanding." Hist. Arian. 

time, coming again to themselves, they 70. vid. also ad Ep. JEg. 6. 
are beaten back like contrary waves ; 



82 Council of Ariminum. 

COUNC. our predecessors, and transgress the traditions of the Fathers, 
*s* th ere f re we h ave thought good that a Council should meet"; 
SELEU. but again, whereas we fear lest, should it meet at one place, 
our pains will be thrown away, therefore we have thought 
good that it be divided into two ; that so when we put forth 
our articles to these separate portions, we may overreach with 
more effect, with the threat of Constantius the patron of 
this irreligion, and may abrogate the acts of Nicsea, under 
pretence of their simplicity." If they have not put this into 
words, yet this is the meaning of their deeds and their dis 
turbances. Certainly, many and frequent as have been their 
speeches and writings in various Councils, never yet have 
1 infr. they made mention of the Arian heresy as unchristian 1 ; but, 
note b. an y p resent happened to accuse the heresies, they always 
took up the defence of the Arian, which the Nicene Council 
had anathematized ; nay, rather, they cordially welcomed the 
professors of Arianism. This then is in itself a strong argu 
ment, that the aim of the present Councils was not truth, but 
the annulling of the acts of Nicaea ; but the proceedings of 
them and their friends in the Councils themselves, make 
it equally clear that this was the case: So that it follows to 
relate every thing as it occurred. 

. 8. 10. When all were in expectation that they were to assemble 
in one place, whom the Emperor s letters convoked, and to form 
one Council, they were divided into two ; and, w r hile some 
betook themselves to Seleucia called the Rugged, the others 
met at Ariminum, to the number of those four hundred bishops 
and more, among whom were Germinius, Auxentius, Valens, 
Ursacius, Demophilus, and Caius x . And, while die whole 

u " The Emperor [Theodosius] had to the heresiarchs from the Emperor, 

a conversation with Nectarius, Bishop whether they made any sort of account 

[of Constantinople], in what way to of the doctors who belonged to the 

make Christendom concordant, and to Church before the division, or came to 

unite the Church. This made Necta- issue with them as aliens from Chris- 

rius anxious; but Sismnius, a man of tianity; for if they made their autho- 

ready speech and of practical expe- rity null, therefore let them venture to 

rience, and throughly versed in the in- anathematize them. But if they did 

terpretation of the sacred writings and venture, then they would he driven out 

in the doctrines of philosophy, having by the people." Socr. v. 10. 

a conviction that disputations would * There were two Arian Bishops of 

but aggravate the party spirit of the Milan of the name of Auxentius, but 

heresies instead of reconciling schisms, little is known of them besides. S. 

advises him to avoid dialectic engage- Hilary wrote against the elder; the 

ments, and to appeal to the statements other came into collision with S. Am- 

of the ancients, and to put the question brose. Demophilus, Bishop of Berea, 



Third Confession of Sirmium, Homcean in doctrine. 83 

assembly was discussing the matter from the divine Scrip- CHAP. 

tures, these men produced a paper, and, reading the Consu " 

late, they demanded that the whole Council should acquiesce 
in it, and that no questions should be put to the heretics 
beyond it, nor inquiry made into their meaning, but that it 
should be sufficient ; and it ran as follows y : 

11. The Catholic Faith was published in the presence of our vi " 
Sovereign the most religious and gloriously victorious Emperor, 
Constantius, Augustus, the eternal and majestic,, in the Con- jj rd g, r . 
sulate of the most illustrious Flavians, Eusebius, and Hypatius, in rnian. of 
Sirmium on the llth of the Calends of June 2 . 359. vid. 

We believe in one Only and True God, the Father Almighty, ? !?9. 
Creator and Framer of all things : 

And in one Only-begotten Son of God, who, before all ages, 
and before all origin, and before all conceivable time, and 
before all comprehensible substance, was begotten impassihly from 
God ; through whom the ages were disposed and all things were 
made; and Him begotten as the Only-begotten, Only from the 
Only Father, God from God, like to the Father who be^at Him, fywiov 
according to the Scriptures ; whose generation no one knowcth 
save the Father alone who begat Him. We know that He, the 
Only-begotten Son of God, at the Father s bidding came 
from the heavens for the abolishment of sin, and was born of the 
Virgin Mary, and conversed with the disciples, and fulfilled 
the economy according to the Father s will, and was crucified, 
and died and descended into the parts beneath the earth, and 
had the economy of things there, whom the gate-keepers of 
hell saw and shuddered ; and He rose from the dead the third 
day, and conversed with the disciples, and fulfilled the economy, 
and when the forty days were full ascended into the heavens, 
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is coming in the 
last day of the resurrection in the glory of the Father, to render 
to every one according to his works. 

And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten of God 
Himself, Jesus Christ, had promised to send to the race of men, 
the Paraclete., as it is written, "I go to the Father, and I will 
ask the Father, and fie shall send unto you another Paraclete, 
even the Spirit of Truth," He shall take of Mine and shall 
teach and bring to your remembrance all things. 

was one of those who carried the long drawn up at Sirmium. It was the corn- 
Confession into the West, though not position of Mark of Arethusa, yet it was 
mentioned by Athan. below. He was written in Latin; and though Mark was 
afterwards claimed by Aetius, as agree- a Semi-arian, it distinctly abandons the 
ing with him. Of Cams, an Iliyrian word substance. But this point of his- 
Bishop, nothing is known except that tory is involved in much obscurity. As 
he sided throughout with the Arian it stands it is a patchwork of two views, 
party. Jt will be observed, that it is the Creed 
y The Creed which follows had been on which Athanasius has been anim- 
prepared at Sirmium shortly before, and adverting above, 
is the third, or, as some think, the fourth, May 22, 359, Wbitsun-Eve. 

G 2 



84 Collision between the Latin Bishops and the Acacians. 

COUNO. But whereas the term "substance/ has been adopted by the 

A RIM. Fathers in simplicity, and gives offence as being misconceived 

S AN p D u ^7 tn e people, and is not contained in the Scriptures, it has 

seemed good to remove it, that it be never in any case used of God 

again, because the divine Scriptures no where use it of Father 

and Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all 

things, as all the Holy Scriptures say and teach a . 

. 9. 12. When this had been read, the dishonesty of its framers 
was soon apparent. For on the Bishops proposing that the 
Arian heresy should be anathematized together with the other 
heresies b , and all assenting, Ursacius and Valens and their 
friends refused; till in the event the Fathers condemned them, 
on the ground that their confession had been written, not in 
sincerity, but for the annulling of the Acts of Nicaea, and the 
introduction instead of their miserable heresy. Marvelling then 
at the deceitfulness of their language and their unprincipled 
intentions, the Bishops said; " Not as if in need of faith have 
we come hither ; for we have within us faith, and that in sound 
ness : but that we may put to shame those who gainsay the 
truth and attempt novelties. If then ye have drawn up this 
formula, as if now beginning to believe, ye are not so much as 
clerks, but are starting with school; but if you meet us with 
the same views, with which we have come hither, let there 
be a general unanimity, and let us anathematize the heresies, 
and preserve the teaching of the Fathers. Thus pleas for 
Councils will not longer circulate about, the Bishops at Nicaea 
having anticipated them once for all, and done all that was 
needful for the Catholic Church ." However, even then, in 



a This clause shews the presence and nasius ; then they held Councils to ex- 
influence of the Acacian party; but the plain the faith ; then they attacked the 
confession is raised towards the end by received terms of theology, and thereby 
the introduction of the phrase, u like in the Nicene Creed, professing to adhere 
a.l things," Kara iravra 6^.oiov, which to Scripture. At Seleucia, as described 
was added by Constantius himself, infra, they openly attacked the Creed. 
Epiph. Hser. 73. 22. and which in the But they did not dare avow the Arian 
minds of the more orthodox included heresy ; the first step then on the part 
* substance," vid. S. Cyril, Catech. iv. of the Catholics was to demand of them 
7. xi. 18. a sense, however, which is a condemnation of it. The Anomceans 
contradictory to what goes before. It perplexed the Eusebians by letting 
is impossible to go into this subject out the secret of their real Arian- 
without being involved in historical ism. 

difficulties, which there would be no c It need scarcely be said, that the 

room for discussing. great object of the Arians was to ob- 

b The Eusebian party began after tain a consideration of the doctrine 

the Nicene Council by attacking Atha- settled at Nicsea by a new Council. 



The Council condemns the Acacians and writes toCowtantius. 85 

spite of this general agreement of the Bishops, still the CHAP. 
above-mentioned refused. So at length the whole Council, 



condemning them as ignorant and deceitful men, or rather 
as heretics, gave their suffrages in behalf of the Nicene 
Council, and gave judgment all of them that it was enough ; 
but as to the forenamed Ursacius and Valens, Germanicus, 
Auxentius, Caius, and Demophilus, they pronounced them 
to be heretics, deposed them as not really Christians 1 , but J SU F- 
Arians, and wrote against them in Latin what has been note h. 
translated in its substance 2 into Greek, thus : 



13. Copy of an Epistle from the Council to Constantius, . 10. 
Augustus^ : 

" We believe it has been ordered by God s command, upon the 
mandate 6 of your religiousness, that we, the Bishops of the 
Western Provinces, came from all parts to Ariminum, for the 
manifestation of the Faith to all Catholic Churches and the 
detection of the heretics. For upon a discussion, in which we all 
took part who are right-minded, it was resolved to adhere to that 
faith which, enduring from antiquity we have ever received from 
Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles, from God Himself, and our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the upholder of your dominion, and the author of your 
welfare. For we deemed it to be a sin, to mutilate any work of the 
saints, and in particular of those who in the case of the Nicene for- 



This Athan. all through his works that the Council did publish a creed, 

strenuously resists. In the Letter which And, as has been alluded to in a former 

follows, the Council observes, that the note, p. 70. a remarkable confession, and 

Emperor had commanded " to treat of attributed to the Council, does exist, 

the faith," under which ambiguous Accordingly Athanasius, Eusebius of 

phrase the Arians attempted to " pro- Verce!lse,and the Council of Alexandria, 

pose," as they say, "something novel A. D. 362, protest against the idea. "It 

for their consideration." And so at is true that certain persons wished 

Sardica the Council writes to Pope to add to the Nicene Council as if there 

Julius, that the Emperors Con^tantius was something wanting, bat the Holy 

and Constans had proposed three sub- Council was displeased," &L-. Tom. ad 

jects for its consideration; first, "that Antioch. However, Vigilius of Thapsus 

all points in discussion should be de- repeats the report, contr. Eutych. v. 

bated afresh (<)e integro), and above all init. 

concerning the holy faith and the inte- d The same version of the Letter 

grityot the truth which [the Arians] had which follows is found in Socr. ii. 39. 

violated." Hil. Fragm.ii. 1 1. Enemiesof Soz. iv. 10. Theod. Hist. ii. 19. Niceph. 

the Arians seem to have wished this as i. 40. On comparison with the Latin 

well as themselves; and the Council got original, which is preserved by Hilary, 

into difficulty in cons quence. Hosius Fragm. viii. it appears to be so very 

the president and Protogenes Bishop of freely executed. t:iat it has been thought 

the place wrote to the Pope to explain, better here t-j translate it from the text 

"from fear," says Sozomen, " lest some of Hilary. 

might think that there was any inno\a- e Ex praecepto. Prereptam becomes 

tion upon the Nicene decrees." iii. 12. a technical word afterw aids for a royal 

From his way of stating the matter, deed, charter, or edict; and it has 

Sozomen seems to have himself believed somewhat of that meaning even here. 



8(j Letter of the Council of Ariminurn. 

COUNC. mulary, held session together with Constantine of glorious memory, 
ABIM. t h e Father of your religiousness. Which formulary was put abroad 
Si^rEu anc ^ g ame d entrance into the minds of the people, and being at 
that time drawn up against Arianism, is found to be such, that 
heresies are overthrown by it; from which, if aught were sub 
tracted, an opening is made to the poison of the heretics. 

Accordingly Ursacius and Valens formerly came into suspicion 
of the said Avian heresy, and were suspended from Communion, 
1 supr. and asked pardon according to their letters 1 , and obtained it then 
P* ^ 4 at the Council of Milan, in the presence of the legates of the Roman 
Church. And since Constantine was at the Nicene Council, when the 
formulary was drawn up with great deliberation, and after being 
baptized with the profession of it, departed to God s rest, we think 
it a crime to mutilate aught in it, and in any thing to detract 
from so many Saints, and Confessors, and Successors of Martyrs 
who drew it up ; considering that they in turn preserved all 
doctrine of the Catholics who were before them, according to the 
Scriptures, and thaj; they remained unto these times in which thy 
religiousness has received the charge of ruling the world from 
God the Father through our God and Lord Jesus Christ. For them, 
they were attempting to pull up what had been reasonably laid down. 
For, whereas the letters of your religiousness commanded to treat of 
the faith, there was proposed to us by the aforenamed troublers 
of the Churches, Germinius being associated with Auxentius f and 
Caius, something novel for our consideration, which contained 
many particulars of perverse doctrine. Accordingly, when they 
found that what they proposed publicly in the Council was un 
acceptable, they considered that they must draw up another 
statement. Indeed it is certain that they have often changed these 
formularies in a short time. And lest the Churches should have 
a recurrence of these disturbances, it seemed good to keep the 
ancient and reasonable institutions. For the information there 
fore of your clemency, we have instructed our legates to acquaint 
you of the judgment of the Council by our letter, to whom we 
have given this sole direction, not to execute the legation other 
wise than for the stability and permanence of the ancient decrees; 
that your wisdom also might know, that peace would not be 
accomplished by the removal of those decrees, as the aforesaid 
Valens and Ursacius, Germinius and Caius, engaged. On the 
contrary, troubles have in consequence been excited in all regions 
and the Roman Church. 

On this account we ask your clemency to regard and hear all 
our legates with favourable ears and a serene countenance, and 



f A uxentius, omitted in Hilary scopy, also was deposed, but he was an East- 
is inserted here, and in the Decree which era Bishop, if he be Demophilus of 
follows, from the Greek, since Atha- Berea. vid. Constant, on Hil. Fragm. 
nasius has thus given his sanction to the vii. p. 1342. Yet he is mentioned also 
factofhisbeingeondemnedatAriminum. by Athanasius as present, supra, . 9. 
Yet A uxentius appeals to Ariminum tri- A few words are wanting in the Latin 
umphantly. Hil. contr. Aux. fin. Socra- in the commencement of one of the 
tes, Hist. ii. 37. says, that Demophi us sentences which follow. 



Decree of the Council, 87 

not iu suffer aught to be abrogated to the dishonour of the CHAP. 

ancients; so that all things may continue which we have received L__ 

from our forefathers, who, as we trust, were prudent men, and 
acted not without the Holy Spirit of God; because by these 
novelties not only are faithful nations troubled, but the infidels also 
are deterred from believing. We pray also that you would give 
orders that so many Bishops, who are detained at Ariminum, among 
those are numbers who are broken with age and poverty, may 
return to their own country, lest the members of their Churches 
suffer, as being deprived of their Bishops. This, however, we 
ask with earnestness, that nothing be innovated, nothing with 
drawn ; but that all remain incorrupt which has continued in 
the times of the Father of your sacred piety and in your own 
religious days; and that your holy prudence will not permit us to 
be harassed, and torn from our sees; but that the Bishops may in 
quiet give themselves always to the prayers, which they do always 
offer for your own welfare and for your reign, and for peace, which 
may the Divinity bestow on you, according to your merits, profound 
and perpetual ! But our legates will bring the subscriptions and 
names of the Bishops or Legates, as another letter informs your 
holy and religious prudence. 

14. Decree of the Council^. .11. 

As far as it was fitting, dearest brethren, the Catholic Council 
has had patience, and has so often displayed the Church s for 
bearance towards Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, Caius, and 
Auxentius; who by so often changing what they had believed, 
have troubled all the Churches, and still are endeavouring to 
introduce their heretical spirit into Christian minds. For they 
wish to annul the formulary passed at Nicasa, which was framed 
against the Arian and other heresies. They have presented to us 
besides a creed drawn up by themselves, which we could not law 
fully receive. Even before this have they been pronounced 
heretics by us, and it has been confirmed by a long period, whom 
we have not admitted to our communion, but condemned them in 
their presence by our voices. Now then, what seems good to 
you, again declare, that it may be ratified by the subscription of 
each. 

All the Bishops answered, It seems good that the aforenamed 
heretics should be condemned, that the Church may remain in 
unshaken faith, which is truly Catholic, and in perpetual peace. 

15. Matters at Ariminum then had this speedy issue ; for 

8 This Decree is also here translated proposed, acknowledges in particular 
from the original in Hilary, who has both the word and the meaning of "sub- 
besides preserved the " Catholic Defi- stance:" u substantise nomen et rein, a 
nition" of the Council, in which it pro- multis sanctis Scripturis insinuatam 
fesses its adherence to the Creed of mentibus nostris, obtinere debere sui 
Nicsea, and in opposition to the Sir- firmitatem." Fragm. vii. 3. 
rnian Confession which the Arians had 



COUNC 

A R N T p 
SEI.EU 



88 Union of the Acacians at Seleucia with the Anomceans. 

. there was no disagreement there, but all of them with one 
accord both put into writing what they decided upon, and 
. deposed the Arians h . Meanwhile the transactions in Seleucia 
t ne Rugged were as follows: it was in the month called by the 
Romans September, by the Egyptians Thoth, and by the 
Macedonians Gorpiaeus 1 , and the day of the month according 
to the Egyptians the 16th, upon which all the members of the 
Council assembled together. And there were present about 
a hundred and sixty ; and whereas there were many who 
were accused among them, and their accusers were crying 
out against them, Acacius, and Patrophilus, and Uranius of 
Tyre, and Eudoxius, who usurped the Church of Antioch, 
and Leontius, and Theodotus, and Evagrius, and Theodulus, 
and George who has been driven from the whole world k , adopt 
an unprincipled course. Fearing the proofs which their ac 
cusers had to shew against them, they coalesced with the rest of 
the Arian party 1 , (who were mercenaries in the cause of irreligion 
as if for this purpose, and were ordained by Secundus who had 



h Athana&ius seems to have known 
no more of the proceedings at Arimi- 
num^ which perhaps were then in pro 
gress, when he wrote this Treatise ; 
their termination, as is well known, was 
very unhappy, " Ingemuit totus orbis," 
says St. Jerome, " et Arianum se esse 
miratusest."ad Luc-if. 19. A deputation 
of ten persons was sent from the Coun 
cil to Constantius, to which Valens op 
posed one of his own. Constantius pre 
tended the barbarian war, and delayed 
an answer till the beginning of October, 
the Council having opened in July. 
The Postscript to this Treatise con 
tained the news of this artifice and of 
the Council s distress in consequence, 
which Athanasius had just heard. He 
also seems to have inserted into his 
work, . 30 and 31, upon the receipt of 
the news of the mission of Valens to 
Constantinople, a mission which ended 
in the submission of the Catholic dele 
gacy. Upon this returning to Ariminum 
with the delegates and the Anan creed 
they had signed, (vid. infr. 30.) 
Valens, part!) by menaces and partly 
by sophistry, succeeded in procuring 
the subscriptions of the Council also to 
the same formula. 

Gorpiseus was the first month nf the 
Syro- Macedonia year among theGreeks, 
dating according to the era of the Sdeu- 



cidee. The Roman date of the meeting 
of the Council was the 27th of Septem 
ber. The original transactions at Ari- 
minum had at this time been finished 
as much as two months, and its 
deputies were waiting for Constantius 
in Constantinople. 

k There is little to observe of these 
Acacian Bishops in addition to what 
has been said of several of them, except 
that George is the Cappadocian, the 
notorious intruder into the see of S. 
Athanasius. The charges which lay 
against them were of various kinds. 
Socrates says that the Acacian party 
consisted in all of 34 ; others increase 
it by a few more. 

1 The Eusebian or Court party are 
here called Acacian, and were Anomffi- 
ans and Semi-arians alternately, or 
more properly as they may be called 
Homoaan or Scriptural; for Arians, 
Semi-arians, ard Anomceans, all used 
theological terms as well as the Catho 
lics. The Semi-arians numbered about 
100, the remaining dozen might be the 
Egyptian Bishops who were zealous 
supporters of the Catholic cause. How 
ever, there were besides a few Anomo3- 
ans or Arians, as Athan. calls them, 
with whom the Acacians now coa 
lesced. 



Semi-arian majority condemn them. 89 

been deposed by the great Council,) the Libyan Stephen, CHAP. 
and Seras, and Pollux, who were under accusation upon 
various charges, next Pancratius, and one Ptolemy a Mele- 
tian m . And they made a pretence of entering upon the 
question of faith, but it was clear" they were doing so 
from fear of their accusers ; and they took the part of 
the heresy, till at length they were left by themselves. For, 
whereas supporters of the Acacians lay under suspicion and 
were very few, but the others were the majority ; therefore 
the Acacians, acting with the boldness of desperation, 
altogether denied the Nicene formula, and censured the 
Council, while the others, who were the majority, accepted 
the whole proceedings of the Council, except that they com 
plained of the word " Consubstantial," as obscure and open 
to suspicion. When then time passed, and the accusers 
pressed, and the accused put in pleas, and thereby were led 
on further by their irreligion and blasphemed the Lord, there 
upon the majority of Bishops became indignant , and deposed 
Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius, Eudoxius, and George the 
contractor 1 , and others from Asia, Leontius, and Theodosius, 1 pork- 
Evagrius and Theodoret, and excommunicated Asterius, trTctor 
Eusebius, Augerus, Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelius, Eutychius, to tbe 
and Magnus. And this they did on their non-appearance, 



when summoned to defend themselves on charges which I! 7 ." 
numbers preferred against them, And they decreed that soArian. 
they should remain, until they made their defence and^* z vld * 

Orat .21. 
16. 

m The Meletian schismatics of Egypt arian Confession of the Dedication, 341. 

had formed an alliance with the Arians of which infr. . 22. Basil of Ancyra, 

from the first. Athan. imputes the the leading Semi-arian, was notpresent; 

alliance to ambition and avarice in the and he and Mark of Arethusa were both 

Meletians, and to zeal for their heresy parties to the Acacian third Sirmium 

in the Arians. Ad Ep. ^g. 22. vid. Confession, which had been proposed at 

also Hist. Arian. 78. After Sardica the Ariminum. George of Laodicea, how- 

Semi-arians attempted a coalition with ever, who was with him at the Council of 

the Donatists of Africa. Aug. contr. Ancyra in the foregoing year, acted as 

Cresc iii. 38. the leader of the Semi-arians. After 

n Acacius nad written to the Semi- this the Acacians drew up another 

arian Macedonius of Constantinople Confession, which Athan. has preserved, 

in favour of the Kara iravra 6fj.oiov, and infra, . 29. in which they persist in 

of the Son s being TTJS OUTTJS oforfas, and their rejection of all but Scripture 

this the Council was aware of. Soz. iv. terms, ihis the Semi-arian majority 

22. Acacius made answer that no one rejected, and proceeded to depose its 

ancient or modem was ever judged by authors. There is nothing to remark 

his writings. Socr. ii. 40. as regards ihe names of Arian Bishops 

They also confirmed the Semi- here introduced into the text. 




. 13 



1 supr. 
p. 80. 
note r. 

2 Trpoirl- 

VOVffl. 

infr. . 
16. fin. 



90 Contrast between Council of Ariminumin its first proceedings 

cleared themselves of the offences imputed to them. And 
after despatching the sentence pronounced against them to 
the diocese of each, they proceeded to Constantius, that most 
irreligious P Augustus, to report to him their proceedings, as 
they had been ordered. And this was the termination of the 
Council in Seleucia. 

1 6. Who then but must approve of the conscientious conduct 
of the Bishops at Ariminum ? who endured such labour of 
journey and perils of sea, that by a sacred and canonical 
resolution they might depose the Arians, and guard inviolate 
the definitions of the Fathers. For each of them deemed 
that, if they undid the acts of their predecessors, they were 
affording a pretext to their successors to undo what they 
themselves then were enacting 1 . And who but must condemn 
the fickleness of the party of Eiudoxius and Acacius, who 
sacrifice 2 the honour due to their own fathers to partizan- 



P Up to the year 356, Athanasius 
had treated Constantius as a member 
of the Church; but at that date the 
Eusebian or Court party abandoned the 
Semi-arians for the AnomcEans, George 
of Cappadocia was sent as Bishop to 
Alexandria, Athanasius was driven 
into the desert, St. Hilary and other 
Western Bishops were sent into banish 
ment, Hosius was persecuted into sign 
ing an Arian confession, and Pope 
"Liberius into communicating with the 
Arians. Upon this Athanasius chang 
ed his tone and considered that he had 
to deal with an Antichrist. We have 
seen above, note g, the language both 
of himself and others in consequence. 
In his Apol. contr. Arian. init. 
(A.D. 350.) ad Ep. JEg. 5. (356.) and 
his Apol. ad Constant, passim. (356.) he 
calls the Emperor most pious, reli 
gious, &c. At the end of the last-men 
tioned work, . 27. the news comes to 
him while in exile of the persecution of 
the "Western Bishops and the measures 
against himself. He still in the per 
oration calls Constantius, "blessed and 
divinely favoured Augustus, 7 and urges 
on him that he is a" Christian, ^iX^xpiff- 
TOS, Emperor." In the works which fol 
low, Apol. cle fuga, . 26. (357.) he calls 
him an heretic; and Hist. Arian. . 45, 
tfec. (358.) speaking of the treatment of 
Hosius, &c. he calls him " Ahab," 



" Belshazzar," " Saul," " Antichrist." 
The passage at the end of the Apol. 
contr. Arian. in which he speaks of the 
" much violence and tyrannical power 
of Constantius, is an addition of 
Athan. s at a later date, vid. Montfau- 
con s note on . 88. fin. This is worth 
mentioning, as it shews the unfairness 
of the following passage from Gibbon, 
ch. xxi. note 116. "As Athanasius 
dispersed secret invectives against Con 
stantius, see the Epistle to the monks," 
[i.e. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. A.D. 
358.] "at the same time that he 
assured him of his profound respect, we 
might distrust the professions of the 
Archbishop, torn. i. p. 677." [i. e. ap 
parently Apol. ad Const. A. D. 356.] 
Again in a later part of the chapter, 
" In his public Apologies, which he 
addressed to the Emperor himself, he 
sometimes affected the praise of modera 
tion ; whilst at the same time in secret 
and vehement invectives he exposed 
Constantius as a weak and wicked 
prince, the executioner of his family, 
the tyrant of the republic, and the Anti 
christ of the Church." He offers no 
proof of this assertion. It may be added 
that S. Greg. Naz. praises Constantius, 
but it is in contrast to Julian. Orat. iv. 
3. v. 6. And S. Ambrose, but it is for 
his enmity to paganism. Ep. i. 18. 
n. 32. 



and the Acacians. 



91 



ship and patronage of the Ario-maniacs q ? for what confidence CHAP. 
can be placed in their acts, if the acts of their fathers be * 
undone ? or how call they them fathers and themselves suc 
cessors, if they set about impeaching their judgment ? and 
especially what can Acacius say of his own master, Eusebius, 
who not only gave his subscription in the Nicene Council, 
but even in a letter 1 signified to his flock, that that was true 1 vid. 
faith, which the Council had declared ? for, if he explained p e 



q " The dumb ass forbade the mad 
ness of the prophet," napafypovia.v. On 
the word Apeio/uayiTcu, Gibbon observes, 
" The ordinary appellation with which 
Athanasius and his followers chose to 
compliment the Arians, was that of 
Ariomanites," ch. xxi. note 61. Rather, 
the name originally was a state title, 
injoined by Constanrine, vid. Petav. 
de Trin. i* 8. fin. Naz. Orat. p. 794. 
note e. and thenceforth used by the 
general Church, e. g. Eustathius of 
Antioch, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. Con 
stant, ap. Concil. t. i. p. 456. b. Hilar. 
de Trin. vi. Julius ap. Athan. Apol. 
23. Council of Egypt, ibid. 6. Phse- 
badius, contr. Arian. circ. fin. Epiph. 
Hser. 69. 19. (6 paviuS-ns Apeios.) Greg. 
Naz. Orat. ii. 37. T^V Apeiov /caAws 
ovofj.affGe io ai naviav. and so 6 rrjs ftavias 
fTTwvv/jios. Orat. 43. 30. vid. also Orat. 
20. 5. and so Prcclus, r^v Apetov /j.aviaj . 
ad Armen. p. 618 fin. And Athan. e. g. 
(j.aviav SmjSoAou. ad Scrap, i. 1. also 
ad Scrap, i. 17 fin. 19 init. 20. d. 24. 
e. 29. e. ii. 1 fin. i?. 5 init. 6 fin. 15 
fin. 16 fin. In some of these the denial 
of the divinity of the Holy Ghost is 
the madness. In like manner Hilary 
speaks continually of their furor." 
de Trin. e. g. i. 17. Several meanings 
are implied in this title ; the real rea 
son for it was the fanatical fury with 
which it spread and maintained itself; 
e. g. 6 /iOfurbs epaoT^s rov xpiffrov, en 
thusiastic. Chrysost. in Esai. vi. 1. Horn, 
iv. 3. p. 124. Thus Athan. contrasts 
the Arian hatred of the truth, with the 
mere worldliness of the Meletians, supr. 
p. 89. note m. Hence they are dcre/3eTs, 
Xptcrr6iJ.axoL, and governed by Ka,K6voia 
and KaKo<ppo<r6vri. Again, Socrates 
speaks of it as a flame which ra 
vaged, 67Tz/e/xeTo, provinces and cities, 
i. 6. And Alexander cries out, & avoaiov 
rvcpov Kal djuerpou ^uai/i as. Theod. Hist.i. 
3. p. 74 1 . vid. also pp. 735, 6. 747. And 



we read much of their eager spirit of 
proselytism. Theod. ibid. The ori 
ginal word mania best expresses it in 
English. Their cruelty came into 
this idea of their "mania;" hence 
Athan. in one place calls the Arian 
women, in the tumult under George 
of Cappadocia, Mcenades. " They 
running up and down like Baccha 
nals and furies, (j.aivd$s Kal cpivwes, 
thought it a misfortune not to find 
opportunity for injury, and passed that 
day in grief in which they could do no 
harm." Hist. Arian. 59. Also"pro- 
fana Ariorum novitas velut qusedam 
Bellonaaut Furia." Vincent. Common. 
6. Eustathius speaks of ot Trapd5ooi TTJS 
dpeiou dv(j.e\r)s /ieo^opot. ap. Phot. 225. 
p. 759. And hence the strange parono 
masia of Constantine, Apes, pete, with 
an allusion to Horn. 11. v. 3] . A second 
reason, orrather sense, of the appellation 
was what is noted, supr. p. 2. note e. 
that, denying the "Word, they have for 
feited the gift of reason, e. g. ruv 
Apfio/j-aviTutv TTjj a\oyiav. de Sent. 
Dion. init. vid. ibid. 24. fin. Orat. ii. . 
32. c. iii. . 63. throughout. Hence in 
like manner Athan. speaks oftheheathen 
as mad who did uot ack nowledge God and 
His Word, contr. Gent. fin. also 23. fin. 
Hence he speaks of tlSw\ofJUtvia. contr. 
Gent. 10. and 21 fin. Again, Incarn. 
47. he speaks of the mania of oracles, 
which belongs rather to the former 
sense of the word. Other heresies had 
the word mania applied to them, e. g. 
that of Valentinus Athan. Orat. ii. . 
70- Kav [jiaivfJTaL. Epiphanius speaks 
of the e/j./j.aviis 8i8a<r/caA/a of the Noe- 
tians. Hser. 57. 2. Nazianzen con 
trasts the sickness, v6ffos, of Sabellius 
with the madness of Arius ; Orat. 20. 
5. but Athan. says, pait>Tai /JLev"Apeios, 
fj-aiverai Se SajSe AAios, Orat. iv. 25. 
But this note might be prolonged in 
definitely. 



92 Impiety of the Arians towards the Fathers. 

Co UNO. himself in that letter in his own way r , yet he did not contradict 

A ^ND tne Council s terms, but even charged it upon the Arians, 

SELEU. that, their position that the Son was not before His gene 

ration, was not even consistent with His being before Mary. 

What then will they proceed to teach the people who are 

under their teaching ? that the Fathers erred ? and how are 

they themselves to be trusted by those, whom they teach to 

disobey their Teachers ? and with what faces too will they look 

upon the sepulchres of the Fathers whom they now name 

heretics ? And why do they defame the Valentinians. Phrygians, 

and Manichees, yet give the name of saint to those whom 

they themselves suspect of making parallel statements ? or 

how can they any longer be Bishops, if they were ordained 

i p. 80. by persons whom they accuse of heresy 1 ? But if their senti- 

iTsV men ts were wrong and their writings seduced the world, then 

note u. let their memory perish altogether; when, however, you cast 

out their books, go and cast out their relics too from the 

cemeteries, so that one and all may know that they are se- 

. 14. ducers, and that you are parricides. The blessed Apostle 

11^ a PP roves f the Corinthians because, he says, ye remember 

me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them 

to you; but they, as entertaining such views of their prede 

cessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their 

flocks : " We praise you not for remembering your fathers, 

but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their 

traditions." And let them go on to cast a slur on their own 

ignoble birth, and say, " We are sprang not of religious 

men but of heretics." For such language, as I said before, 

*irpoiri- is consistent in those who barter 2 their Father s fame and 

Deer! e tiie i r own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of 

k- 4 -^ the divine proverb, There is a generation that curseth their 

so, n. father, and the threat lying in the Law against such. 

1 7. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate 
temper ; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their 
audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, 
whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one 
and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant 
changes. And, as quarrelling with the Council of NicEea, they 



o>j 



. vid. also de Tecr. . 3. as T}Q4\T}<Tav. ad Ep. J^g. 5. 



Their Variations. 93 

have held many Councils themselves, and have published a CHAP. 
faith in each of them, and have stood to none 1 , nay, they will { ^ E 
never do otherwise, for perversely seeking, they will never JEg. 6. 
find that Wisdom which they hate. I have accordingly 
subjoined portions both of Anus s writings and of whatever 
else I could collect, of their publications in different Councils; 
whereby you will learn to your surprise with what object 
they stand out against an Ecumenical 2 Council and their 2 supr. 
own Fathers without blushing. P j* e ^ 



CHAP. II. 

HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS. 

Arius s own entiments; 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 of 
Antioch; second, Lucian s on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius ; 
fourth, sent to Constans in Gaul ; fifth, the Macrostiche sent into Italy ; 
sixth, at Sirmium ; seventh, at the same place ; and eighth also, as 
given above in Chapter i; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; 
eleventh, at Antioch. 

COUNC, 1 . ARIUS and his friends thought and professed thus : " God 
ARIM> made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son;" "The 



AND 



SELEU. Word of God is one of the creatures ;" and " Once He was 
not;" and "He is alterable; capable, when it is His will, of 
altering." Accordingly they were expelled from the Church 
. 15. by Alexander of blessed memory. However, after his ex 
pulsion, when he was with the Eusebians, he drew up his 
1 is eV heresy upon paper, and imitating, as if in festivity 1 , no 
0aAt/< ? grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone 
of his metre a , he writes at great length, for instance as 
follows : 

2. Blasphemies of Arius. 

God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men. 
Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory. 

a Again, Orat. i. . 25. he calls sius should say the Egyptian Sotades, 

him the Sotadean Arius ; and speaks of and again in Sent. D. 6. There were 

the "dissolute manners," and "the two Poets of the name; one a writer of 

effeminate tone," and the "jests" of the Middle Comedy, Athen. Deipn. vii. 

the Thalia ; a poem which, he says 1 1 ; but the other, who is here spoken 

shortly before, " is not even found of, was a native of Maronea in Crete, 

among the more respectable Greeks, according to Suidas, (in voe.) under 

but among those only who sing songs the successors of Alexander, Athen. 

over their wine, with noise and re- xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre, 

vel. vid. also de Sent. D. 6. Con- which was of infamous name from the 

stan<ine also after the "Apes "Apeie, subjects to which he and others applied 

proceeds, eTTio-xeV&jSe 0-6^70 w A^poSi- it. vid. Suid. ibid. Some read " feota- 

rt]s 6/uA.ia. Epiph. Haer. 69. 9 fin. dicos" for " Socraticos," Juv. Satir. 

Sociates too says that ! the character ii. 10. vid. also Martial Ep. ii. 86. 

of the book was gross and dissolute." The characteristic of the metre was the 

Hist. i. 9. The Arian Philostorgius recurrence of the same cadence, which 

tells us that " Arius wrote songs for the virtually destroyed the division into 

sea and for the mill and for the road, verses, Turneb. in Quinct. i. 8. and 

and then set them to suitable music," thus gave the composition that lax 

Hist. ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athana- and slovenly air to which Athanasius 



Arius s Thalia. 



95 



And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate CHAP. 

by nature. ** 

We praise Him as Unoriginate because of Him who has an origin. 
And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time 

has come to be. 

The Unoriginate made the Son an origin of things generated ; 
And advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption. 
He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence. 
For He is not equal, no, nor one in substance b with Him. 
Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom c . 
There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings, 
Both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son He is 

invisible. 

I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible ; 
By that power by which God sees, and in His own measure, 
The Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful. 
Thus there is a Three, not in equal glories. 
Not intermingling with each other 11 are their subsistences. 
One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. 
Foreign from the Son in substance is the Father, for He is 

Unoriginate. 



allude?. Horace s Ode, " Miserarum 
est nee amori, &c." is a specimen of this 
metre, and some have called it Sotadic; 
but Bentley shews in loc. that Sotades 
wrote in the Ionic a majore, and that 
his verse had somewhat more of system 
than is found in the Ode of Horace. 
Athenrcus implies that all Ionic metres 
were called Sotadic, or that Sotades 
wrote in various Ionic metres. The 
Church adopted the Doric music, and 
forbade the Ionic and Lydian. The 
name "Thalia" commonly belonged to 
convivial songs; Martial contrasts the 
"lasciva Thalia" with "cavnrna sanc- 
tiora," Epigr. vii. 17. vid. Thaliarchus, 
" the master of the feast," Horat. Od. 
i. 9. If one were to attempt to form 
a judgment on the nature of Arius s 
proceeding, it would be this; that he 
attempted to popularize his heresy by 
introducing it into the common employ 
ments and recreations of life, and having 
no reverence, he fell into the error of 
modern religionists, who, with a better 
creed, sing spiritual songs at table, and 
use in their chapels glees and opera 
airs. This would be more offensive of 
old even than now, in proportion to the 
keener sensibilities ot the South and the 
more definite ideas which music seems 



to have conveyed to their minds ; and 
more especially in a case where the 
metre Arius employed had obtained so 
shocking a reputation, and was asso 
ciated in the minds of Christians with 
the deeds of darkness, in the midst of 
which in those heathen times the Church 
lived and witnessed. 

b This passage ought to have been 
added to note t, p. 35. supr. as contain 
ing a more direct denial of the bp.oovtnov ; 
so incorrect is Gibbon s assertion, that 
on Eusebius s "ingenuously confessing 
that it was incompatible with the prin 
ciples of their theological system, the 
fortunate opportunity was eagerly em 
braced by the Bishops, as if they were 
bent at all hazards, and without re 
ference to the real and substantial agree 
ment or disagreement of themselves and 
the Arians, to find some word which 
might accidentally serve to exclude 
the latter from communion. 

c That is, Wisdom, or the Son, ia 
but the disciple of Him who is "Wise, 
and not the attribute by which He is 
"Wise, which is what the Sabellians 
said, vid, Orat. iv. . 2. and what Arius 
imputed to the Church. 

d cb/e7njiuKTo}, that is, he denied the 
, vid. infra, Orat. iii. 3, &c. 



96 



Ar mss Thalia. 




Understand that the One was ; but the Two was not, before 

it was in existence. 

It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God. 
Hence the Son, not being, (for He existed at the will of the Father,) 
Is God Only-begotten, and He is alien from either. 
Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. 
Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions 6 . 
Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God s glory, Truth, Image, and Word. 
Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light. 
One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to generate. 
But more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able. 
At God s will the Son is what and whatsoever He is. 
And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted 

from God. 

He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior. 
To speak in brief, God is ineffable by His Son. 
For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable. 
So that nothing which is called comprehensible f 
Does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him 
To investigate the Father, who is by Himself. 
For the Son does not know His own substance, 
For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father. 
What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father 
Should know His own parent by comprehension ? 
For it is plain that, for That which hath origin 
To conceive how the Unoriginate is, 
Or to grasp the idea, is not possible. 

. 16. 3- And what they wrote by letter to Alexander of blessed 
memory, the Bishop, runs as follows : 

To Our Blessed Pope g and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters 
and Deacons, send health in the Lord. 

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from 



TTivolais, that is, our Lord s titles 
are but names, or figures, not properly 
belonging to Him but only existing in 
our minds. 

f Kara KardA^iv, that is, there is 
nothing comprehensible in the Father 
for the Son to know and declare. On 
the other hand the doctrine of the Ano- 
mceans, who in most points agreed with 
Arius, was, that all men could know 
Almighty God perfectly; according to 
Socrates, who says, u Not to seem to be 



slandering, listen to Eunomius himself, 
what words he dares to use in sophistry 
concerning God; they run thus: God 
knows not of His substance more than 
we do ; nor is it known to Him more, to 
us less ; but whatsoever we may know of 
it, that He too knows; and what again 
He, that you will find without any 
distinction in us. " Hist. iv. 7. 

8 Alexander is also so called, Theod. 
Hist. i. 4. p. 749. Athanasius, Hieron. 
conlr. Joan. 4. Heraclas, also of Alex- 



Anus s letter to Alexander. 97 

thee, Blessed Pope, is this: We acknowledge One God, alone CHAP. 
Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unoriginate, alone True, 
alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; 
Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchange 
able, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament; 
who generated an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through 
whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and generated 
Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him 
subsist at His own will unalterable and unchangeable; perfect 
creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ; offspring, but 
not as one of things generated; nor as Valentinus pronounced that 
the offspring of the Father was an issue 11 ; nor as Manichaeus 
taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in sub 
stance ; or as Sabellius, dividing the One, speaks of a Son-and- 
Father k ; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp 
divided into two 1 ; nor of Him who was before, being afterwards 
generated or new-created into a Son m , as thou too thyself, Blessed 



andria, by Dionysius apuci Euseb. Hist. 
vii. 7. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Hieron. 
Ep. 57, 2. John of Jerusalem, Hier. 
contr. Joan. 4. Cyprian of Carthage, 
Ep. ap. Cypr. 31. Augustine of Hippo, 
Hier. Ep. 141 init. Lupus, Pragmatius, 
Leontius, Theoplastus,Eutropius, c. of 
Gaul, by Sidon. Apoll. Ep. vi. Eutyches, 
Archimandrite, Abraham Abbot, are 
called by the same name, in the Acts of 
Chalcedon. 

h What the ValentiniatiTrpo^oA^ was, 
is described in Epiph. Hs>r. 31,13. The 
^Eons, wishing to shew thankfulness to 
God,contributedtogether(e pai t(ra / iuVoys) 
whatever was most beautiful of each of 
them, and moulding these several ex 
cellencies into one, formed this Issue, 
irpo&a\(r9a.i Trp6f3\ri/J.a, to the honour and 
glory of the Profound, ftvOos, and they 
called this star and flower of the Ple- 
roma, Jesus, &c. And so Tertullian 
" a joint contribution, ex acrecollatitio, 
to the honour and glory of the Father, 
ex omnium defloratione constructum," 
contr. Valent. 12. Accordingly Origen 
protests against the notion of Trpo/SoAr/, 
Periaich.iv.p. 190. and Athanasius Ex- 
pos.. l.TheArian Asteritis too considers 
jrpo&o\r) to introduce the notion of re/c- 
voyovla, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. 
vid. also Epiph. Haer. 72.7. YetEusebius 
uses the word 7rpo/3aAAe<r0ai. Eccles. 
Theol. i. 8. On the other hand Tertullian 
uses it with a protest against the Valen- 
tinian sense. Justin has 



Tryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls 
the Almighty Father TrpojSoAeus of the 
Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius intro 
duces the word here as an argumentum 
ad inviciiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9. 



The Manichees adopting a material 
notion of the divine substance, con 
sidered that it was divisible, and that a 
portion of it was absorbed by the power 
ot darkness, vid. Appendix to Transla 
tion of St. Augustine s Confessions, ii. 

k vloirarSpa, This word is made the 
symbol of the Noetians or Sabellians by 
both Catholics and Arians, as if their 
doctrine involved or avowed Patripas- 
s-ianism, or that the Father suffered. 
"Without entering upon the controversy 
raised by Beausobre, (Hist. JY1 anich. iii. 
6. . 7, &c.) Mosheim, (Ant. Constant, 
ssec. ii. . 68. iii. 32.) and Lardntr, 
(Cred. part ii. ch. 41.) on the subject, 
we may refer to the following passages 
for the use of the term. It is ascribed to 
Sabellius, Amrnon. in Caten. Joan. i. 
1. p. 14. to Sabellius and Marcellus, 
Euseb. Ecc.1. Theol. ii. 5. to Marcel 
lus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9. also iv. 
8.xi. 16. Epiph. Hser. 73. II fin. to 
Sabellians, Arhan. Expos. F. 2. and 7 
Can . Constan t. and G reg. N y ssen. contr. 
Eun. xii. p. 733. to certain heretics, 
Cyril Alex, in Joann. p. 243. to Prax- 
eas and Montanus. Mar. Merc, p J28. 
to Sabellius, Caesar. Dial. i. p. 550. to 
Noetus, Damasc. Hzer. 57. 

1 Hieracas was a Manichaean. He 
compared the Two Divine Persons to 
the two lights of one lamp, where the 
oil is common and the flame double, 
thus implying a substance distinct from 
Father and Son, or to a flame divided 
into two by (for instance) the papyrus 
which was commonly used instead of a 
wick. vid. Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12. 

m Bull considers that the doctrine of 
suchFathers is herespoken of as held that 



98 Arius s letter to Alexander. 

COUNC. Pope, in the midst of the Church and in Session hast often con- 

ARIM. demned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times 

^ AND an( j b e f ore ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who 

^ LEU gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the 

Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, 

deprive Himself, of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for 

He is the Fountain of all things. 

Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause 

of all things, is Unoriginate and altogether Sole, but the Son being 

generated apart from time by the Father, and being created and 

founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being 

generated apart from time before all things, alone was made to 

subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co- 

ingenerate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the 

Father, as some speak of relations", introducing two ingenerate 

origins, but God is before all things as being a One and an 

Origin of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son ; as we have 

Rom. learned also from Thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So 

11, 30. f ar then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all 

Ps. 110, things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. 

For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But 

John if the terms/row Him, and from the womb, and I came forth from 

16, 28. fj ie Father, and I am come 1 , be understood by some to mean as if a 

and so P art ^ ^ m one m substance, or as an issue, then the Father is 

Chrys. according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and 

Horn. 3. material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of 

Hebr. a body, who is the Incorporeal God. 

init. 

Her. 73. This is a part of what the Arians cast out from their 
31. and heretical hearts. 
. 17. 4. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar state- 

our Lord s (rvyKardlBaa-is to create the Himself became the Son when He was 

world was a yew-riffis, and certainly such made man." It makes it more likely 

language as that of Hippol. contr. that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius 

Noet. . 15. favours the supposition, seems to have written against him before 

But one class of the Sabellians may the Nicene Council, and that Arius 

more probably be intended, who held in other of his writings borrowed from 

that the Word became the Son on His Asterius. vid. de Decret. . 8. 

incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. n Eusebius s letter to Euphration, 

Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Marc, which is mentioned just after, expresses 

ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9. this more distinctly "If they co-exist, 

p. 114. b. ^778 SAAore &AATJI/ K. r. A. how shall the Father be Father and the 

Also the Macrostich says, " We ana- Son Son? or how the One first, the Other 

thematize those who call Him the second ? and the One ingenerate and 

mere Word of God, not allowing the Other generate?" Acta Cone. 7. 

Him to be Christ and Son of God before p. 301. The phrase TCI trp6s TL Bull well 

all ages, but from the time He took on explains to refer to the Catholic truth 

Him our flesh; such are the followers that the Father or Son being named, 

of Marcellus and Photinus, &c." infra, the Other is therein implied witho ut 

.26. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15. naming. Defens. F. N. iii. 9. . 4. 

says that, of those who divide the Word Hence Arius, in his Letter to Euse- 

from the Son, some called our Lord s bius, complains that Alexander says, 

manhood the Son, some the two Natures aei 6 0e&s, aei 6 v!6s fyia tarty, a/* vMs. 

together, and some said "that the Word Theod. Hist. i. 4. 



Arian statements of the two Eusebii, Athanasius and George. 99 



ments were made by Eusebius s party, Narcissus, Patrophilus, CHAP, 
Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of Nazarbi . 1^- 
And Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote over and above to Arius, 
to this effect, " Since your sentiments are good, pray that all 
may adopt them ; for 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." And Eusebius of Csesarea in 
Palestine, in a letter to Euphration the Bishop, did not 
scruple to say plainly that Christ was not true God p . And 
Athanasius of Nazarbi uncloked the heresy still further, 
saying that the Son of God was one of the hundred sheep. 
For writing to Alexander the Bishop, he had the extreme 
audacity to say: "Why complain of the Arians, for saying, 
The Son of God is made as a creature out of nothing, and 
one among others ? For all that are made being represented 
in parable by the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. 
If then the hundred are not created and generated, or if there 
be beings beside that hundred, then may the Son be not a 
creature nor one among others ; but if those hundred are all 
generate, and there is nothing besides the hundred save God 
alone, what extravagance do the Arians utter, when, as com 
prehending and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say 
that He is one among others ?" And George who now is in 
Laodicea, and then was presbyter of Alexandria, and was 
staying at Antioch, wrote to Alexander the Bishop ; " Do 
not complain of the Arians, for saying, f Once the Son of 
God was not, for Esaias came to be son of Amos, and, whereas 
Amos was before Esaias came to be, Esaias was not before, 
but came to be afterwards." And he wrote to the Arians, 
" Why complain of Alexander the Pope , saying, that the Son p. 9G, 
is from the Father ? for you too need not fear to say that the no 
Son was from God. For if the Apostle wrote, All things are 1 Cor. 

Most of these original Arians were for nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fa- 
attacked in awork of Marcellus s which thers, being satisfied with no one but 
Eusebius answers. "Now he replies to himself." contr. Marc. i. 4. There is 
Asterius," says Eusebius, " now to the little to be said of Maris and Theodotus. 
great Eusebius," [of Nicomedia,] " and Nazarbi is more commonly called Ana- 
then he turns upon that man of God, zarbus, and is in Cilicia. 
that indeed thrice blessed person Pau- P This is quoted, among other passages 
linus, [of Tyre.] Then he goes to war with from Eusebius, in the 7th General Coun- 
Origen.. . Nexthemarchesout against cil, Act. 6. p. 409. " The Son Himself 
Narcissus, and pursues the other Eu- is God, but not Very God." 
sebius," himself. " In a word, he counts 

H 2 



100 Arian statements of Asterius. 



God, and it is plain that all things are made of nothing, 
though the Son too is a creature and one of things made, 

o c* 

SEI.EU. s till He may be said to be from God in that sense in which 
all things are said to be from God." From him then the 

O 

Arian s learned to pretend to the phrase from God, and to use 
it indeed, but not in a good meaning. And George himself 
was deposed by Alexander for certain reasons, and among 
them for manifest irreligion ; for he was himself a presbyter, 
as has been said before. 

. 18. 5. On the whole then such were their statements, as if they 
all were in dispute and rivalry with each other, which should 
make the heresy more irreligious, and display it in a more 
naked form. And as for their letters I have them not at hand, 
to dispatch them to you ; else I would have sent you copies ; 
but, if the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get possession 
of them. And one Asterius^ from Cappadocia, a many -headed 
Sophist, one of the Eusebians, whom they could not advance 
into the Clergy, as having done sacrifice in the former persecu 
tion in the time of Constantius s grandfather, writes, with the 
countenance of the Eusebians, a small treatise, which was on 
a par with the crime of his sacrifice, yet answered their 
wishes ; for in it, after comparing, or rather preferring, the 
locust and the caterpillar to Christ, and saying that Wisdom 
in God was other than Christ, and was the Framer as well of 
Christ as of the world, he went round the Churches in Syria 
and elsewhere, with introductions from the Eusebians, that 
as he once had been at pains to deny the truth, so now he 

<1 Asterius has been mentioned above, mighty. also vid.Orat.ii. 24. cf.Demonstr. 

p. 13. note b. Philostorgius speaks of iv.4. Eccl. Theol.i.8.13. Prsep. vii.]5. 

him as adopting Semi-arian terms ; and but especially Eusebius s avowal, " not 

Acacius gives an extract from him con- that the Father was not able, did He 

taining them. ap. Epiph. Ha?r. 72. 6. beget the Son; but because those things 

and doubtless both he (to judge by his which were made w^re not able to sus- 

fragments) and Eusebius write with tain the power of the Ingenerate, there- 

much less of revolting impiety than fore speaks He through a Mediator. 

others of their party. Thus in one of contr. Sabell. i. p. 9. At the same 

the extracts made in the text he dis- time if he is so to be considered, 

tinguisb.es after the manner of the Semi- it is an additional proof that the 

arians between the yei/j/TjTt/d? and the Semi-arians of 325 were far less Ca- 

8ri/j.iovpyiK^ Svi^a/j-ts. Again, the illus- tholic than those of 359. He seems 

tration of the Sun in another much to be called many-headed with an 

resembles Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 5. So allusion to the Hydra, and to his 

does his doctrine, supr. de Deer. . 8. activity in the Arian cause and his 

that the Son was generated to create fertility in writing. He wrote corn- 

other beings, and that, because they ments on Scripture. 
could not bear the hand of the Al- 



Arian statements of Aster ius. 101 

might make free with it. The bold man intruded himself CHAP. 
into forbidden places, and seating himself in the place of- 
Clerks, he used to read publicly this treatise of his, in spite 
of the general indignation. The treatise is written at great 
length, but portions of it are as follows : 

" For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, 
that is, God s, proper Power or Wisdom/ " but without the 
article, God s Power and Gods Wisdom, preaching that the 1 Cor. 
proper power of God Himself was distinct, which was connatural J > 24 - 
and co-existent with Him ingenerately, generative indeed of 
Christ, creative of the whole world ; concerning which he teaches 



in his Epistle to the Romans, thus, The invisible things of HimB-om. 1, 
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by 2 * 
the things which are made, even His eternal power and f/odhead. 
For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was 
Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as 1 think, His eternal 
power is also not the Only-begotten God, but the Father who 
begat Him. And he tells us of another Power and Wisdom of 
God, namely, that which is manifested through Christ, and made 
known through the works themselves of His Ministry. 

And again : 

Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which truth argues 
to be Unoriginate and Ingenerate, would appear certainly to be one 
and the same, yet many are those powers which are one by one 
created by Him, of which Christ is the First-born and Only- 
begotten. All however equally depend upon their Possessor, and 
all His powers are rightly called His, who has created and uses 
them; for instance, the Prophet says that the locust, which became 
a divine punishment of human sin, was called by God Him 
self, not only the power of God, but the great power. And 
the blessed David too in most of the Psalms, invites, not Angels 
alone, but Powers also to praise God. And while he invites them 
all to the hymn, He presents before us their multitude, and is not 
unwilling to call them ministers of God, and teaches them to do 
His will. 

6. These bold words against the Saviour did not content . 19. 
him, but he went further in his blasphemies, as follows : 

The Son is one among others ; for He is first of things gene 
rated, and one among intellectual natures; and as in things visible 
the sun is one among what is apparent, and it shines upon the 

r None but the Clergy might enter orders, lepariKol, to enter the Chancel 

the Chancel, i. e. in Service time, and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. 

Hence Theodosius was made to retire also 44. Cone. t. 1. p. 788, 789. It is 

by St. Ambrose. Theod. v. 17. The doubtful what orders, the word lepariKol 

Council of Laodicea, said to be held is intended to include, vid. BingLam 

A.D. 372, forbids any but persons in Antiqu. viii. 6. . 7. 



1 



102 Arian statements of Asterius. 

COUNC. whole world according to the command of its Maker, so the Son, 
A RIM. being one O f the intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines 
u P on a ^ tnat are i tne intellectual world. 

And again he says, Once He was not, writing thus : " And 
before the Son s generation, the Father had pre-existing 
knowledge how to generate ; since a physician too, before he 
p- 65, cured, had the science of curing V And he says again : " The 
Son was created by God s beneficent earnestness ; and the 
Father made Him by the superabundance of His Power." And 
again : "If the will of God has pervaded all the works in 
succession, certainly the Son too, being a work, has at His 
will come to be and been made." Now though Asterius was 
the only person to write all this, the Eusebians felt the like 
in common with him. 

20. 7. These are the doctrines for which they are contending ; 
for these they assail the Ancient Council, because its members 
did not propound the like, but anathematized the Arian 
heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend. On 
this account they put forward, as an advocate of their irreli- 
gion, Asterius who sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might 
not spare to speak against the Lord, or by a shew of reason 
to mislead the simple. And they were ignorant, the shallow 
men, that they were doing harm to their own cause. For the 
ill savour of their advocate s idolatrous sacrifice, betrayed 
still more plainly that the heresy is Christ s foe. And now 
again, the general agitations and troubles which they are 
exciting, are in consequence of their belief, that by their 
numerous murders and their monthly Councils, at length 
they will undo the sentence which has been passed against 
1 the Arian heresy 2 . But here too they seem ignorant, or to 
. 32. pretend ignorance, that even before Nicaea that heresy was 
held in detestation, when Artemas 8 was laying its foundations, 
and before him Caiaphas s assembly and that of the Phari 
sees his contemporaries. And at all times is this school of 
Christ s foes detestable, and will not cease to be hateful, 

* Artemas or Artemon was one of now be called CJnitarianism, or that our 

the chiefs of a school of heresy at Lord was a mere mau. Artemas seems 

Rome at the end of the second cen- to have been more known in the East ; 

tury. Theodotus was another, and the at least is more frequently mentioned in 

more eminent. They founded separate controversy with the Arians, e. g. by 

sects. Their main tenet is what would Alexander, Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 739. 



Council of Jerusalem. 103 

the Lord s Name being full of love, and the whole creation CHAP. 
bending the knee, and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
to the y lory of God the Father. u^ 

8. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils . 21. 
against that Ecumenical One 1 , and are not yet tired 4 . After i p . 49, 
the Nicene, the Eusebians had been deposed ; however, in note 
course of time they intruded themselves without shame upon 
the Churches, and began to plot against the Bishops who 
withstood them, and to substitute in the Church men of their 
own heresy. Thus they thought to hold Councils at their 
pleasure, as having those* who concurred with them, whom 
they had ordained on purpose for this very object 2 . Accord-* P- 84 
ingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and there they write 
thus : 

The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem u by the grace of 
God, to the Church of God which is in Alexandria, and to all 
throughout Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, aiso to the 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons throughout the world, health in 
the Lord. 

To all of us who have come together into one place from 
different provinces, to the great celebration, which we have held 
at the consecration of the Saviour s Martyry*, built to God the 



1 It will be observed, that the Euse- variations of the heretical party, vid. 

bian or court party from 341 to 358, supr. p. 76, note k. as Ammianus in 

contained in it two elements, the more p. 75, note h. The same thing is meant 

religious or Serni-arian which tended in Nazianzen s well-known declaration 

to Catholicism, and ultimately coa- against Councils, " Never saw 1 Coun- 

lesced with it, the other the proper cil brought to a useful issue, nor re- 

Arian or Anomoaan which was essen- medying, but rather increasing existing 

tially heretical. During the period evils." Ep. J30. 

mentioned, it wore for the most part u This Council at Jerusalem was a 
the Semi-arian profession. Athanasius continuation of one held at Tyre at 
as well as Hilary does justice to the which Athan. was condemned. It was 
Semi-arians; but Athanasius does not very numerously attended; by Bishops, 
seem to have known or estimated the (as Eusebius says, Vit. Const, iv. 43.) 
quarrel between them and the Arians from Macedonia, Pannonia, Thrace, 
as fully as Hilary. Accordingly, while Asia Minor, ivyria, Arabia, Egypt, and 
the former is bent in this treatise in Libya. One account speaks of the 
bringing out the grt-at fact of the vari- number as being above 200. He says 
aiions of the heretical party, Hilary, that " an innumerable multitude from 
wishing to commend the hopeful Semi- all provinces accompanied them." It 
arians to the Gallic Church, makes was the second great Council in Con- 
excuses for them, on the ground of the stantine s reign, and is compared by 
necessity of explanations of the Nicene Eusebius (invidiously) to the Nicene, 
formulary, " necessitates! hanc furor c. 47. At this Council Arius was 
hereticus imponit." Hil. de Syn. 63. solemnly received, as the Synodal 
vid. also 62. and 28. At the same time, Letter goes on to say. 
Hilary himself bears witness quite as x This Church, called the Martyry 
strongly as Athan. to the miserable or Testimony, was built over the spot 



104 Arius re-admitted at Jerusalem. 

COUNC. King of all, and to His Christ, by the zeal of the most religious 
AKFM. Emperor Constantine, the grace of Christ provided a higher grati- 
fi cat i n * m tne conduct of that most religious Emperor himself, 
who, by letters of his own, banishing from the Church of God 
all jealousy, and driving far away all envy, by means of which, 
the members of Christ had been for a long season in dissension, 
exhorted us, what was our duty, with open and peaceable mind 
to receive Arius and his friends, whom for a while jealousy 
which hates virtue had contrived to expel from the Church. And 
the most religious Emperor bore testimony in their behalf by 
his letter to the exactness of their faith, which, after inquiry of 
them, and personal communication with them by word of mouth, 
he acknowledged, and made known to us, subjoining to his own 
letters their orthodox teaching in writing y , which we all con 
fessed to be sound and ecclesiastical. And he reasonably recom 
mended that they should be received and united to the Church 
of God, as you will know yourselves from the transcript of the 
same Epistle, which we have transmitted to your reverences. We 
believe that yourselves also, as if recovering the very members of 
your own body, will experience great joy and gladness, in ac 
knowledging and recovering your own bowels, your own brethren 
and fathers ; since not only the Presbyters who are friends of 
Arius are given back to you, but also the whole Christian people 
and the entire multitude, which on occasion of the aforesaid men 
have a long time been in dissension among you. Moreover it 
were fitting, now that you know for certain what has passed, and 
that the men have communicated with us and have been received 
by such a Holy Council, that you should with all readiness hail 
this your coalition and peace with your own members, specially 
since the articles of the faith which they have published preserve 
indisputable the universally confessed apostolical tradition and 
teaching. 

22, 9. This was the first of their Councils, and in it they were 
speedy in divulging their views, and could not conceal them. 

made sacred by our Lord s death, ten from Him before all the ages God 

burial, and resurrection, in commemo- and Word, through whom all th ngs 

ration of the discovery of the Holy were made, both in the heavens and 

Cross, and has been described from upon earth ;" afterwards it professes to 

Eusebics in the preface to the Trans- have " received the faith from the holy 

lation of S. Cyril s Catechetical Lee- Evangelists," and to believe " as all the 

tures, p. xxiv. It was begun A.D. 326, Catholic Church and as the Scriptures 

and dedicated at this date, A.D. 335, teach." The Synodal Letter in the 

on Saturday the 13th of September, text adds lt apostolical tradition and 

The 14th however is the feast of the teaching." Arius might safely appeal 

Exaltatio S. Crucis both in East and to Scripture and the Church for a creed 

West. which did not specify the point in con- 

y This is supposed to be the same troversy. In his letter to Eusebius of 

Confession which is preserved by Socr. Nicomedia before the Nicene Council 

i. 26. and Soz. ii. 27. and was presented where he does state the distinctive 

to Constantine by Arius in 330. It articles of his heresy he appeals to him 

says no more than * And in the Lord as a fellow pupil in the School of Lu- 

Jesus Christ His Son, who was begot- cian, not to tradition. Theod. Hist. i. 4. 



Council at Antioch, and first creed of Eusebians. 105 

For when they said that they had banished all jealousy, and, CHAP. 
after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, - 
recommended the reception of Arius and his friends, they 
shewed, that their measures against Athanasius himself 
then, and before against all the other Bishops who withstood 
them, had for their object their receiving Arius s party, and 
introducing the heresy into the Church. But although they 
had approved in this Council all Arius s malignity, and had 
ordered to receive his party into communion, as they had set 
the example, yet feeling that even now they were short of 
their wishes, they assembled a Council at Antioch under 
colour of the so-called Dedication 2 ; and, since they were in 
general and lasting odium for their heresy, they publish 
different letters, some of this sort, and some of that; and 
what they wrote in one letter was as follows : 

We have not been followers of Arius, how could Bishops, ist Con. 
such as we, follow a Presbyter? nor did we receive any other fession 
faith beside that which has been handed down from the begin- I st 
ning a . But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his t\och~ 
faith, we have admitted him rather than followed him; as you A. D. 
will understand from our present avowals. 34] . 

For we have been taught from the first, to believe in one 
God, the God of the Universe, the Framer and Preserver of all 
things both intellectual and sensible. 

And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, existing before all 
ages, and being with the Father who begat Him, by whom all 
things were made, both visible and invisible, who in the last 
days according to the good pleasure of the Father came down, 

z i. e. the dedication of the Domini- though not as from this Council, which 

cum Aureum, which had been ten took at least some of them from more 

years in building, vid. the description ancient sources. It is remarkable that 

of it in Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 50. This S. Hilary calls this Council an assembly 

Council is one of great importance of Saints, de Syn. 32. but it is his 

in the history, though it was not at- course throughout to look at these 

tended by more than 90 Bishops ac- Councils on their hopeful side. vid. 

cording to Ath. infr. or 97 according note t. 

to Hilary de Syn. 28. The Eusebians a The Council might safely appeal 

had written to the Roman see against to antiquity, since, with Arius in the 

A than, and eventually called on it Confession noticed supr. note y, they 

to summon a Council. Accordingly, did not touch on the point in dispute. 

Julius proposed a Council at Home; The number of their formularies, three 

they refused to come, and instead held or four, shews that they had a great 

this meeting at Antioch. Thus in a difficulty in taking any view which 

certain sense it is a protest of the East would meet the wishes and express 

against the Pope s authority. Twenty- the sentiments of one and all. Tlie one 

five Canons are attributed to this that follows, which is their first, is as 

Council, which have been received meagre as Arius s, quoted note y. 
into the Code of the Catholic Church, 



10(> Creed of the Dedication at Antioch, 

CouNc.and took flesh of the Virgin, and fulfilled all His Father s will ; 
A RIM. anc l suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and 
S AND sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again to 
5ELEU judge quick and dead, and remaineth King and God unto all 

ages. 

And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary 

to add, we believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh, and 

the life everlasting. 

. 23. 10. Here follows what they published next at the same 
Dedication in another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the 
first, and devising something newer and fuller: 

iid Con- We believe h , conformably to the evangelical and apostolical 
fes ^ n tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and 
of An- Maker, and Preserver of the Universe, from whom are all 
tioch, things. 

A.D. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son, God, 
341. by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from 
Vid. the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole 1 , 
xth Con- perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living 
fession, Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, 
l n g" Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable 6 ; unvarying 
image d of the Godhead, Substance, Will, Power, and Glory of the 



b This formulary is that known as assembled Bishops with a negative 
the Formulary of the Dedication. It confession, and finding that they would 
is quoted as such hy Socr. ii. 39, 40. not accept it, had been forced upon one 
Soz. iv. 15. and infr. . 29. Sozomen of a more orthodox character. It is 
says that the Eusebians attributed it to observable too that even the Council 
Lucian, alleging that they had found a of Jerusalem, but indirectly received 
copy written by his own hand; but he the Confession on which they re- 
decides neither for or against it him- admitted Arius, though they gave it 
self. Hist. iii. 5. And the Auctor de a real sanction. The words " un- 
Trinitate, (in Theodoret s works, t. 5.) alterable and unchangeable" are formal 
allows that it is Lucian s, but interpo- Anti-arian symbols, as the rperrrbv or 
lated. Dial. iii. init. vid. Routh, Reliqu. alterable was one of the most charac- 
Sacr. vol. iii. p. 294 6. who isin favour teris- tic part of Arius s creed, vid. Orat. 
of its genuineness ; as are Bull, Cave, i. . 35, <fec. 

and S. Basnage. Tillemont and Cou- d On aTra.pd\\aKTos et/c ctiv KOT oixriav, 

stant take the contrary side; the latter which was synonymous with ?>HO:OV<TIOS, 

observing(ad Hilar. de Synod. 28.) that vid. infr. . 38. and one of the symbols of 

Athanasius, infr. . 36, speaks of parts Semi-arianism, (not as if it did not ex- 

of it as Acacius s, and that Acacius press truth, but because it marked the 

attributes its language to Astenus. limit of Semi-arian approximation to the 

The Creed is of a much higher cast of absolute truth, )somethinghas been said, 

doctrine than the two former, (. 22. supr. p. 35, note u. It was in order to 

and note y,) containing some of the secure the true sense of airapd^aKTov 

phrases which in the fourth century that the Council adopted the word 

became badges of Semi-arianism. fyooiHriov. Airapd\AaKTov is accordingly 

e Thesestrong words and those which used as a familiar word by Athan. 

follow, whether Lucian s or not,mark the de Deer. supr. . 20, 24. Orat. iii. 

great difference between this confession . 36. contr. Gent. 41. 46 fin. Philo- 

and the foregoing. It would seem as storgius ascribing it to Asterius, and 

if the Eusebians had at first tried the Acacius quotes a passage from his 



being second Creed of Eusebians, Semi-arian. 107 

Father; the fir*t born of every creature, who was in the beginning CHAP. 
with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, and the II. 
Word was God ; by whom all things were made, and in whom 
all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, 
and was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was 
made Man, Mediator 6 between God and man, and Apostle of our 
faith, and Prince of life, as He says, I came down from heaven, 
not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me ; who 
suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and ascended 
into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and 
is coming again with glory and power, to judge quick and dead. 
And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for 
comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus 
Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, Go ye, teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost; that of Father being truly Father, and of Son 
being truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost being truly Holy Ghost, 
the names not being given without meaning or effect, but de 
noting accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of 
each that is named, so that they are three in subsistence, and in 
agreement one f . 



writings containing it. (vid. supr. note 
q.) Acacius at the same time forcibly 
expresses what is meant by the word, 
fb GKTVTTOV KoL Tpcwes eK/J.ayf iov rov 
0eou TTJS ovffias ; and S. Alexander 
before him, rV K OT & irdvra ojttoi- 
oTTjra avrov e/c 4>/ (Tea>s a7ro / u.a|ciju.ei os. 
Theod. Hist, i 3. (as, in the legend, the 
impression of our Lord s face on the 
cloth at His crucifixion.) Xapa/cr^p, 
Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. 
" An image not inanimate, not framed 
by the hand, nor work of art and 
imagination, (eViVojas,) but a living 
image, yea, the very life (avroov<ra) ; 
ever preserving the unvarying (rb OTTO- 
p&\Xa.KTov} , not in likeness of fashion, 
but in its very substance." Basil, contr. 
Eunom. i. 18. The Auctor deTrinitate 
says, speaking of the word in this very 
creed, " Will in nothing varying from 
will (aTrapd\AaKTOs) is the same will ; 
and power nothing varying from power 
is the same power; and glory nothing 
varying from glory is the same glory." 
The Macedonian replies, " Unvarying 
I say, the same I say not." Dial, iii.p. 
993. Athan. de Deer. 1. c. seems to say 
the same. That is, in the Catholic 
sense, the image was not a.irapd\\aKTos, 
if there was any difference, unless He 
was one with Him of whom He was 
the image, vid. Hil. supra, p. 76. note i. 
e This statement perhaps is the most 
Catholic in the Creed; not that the 
former are not more explicit in them 



selves, or that in a certain true sense 
our Lord may not be called a Mediator 
before He became incarnate, but be 
cause the Arians, even Eusebius, seem 
to have made His mediatorship consist 
essentially in His divine nature, whereas 
this Confession speaks of our Lord as 
made Mediator when He came in the 
flesh. On the other hand, Eusebius, 
like Philo and the Platonists, considers 
Him as made in the beginning, the 
" Eternal Priest of the Father," 
Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. p. 503 
tin. * an intermediate divine power," 
p. 525. " meditating and joining gene 
rated substance to the Ingenerate," p. 
528. vid. infr. pp. 115. and 119. notes 
f. and o. 

f This phrase, which, is of a more 
Arian character than any other part of 
the Confession, is justified by S. Hilary 
on the ground, that when the Spirit is 
mentioned, agreement is the best sym 
bol of unity, de Syn. 32. It is pro 
tested against in the Sardican Con 
fession. Theod. Hist. ii. 6. p. 846. 
A similar passage occurs in Origen, 
contr. Gels. viii. 12. to which Huet. 
Origen. ii. 2. n. 3. compares Nova- 
tian. de Trin. 22. The Arians insisted 
on the " oneness in agreement as a 
fulfilment of such texts as " I and my 
Father are one;" but this subject will 
come before us in Orat. iii. . 10. vid. 
infr. . 48. 



108 Creed of Theophronius, at Antioch, 

COUNC. Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God 
ARIM. and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every here- 
AND t j ca | heterodoxy^. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right 
bELKU " faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age h , either is or 
has been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or 
1 vid. if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures 1 , 
P- 10 or an offspring- as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the 
note u works, and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the 
divine Scriptures have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches 
beside what we received, be he anathema. For all that has been 
delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apo 
stles, do we truly and conscientiously both believe and follow \ 

^ 24. !! And one Theophronius k , Bishop of Tyana, put forth 
before them all the following statement of his personal faith. 
And they subscribed it, accepting the faith of this man : 

iiidCon- God knows, whom I call as a witness upon my soul, that so 
fession \ believe: in God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker 
f A* ^ t ^ le Universe, from whom are all things : 

ticc-h" And in His Only-begotten Son, God, Word, Power, and 

A. D. Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things ; 

341. who was begotten from the Father before the ages, perfect God 

from perfect God 1 and being with God in subsistence, and in the 



The whole of these anathemas are reason for insisting on it in the previous 
an Eusebian addition. The Council centuries had been the Sabellian doc- 
anathematizes " every heretical hete- trine, which considered the title "Word" 
rodoxy ; not, as Athanasius observes, when applied to our Lord to be ade- 
supra, . 7. the Arian. quately explained by the ordinary sense 

h The introduction of these words of the" term, as a word spoken by us. 

" time," " age," <fec. allows them still to vid. on the \6yos irpotyopiKbs, inf. 

hold the Arian formula " once He was p. 113, note z. In consequence they 

not;" for our Lord was, as they held, insisted on His rb re\eiov, perfection, 

before time, but still created. which became almost synonymous 

1 This emphatic mention of Scrip- with His personality. Thus the 

ture is also virtually an Arian evasion ; Apollinarians, e. g. d enied that our 

to hold certain truths, " as Scripture Lord was perfect man, because His 

has delivered," might either mean person was not human. Athan. contr. 

because andas in fact, or so far as, and Apoll. i. 2. Hence Justin, Tatian, 

admitted of a silent reference to them- are earnest in denying that our Lord 

selves, as interpretators of Scripture. was a portion divided from the Divine 

k Nothing is known of Theophronius ; Substance, ov KO.T airoro^v^ &c. &c. 

his Confession is in great measure a Just. Tryph. 128. Tatian. contr. Grsec. 

relapse into Arianism proper ; that is, 5. And Athan. condemns the notion 

as far as the absence of characteristic of " the \6yos ev T<> Qecf oreA^s, 

symbols is a proof of a wish to intro- yew-ridels reAefos. Orat. iv. 11. The 

duce the heresy. The phrase "perfect Arians then, as being the especial 

God" will be mentioned in the next opponents of the Sabellians, insisted 

note. on nothing so much as our Lord s being 

1 It need scarcely be said, that" per- a real, living, substantial, Word. vid. 

feet from periect" is a symbol on which Eusebius passim. " The Father," 

the Catholics laid stress, Athan. Orat. says Acacius against Marcellus, " be- 

ii. 35. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 945. but it gat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and 

admitted of an evasion. An especial perfect perfect ; for there is nothing 



being third Creed of Eusebiits, negative. 109 

last days descended, and was born of the Virgin according to the CHAP. 
Scriptures, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again from n. 
the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the 
right hand of His Father, and cometh again with glory and 
power to judge quick and dead, and remaineth for ever: 

And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, 
which also God promised by His Prophet to pour out upon His 
servants, and the Lord promised to send to His disciples: which 
also He sent, as the Acts of the Apostles witness. 

But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught beside this 
faith, be he anathema; or with Marcellus of Ancyra, or Sabellius, 
or Paul of Samosata, be he anathema, both himself and those who 
communicate with him. 



12. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the Con-. 25. 
sulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the Inclic- 
tion n , Constantius the most irreligious being present. Having ! p. 90, 
thus conducted matters at Antioch at the Dedication, thinking 110 
that their composition was deficient still, and fluctuating 
moreover in their own views, again they draw up afresh 
another formulary, after a few months, professedly concerning 
the faith, and despatch Narcissus, Maris, Theodorus, and 



imperfect in the Father, wherefore Only-begotten ; nor could the flesh sub- 
neither is there in the Son, but the sist by itself without the Word, because 
Son s perfection is the genuine offspring that iu the Word it has its consistence : 
of His perfection, and superperfection." thus then He was manifested One per- 
ap.Epiph.Hser.72.7. TeAetosthenwasa feet Son of God." contr. Noet. 15. 
relative word, varying with the subject- m Marcellus wrote his work against 
matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 138. Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian 
and when the Arians said that our Council of Jerusalem, which at once took 
Lord was perfect God, they meant, cognizance of it, and cited Marcellus to 
"perfect, in that sense in which He appear before them. The same year a 
is God 1 i. e. as a secondary divi- Council held at Constantinople con- 
nity. Nay, in one point of view they demned and deposed him, about the time 
would use the term of His divine that Arius came thither for re-admission 
Nature more freely than the Catholics into the Church. From that time his 
sometimes had. For, Hippolytus, e g. name is frequently introduced into the 
though of course really holding His Arian anathemas, vid. Macrostich, . 
perfection from eternity as the Son, 26. By adding those" who communicate 
yet speaks of His condescension in with him, the Eusebiana intended to 
coming upon earth as a kind of com- strike at the Roman see, which had 
pletion of His Sonship, He becoming acquitted Marcellus in a Council held 
thus a Son a second time ; whereas the in June of the same year. 
Arians holding no real condescension n The commencement and the origin 
or assumption of a really new state, of this mode of dating are unknown, 
could not hold that our Lord was in any It seems to have been introduced be- 
respect essentially other than He had tween A.D. 313 and 315. The Indie- 
been before the incarnation. " Nor tion was a cycle of 15 years, and 
was the Word," says Hippolytus, began with the month of September. 
" before the flesh and by Himself, S. Athanasius is the first ecclesiastical 
perfect Son, though being perfect Word, author who adopts it. 



110 



Creed sent into Gaul, 



CoUNC Mark into Gaul . And they, as being sent from the Council, 
AND deliver the following document to Constans Augustus of 
SELEU> blessed memory P, and to all who were there : 



Antfoch! 
A.D. 
342. 



ivthCon- We believe i in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator and 
fession, Maker of all things ; from whom the whole familv in heaven and 

011 eart k is naraed - 

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, 
Light from Light, by whom all things were made in the heavens 
and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, 
and Power, and Life, and True Light ; who in the last days was 
made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin; who was 
crucified, and dead, and buried, and rose again from the dead the 
third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the 
right hand of the Father ; and is coming at the end of the world, 
to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according 
to his works; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly into infinite 
ages r ; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the Father, 
not only in this world but in that which is to come. 



This deputation had it in purpose 
to gain the Emperor Constans to the 
Eusebian party. They composed a 
new Confession with this object. Theo 
dore of Heraclea, (who made commen 
taries on Scripture and is said to have 
been an elegant writer,) Maris and 
Narcissus, were all Eusebians; but 
Mark was a Semi-arian. As yet the 
Eusebian party were making use of the 
Semi-arians, but their professed Cretd 
had already much degenerated from 
Lucian s at the Dedication. 

P Constans had lately become master 
of two thirds of the Empire by the death 
of his elder brother Constantine, who 
had made war upon him and fallen in 
an engagement. He was at this time 
only 22 years of age. His enemies 
represent his character in no favour 
able light, but, for whatever reason, he 
sided with the Catholics, and S. Atha- 
nasius, who had been honourably 
treated by him in Gaul, speaks of 
him in the language of gratitude. In 
his apology to Constantius, he says, 
"thy brother of blessed memory filled 
the Churches with offerings," and he 
speaks of "the grace given him through 
baptism." . 7. Constans was mur 
dered by Magnentius in 350, and one 
of the calumnies against Athanasius 
was that he had sent letters to the 
murderer. 

<i The fourth, fifth, and sixth Con 
fessions are the same, and with them 



agree the Creed of Philippopolis (A .D. 
347, or 344 according to Mansi). These 
extend over a period of nine years , A.D. 
342 351, (or 15 or 16 according to 
Baronius and Mansi, who place the 6th 
Confession, i.e. the IstSirmian, at 357, 
358 respectively,) and make the sta 
tionary period of Arianism. The two 
parties of which the heretical body was 
composed were kept together, not only 
by the court, but by the rise of the Sabel- 
lianism of Marcellus (A.D. 335) and 
Photinus (about 342). This too would 
increase their strength in the Church, 
and is the excuse, which Hilary himself 
urges, for their frequent Councils. Still 
they do not seem to be able to escape 
from the argument of Athanasius, that, 
whereas new Councils are for new 
heresies, if but one new heresy had 
risen, but one new Council was neces 
sary. If these four Confessions say 
the same thing, three of them must be 
superfluous, vid. infr. . 32. However, 
in spite of the identity of the Creed, the 
difference in their Anathemas is very 
great, as we shall see. 

r These words, which answer to 
those afterwards added at the second 
General Council (381 3) are directed 
against the doctrine of Marcellus, who 
taught that the Word was but a divine 
energy, manifested in Christ and re 
tiring from Him at the consummation 
of all things, when the manhood or 
flesh of Christ would consequently no 



being fourth creed of Eusebians, negative. 



Ill 



And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having CHAP. 
promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into H 
heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through 
whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely 
believe in Him. 

But those who say, that the Son was from nothing, or from 
other subsistence and not from God, and, there was time when 
He was not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens 8 . 

13. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting . 26. 
again after three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, 
and Macedonius of Cilicia 1 , and some others with them, to 
the parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith written at great 
length, with numerous additions over and above those which 
have gone before. They went abroad with these, as if they 
had devised something new. 

We believe in One God the Father Almighty, the Creator and vthCon- 
Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and ^ ess i on 
on earth is named. 



longer reign. " How can we admit," 
says Marcellus iu Eusebius, " that 
that flesh, which is from the earth 
and profiteth nothing, should co-exist 
with the Word in the ages to come as 
serviceable to Him ?" de Eccl. Theol. 
iii. 8. Again, " If He has received a 
beginning of His Kingdom not more 
than four hundred years since, it is no 
paradox that He who gained that 
Kingdom so short a while since, should 
be said by the Apostle to deliver it up 
to God. What are we told of the human 
flesh, which the Word bore for us, not 
four hundred years since ? will the 
Word have it in the ages to come, or 
only to the judgment season?" iii. 17. 
And, " Should any ask concerning 
that flesh which is in the Word having 
become immortal, we say to him, that 
we count it not safe to pronounce 
on points of which we learn not for 
certain from divine Scripture." cont. 
Marc. ii. 4. 

8 S. Hilary, as we have seen above, 
p. 67. by implication calls this the 
Nicene Anathema ; and so it is in the 
respects in which he speaks of it ; but 
it omits many of the Nicene clauses, 
and with them the condemnation of 
many of the Arian articles. The 
especial point which it evades is our 
Lord s eternal existence, substituting 
for " once He was not," " there was 



time when He was not," and leaving 
out u before His generation He was 
not," " created," " alterable" and 
" mutable." It seems to have been 
considered sufficient for Gaul, as used 
now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession 
or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the 
creed of Philippopolis. 

1 Little is known of Macedonius who 
wns Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Mar- 
tyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. 
This Long Confession, or Macrostich, 
which follows, is remarkable for the 
first signs of the presence of that higher 
party of Semi-arians who ultimately 
joined the Church. It is observable 
also that the more Catholic portions 
occur in the Anathemas, as if they 
were forced in indirectly, and that with 
an inconsistency with the other state 
ments, for not only the word " sub 
stance" does not occur, but the Son is 
said to be made. At this date the old 
Semi-arians, as Eusebius, Asterius, and 
Acacius were either dying off, or de- 
generat ng into most explicit impiety; 
the new school of Semi-arians consist 
ing for the most part of a younger 
generation. St. Cyril delivered his 
Catechetical Lectures two or three 
years later than this Creed, viz. 347 
or 348. Silvanus, Eleusius, Meletius, 
Eusebius of Samosata are later still. 



A. D. 
345. 



112 The Macrostich Creed sent into Italy. 

COUNC. And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who 

A RIM. before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, 

<J AND Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and 

^ ELEU - on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and 

Power and Life and True Light, who in the last days was made 

man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead 

and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was 

taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the 

Father, and is coming at the end of the world to judge quick 

and dead, and to render to every one according to His works, 

whose Kingdom endures unceasingly unto infinite ages ; for He 

sitteth on the right hand of the Father not only in this world, but 

also in that which is to come. 

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which, 
having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension 
into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things : through 
whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely 
believe in Him. 

But those who say, (l) that the Son was from nothing, or from 
other subsistence and not from God; (2) and that there was a 
time or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church 
regards as aliens. Likewise those who say, (3) that there are 
three Gods : (4) or that Christ is not God; (5) or that before the 
ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God; (6) or that Father 
and Son, or Holy Ghost, are the same; (7) or that the Son is 
Ingenerate; or that the Father generated the Son, not by choice 
or will; the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes. 

(1. ) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since 
this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) 
nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the 
Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be 
generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and 
Unoriginate, the Father of Christ, is One u . 

(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, t( There 
was once when He was not," from unscriptural sources, imagine 
any interval of time before Him, but only the God who generated 
Him apart from time j for through Him both times and ages came 
to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unoriginate 
and co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly 
called Father or Son of one who is co-unoriginate and co-ingene 
rate with Him x . But we acknowledge that the Father who alone 



u It is observable that bere and in God. vid. p. 62, note e. 

the next paragraph the only reasons x They argue, after the usual Arian 

they give against using the only two manner, that the term " Son" essenti- 

Arian formulas which they condemn is ally implies beginning, and excludes 

that they are not found in Scripture, the title "co-unoriginate;" whereas 

which leaves the question of their truth the Catholics contended (as alluded to 

untouched. Here, in their explanation supr. p. 98, note n.) that the word 

of the e| OVK OVTCW, or from nothing, Father implied a continuity of nature, 

they do but deny it with Eusebius s that is, a co-eternal existence with the 

evasion; that nothing can be from Father, vid. p. 10, note u. 
nothing, and every thing must be from 



being the fifth of the Eusebians, Semi-ar tan. 113 

is Unoriginate and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and CHAP. 
incomprehensively ; and that the Son hath been generated before II. 
ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but 
to have the Father who generated Him as His origin; for the^ Cor. 
Head of Christ is God. 11, 3. 

(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities ! and three Persons, l vpdy- 
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to ihe^o-ra 
Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three ; since we acknow 
ledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unoriginate and 
Invisible God to be one only 2 , the God and Father of the Only- 2 ?- 12 3, 
begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouch- note u> 
safes this to all others bountifully. 

(4.) Nor again in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 
is the one only God, the only Ingenerate ; do we therefore deny 
that Christ also is God before ages : as the disciples of Paul of 
Samosata, who say that after the incarnation He was by advance 33 ** "T 30 * 
made God, from being made by nature a mere man. For we KOir ^ s ^ 
acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father andj 6 nc 
God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God per 
fect according to nature and true, and not first man and then 
God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never 
having been deprived of being y. 

(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a pre 
tence of saying that He is but the mere word of God and unexisting, 
having His being in another, now as if pronounced, as some speaik, 
now as mental 2 , holding that He was not Christ or Son of God or 

y These strong words, Qtbv Kara Qua-iv and 22. S. Cyril as evSidOeros, in Joann. 

TeAetoj/ KOI a\T]0?i are of a different cha- p. 39. on the other hand he says, " This 

racter from any which have occurred pronounced word of ours, irpotyopiKbs, is 

in the Arian Confessions. They can generated from mind and unto mind, 

only be explained away by considering and seems to be other than that which 

them used in contrast to the Samosa- stirs in the heart, &c. &c. . . so too the 

tene doctrine; Paul saying that that Son of God proceeding from the Father 

dignity, which the Arians ascribed without division, is the expression and 

to our Lord before His birth in the likeness of what is proper to Him, being 

flesh, was bestowed on Him after a subsistent Word, and living from a 

it. vid. p. 1 15, ref. 1. Thus " perfect Living Father." Thesaur. p. 47. When 

according to nature" and u true," will the Fathers deny that our Lord is the 

not be directly connected with " God" TrpofyopiKbs \6yos, they only mean that 

so much as opposed to, " by advance," that title is not, even as far as its phi- 

<4 by adoption." &c. p. 108, note 1. losophical idea went, an adequate re- 

z The use of the words ej/Stafleros and preservative of Him, a word spoken 
irpoQopiKbs, mental and pronounced, to being insubstantive, vid. Athan. Orat. 
distinguish the two senses of \6yos, ii. 35. Hil. de Syn.46. Cyr. Catech. xi. 
reason and word, came from the school 10. Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203. nee prola- 
of the Stoics, and is found in Philo, tivum ut generationem eidemas, for this 
and was under certain limitations was the Arian doctrine. - The Son [says 
allowed in Catholic theology. Da- Eunomius] is other than the Mental 
masc. F. O ii. 21. To use either Word, or Word in intellectual action, of 
absolutely and to the exclusion of which partaking and being filler} He is 
the other would have involved some called the Pronounced Word, and ex- 
form of ^abellianism, or Arianism as pressive of the Father s substance, that 
the case might be ; but each might cor- is, the Son." Cyril in Joann. p. 31. 
rect the defective sense of either. S. The- The Gnostics seem to have held the 
ophilus speaks of our Lord as at once \6yos irpotyopinds. Iren. Ha?r. ii. 12 n.5. 
fVSiafleros and 7rpo</>optK(k. ad Autol.ii.10 Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have 

I 



H4 



The Macrostich Creed, sent into Italy , 



COUNC. mediator 1 or image of God before ages; but that He first be- 
AKIM. came Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the 
AND vj r gj n> not four hundred years since. For they will have it that 
i~Wi tnen Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end 
noie e a ft er ti ie consummation of all and the judgment*. Such are the 
disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus b of Galatian Ancyra, who, 
equally with .lews, negative Christ s existence before ages, and His 
Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting 
the divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as 
simply God s pronounced word or mental, but as Living God and 
Word, existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ; being 
and abiding with His Father before ages, and that not in fore 
knowledge only (: , and ministering to Him for the whole framing 
whether of things visible or invisible. For He it is, to whom the 
j, Father said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness 3 , who 

by the patriarchs, gave the law, 



Gen 

26 * also was seen in His own Person d 

" vid. p. 

120, 

notes p considered our Lord as first the one 

and q. and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15. 
Sabellius thought our Lord the irpo^opi- 
K^S according to Epiph. H?er. p. 398. 
Damasc. Hair. 62. Paul of Samo- 
sata the evSidOeros. Epiph. Haar. 65. 
passim. Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. ii. 
1 7 describes our Lord as the irpofyopiKbs 
while he disowns it. 

a This passage seems taken from 
Eusebius, and partly from Marcel lus s 
own words, vid. supr, note r. S. Cyril 
speaks of his doctrine in like terms. 
Catech. xv. 27. 

b i. e. Photinus of Sirmium, the pupil 
of Marcellus is meant, who published 
his heresy Jibout 343. A similar play 
upon words is found in the case of other 
names; though Lucifer seems to think 
that his name was really Scotinus and 
that h<s friend* changed it. de non pare. 

S i. 203, 220, 226. Thus Noerus is called 
JTJTOS. Epiph. Hger. 57. 2 fin. and 8. 
Eudcxius, a$6ios. Lucifer, pro Athan. 
i. p. 65. Moriend. p. 258. Eunomians 
amoiig the Latins, (by a confusion with 
Anorrcean.) &VO/LIOI, or sine legc. Cod. 
Can. Ixi. 1. ap. Leon. Op. t. 3. p. 443. 
Vigilatitius dorrnitantius, Jerom. contr. 
Vifril. init. Aerius aepiov irvev/j.a eo xej . 
Epiph. Hffir. 75. 6 fin. Of Arius, 
"Apes, &peie. vid. supr. p. 91, note q. 
Gregory, 6 vwrafav. Anast. Hod. 10. 
p. 186. Eutychts, Swrvxhs, <fec. &c. 
Photinus seems to have brought out 
more fully the heresy of Marcellus ; both 
of whom, a^ all Sabellians excepting 
Patripassians, differed from the Arians 
mainly in this point alone, when it was 
that our Lord came into being; the 
Arians said before the worlds, the Sa- 
mosatenes, Photinians, &c. said on His 



human birth; both parties considered 
Him a creature, and that the true Word 
and Wisdom were attributes or ener 
gies of Almighty God. This Lucifer 
well observes to Conscantius in (he course 
of one of the passages above quoted, 
" Quid interesse arbitraris inter te et 
Paulum Samosatenum, vel eum turn 
ejus discipulum tuum conscotinum, nisi 
quia tu ante omnia dicas, ille vero post 
omnia?"p. 203,4. A subordinate differ 
ence was this, that theSamosatene, Pho- 
tinum, &c. considered our Lord to be 
really gifted with the true W ord, whereas 
the Arian did scarcely more than con 
sider Him framed after the pattern of 
it. Photinus was condemned, after 
this Council, at Sardica, (347 if not 
344,) and if not by Catholics at least by 
Eusebians ; at Milan (348) by the Ca 
tholics ; and perhaps again in 351 ; at 
Sirmium his see, by the Eusebians in 
351, when he was deposed. He was 
an eloquent man and popular in his 
diocese, and thus maintained his 
ground for some years after his con 
demnation. 

c "This passage of the Apostle," 
Rorn.i. l. u [Marcellus] I know not why 
per verts, instead of declared, bpiaQevros, 
making it predestined, irpoopiffQ^vros, 
that the Son may be such as they who 
are predestined at foreknowledge." 
Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 2. Paul of Sa- 
mosata also considered our Lord Son 
by foreknowledge, Trpoyvcixrei. vid. 
Kouth. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 466. and Euno- 
mius, Apol. 24 

d auTOTrpoffVTrws and so Cyril. Hier. 
Catech. xv. 14 and 17. It means, 
" not in personation," and Philo con 
trasting divine appearances with those 



being the fifth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 115 

spoke by the prophets, and at last, became man, and manifested CHAP. 
His own Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages. II- 
For Christ has taken no recent dignity 1 , but we have believed 1 p- 113, 
Him to be perfect from the first, and like in all things tothe note y 
Father 6 . 

(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost 
are the same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and 
the same Reality 2 and Person, we justly proscribe from the 2 717307- 
Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible v-aros. 
Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming P- 1 J 3 
man: for such are they whom the Latins call the Patropassians, re 
and we Sabellians f . For we acknowledge that the Father who 
sent, remained in the peculiar state of His unchangeable 
Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of 
the incarnation. 

(?) And at the same time those who irreverently say that 
the Son was generated, not by choice or will, thus encompassing 
God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that 
He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious 
and alien to the Church ; in that they have dared to define such 
things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning 
Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. 
For we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Him 
self, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son volun 
tarily and freely ; yet, as we have a reverent belief in the Son s 
words concerning Himself, The Lord hath created Me a beginning Prov. 8, 



of Angels. Leg. Alleg. iii. 62. On 
the other hand, Theophilus on the text, 
u The voice of the Lord God walking in 
the garden," speaks of the Word, " as 
suming the person, trpAffuiTov, of the 
Father," and in the person of God," 
ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not then 
having its theological sense. 

e 6/j.oLov Kara iravra. Here again we 
have a strong Semi-arian or almost 
Catholic formula introduce d by the bye, 
marking the presence of what may be 
called the new Semi-arian school. Of 
course it admitted of evasion, but in 
its fulness it included " substance." 
At Sirmium Constantius inserted it in 
the Confession which occurs supra, vid. 
p. 84, note a. On this occasion Basil 
subscribed in this form. "I, Basil, 
Bishop of Ancyra, believe and assent 
to what is aforewritten, confessing that 
the Son is like the Father in ali things 5 
and by in all things, not only that 
He is like in will, but in subsistence, 
and existence, and being; as divine 
Scripture teaches, spirit from spirit, 
life from life, light from light, God 
from God, true Son from true, "Wisdom 
from the Wise God and Father; and once 
for all, like the Father in all things, as 



a son is to a father. And if any one 
says that He is like in a certain respect, 
Kara TI, as is written afore, he is 
alien from the Catholic Church, as not 
confessing the likeness according to 
divine Scripture." Epiph. Hser. 73. 22. 
S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the Kara 
Trdvra or ey Traffiv 6/j.oiov, Catt ch. iv. 7. 
xi. 4 and 18. and Athan. Orat. i. . 
21. and ii. . 18 and 22. Damasc. F. O. 
i. 8. p. 135. 

f Eusebius also, Eccles. Theol. i. 20. 
says that Sabellius held the Patropas- 
sian doctrine. Epiph. however, Hser. p. 
398. denies it, and imputes the doctrine to 
Noetus. Sabellius s doctrine will come 
before us infr. Orat. iv.; meanwhile it 
should be noticed, that in the reason 
which the Confession alleges against that 
heretical doctrine it is almost implied 
that the divine nature of the Son suffered 
on the Cross. They would naturally fall 
into thisnotion directly they gaveuptheir 
belief in our Lord s absolute divinity, 
it would as naturally follow to hold that 
our Lord had no human soul, but that 
His pre-existent nature stood in the 
place of it: also that His Mediator- 
ship was no peculiarity of His Incarna 
tion, vid. p. 107, note e. p. 119, note o. 

2 



116 The Macrosticfi Creed , sent into Italy, 

. / His ways for His works, we do not understand Him to be 
A KIM. generated, like the creatures or works which through Him came 
AND to be. For it is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith, 
SELEU. ^ o compare the Creator with handiworks created by Him, and to 
think that He has the same manner of generation with the rest. 
For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only- 
begotten Son was generated sole and solely 8 . 

Yet h , in say ing that the Son is in Him self, and both lives and exists 
like the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from 
the Father, imagining place and interval between their union iri 
the way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with 
each other without mediator or distance 1 , and that they exist in- 
separable ; all the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son 
.8 supr. hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the 
p. 13. Father s breast continually 2 . Believing then in the All-perfect 
Trinity, the most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, and calling the Father God, and the Son God, yet 
g r we confess in them, not two Gods, but one dignity of Godhead, and 
p. 46. one exact harmony of dominion, the only Father being Head over 
the whole universe wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the 
Son subordinated to the Father; but, excepting Him, ruling 
over all things after Him which through Himself have come to 
be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost unsparingly to the 
holy at the Father s will. For that such is the account of 
3 45 the Divine Monarchy 3 towards Christ, the sacred oracles have 
note h. delivered to us. 

Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in 
epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in 
any officious display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion con 
cerning our opinions, among those who are ignorant of what we 
really hold : and that all in the West may know, both the 
audacity of the slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Orientals, 

% The Confession does not here com- history. The paragraph is in its very 
ment on the clause against our Lord s form an interpolation or appendix, while 
being Ingenerate, having already no- its doctrine bears distinctive characters 
ticed it under paragraph (2). It will be of something higher than the old Semi- 
remarked that it still insists upon the un- arianism. The characteristic of that, as 
scripturalness of the Catholic positions, of other shapes of the heresy, was the ab- 
Themain subject of this paragraph the solute separation which it put between 
0eA^(ret yevz/Tjflej/, which forms great part the Father and the Son. They considered 
of the Arian question and controversy, Them as two ovfflai, 6/jLoiai like, but not 
is reserved for Orat. iii. 59, &c.in which as bjj.oovffioi\ this very explanation of 
Athanasius formally treats of it. He the word re Aetos was "independent" and 
treats of the text Prov. viii.22. through- distinct" Language then, such as that 
out Orat. ii. The doctrine of the in the text, was the nearest assignable 
fjiovoywes has already partially come approach to the reception of the 6/j.oov- 
before us in de Deer. . 7 9. p. 12, <fcc. <noj/; all that was wanting was the doc- 
M<Ws, not as the creatures, vid. p. 62, trine of the 7rept%wp7}<ns, of which infr. 
note f. Orat. iii. It is observable that a hint is 

h This last paragraph is the most thrown out by Athanasius about " sug- 
curious of the instancesof the presence of gestions" from without, a sentence or 
tbis new and nameless influence, which two afterwards. It is observable too 
seems at this time to have been spring- that in the next paragraph the preced 
ing up among the Eusebians, and shew- ing doctrine is pointedly said to be that 
eel itself by acts before it has a place in of " the Orientals." 



being thefijth of the Eu&ebians, Seminarian. 



11 



their ecclesiastical judgment in the Lord, to which the divinely CHAP. 
inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are If. 
not perverse. 

14. However they did not stand even to this ; for again at 27. 
Sirmium 5 they met together 15 against Photinus 1 , and there 
composed a faith again, not drawn out into such length, not 
so full in words ; but subtracting the greater part and adding 
in its place, as if they had listened to the suggestions of 
others, they wrote as follows : 



1 Sirmium was a city of lower Pan- 
nonia, not far from the Danube, and it 
was the great bulwark of the Illyrian 
provinces of the Empire. Theie Vetra- 
nio assumed the purple ; and there Con- 
stantius was born. The frontier war 
caused it to be from time to time 
the Imperial residence. We hear of 
Constantius at Sirmium in the sum- 
mer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10. He 
also passed there the ensuing winter, 
ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after 
the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium 
in triumph, and passed the winter there, 
xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence 
in the spring, remained there till the 
end of May, 359. vid. p. 84, note a. 

k In the dates here fixed for the Con 
fessions of Sirmium, Petavius has been 
followed, who has thrown more light on 
the subject than any one else. In 351, 
the Semi-arian party was still stronger 
than in 345. The leading person in 
this Council was Basil of Ancyra, who 
is generally considered their head. Ba 
sil held a disputation with Photinus. Sil- 
vanus too of Tarsus now appears for the 
first time : while, according to Socrates, 
Mark of Arethusa, who was more con 
nected with the Eusebians than any 
other of his party, drew up the Ana 
themas; the Confession used was the 
same as that sent to Constans, of the 
Council of Philippopolis, and the Ma- 
crostich. 

1 There had been no important Ori 
ental Council held since that of the 
Dedication ten years before, till this of 
Sirmium; unless indeed that of Philip 
popolis requires to be mentioned, which 
was a secession from the Council of 
Sardica. S. Hilary treats its creed as a 
Catholic composition, de Syn. 39 63. 
Philastrius and Vigilius call the Coun 
cil a meeting of "holy bishops" and 
a u Catholic Council." de Heer. 65. in 
Eutych. v. init. What gave a character 
and weight to this Council, which be 



longed to no other Eusebian meeting, 
was, that it met to set right a real evil, 
and was not a mere pretence with Arian 
objects. Photinus had now been 8 or 
9 years in the open avowal of his heresy, 
yet in possession of his see. Nothing *is 
more instructive in the whole of this 
eventful history than the complication 
of hopeiulness and deterioration in the 
Oriental party, and the apparent ad 
vance yet decline of the truth. Princi 
ples, good and bad, were developing on 
both sides with energy. The fall of 
Hosius and Liberius, and the dreadful 
event of Ariminum, are close before the 
ruin of the Eusebian power. As to the 
Bishopspresentatthis Sirmian Council, 
we have them described in Sulpitius ; 
u Part of the Bishops followed Arius, 
and welcomed the desired condemnation 
of Athanasius; part, brought together 
by fear and faction, yielded to a party 
spirit; a few, to whom faith was dear 
and truth precious, rejected the unjust 
judgment." Hist. ii. 52.; he instances 
Pauliuus of Treves, whose resistance, 
however, took place at Milan some 
years later. Sozomen gives us a simi 
lar account, speaking of a date a few 
years before the Sirmian Council. 
" The East," he says, " in spite of its 
being in faction after the Antiochene 
Council" of the Dedication, " and 
thenceforth openly dissenting from the 
Nicene faith, in reality, I think, con 
curred in the sentiment of the majority, 
and with them confessed the Son to be 
of the Father s substance ; but from 
contentiousness certain of them fought 
against the term One in substance; 
Fome, as I conjecture, having originally 
objected to the word . . . others from 
habit .. - others, aware that the resistance 
was unsuitable, leaned to this side or 
that to gratify parties; and many 
thought it weak to waste themselves in 
such strife of words, and peaceably held 
to the Nicene decision." Hist. iii. 13. 



118 The first Creed of Sirmium, against Photinus, 

COUNC. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and 
AUIM. Maker of all things, from whom the u liole family in heaven and 
AND earth /.s named. 

vj Co - And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ, 

f ession wno before all the ages was begotten from the Father, God from 

or 1st God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in 

Sirmi- heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and 

an.A.D. Wisdom and True Light and Life, who in the last days was made 

Eph 3 man ^ or us anc * was born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and 

lo. y dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and 

was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of 

the Father, and is coming at the end of the world, to judge 

quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his 

works; whose Kingdom being unceasing endures unto the infinite 

ages ; for He shall sit on the right hand of the Father, not 

only in this world, but also in that which is to come. 

And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete ; which, having 
promised to the Apostles, to send forth after His ascension into 
heaven, to teach and to remind them of all things, He did send; 
through whom also are sanctified the souls of those who sincerely 
believe in Him. 

(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from 
1 vid. other subsistence 1 and not from God, and that there was time 
note on or a g e wne n He was not, the Holy and Catholic Church regards 

Anath. asaliens - 

p. 66. ( 2 -) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son 

are two Gods, be he anathema 1 ". 

(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son 

of God, does not confess that He subserved the Father for the 

framing of the universe, be he anathema". 



01 This Anathema which has occurred tics is very much the same on this 

in substance in the Macrostich, and point of the Son s ministration, with 

again infra, Anath. 18 and 23. is adis- this essential difference of sense, that 

claimer on the part of the Eusebian Catholic writers mean a ministration 

party of the charge brought against them internal to the divine substance and an 

with reason by the Catholics, of their in instrument connatural with the Father, 

fact holding a supreme and a secondary and Anus meant an external and 

God. In the Macrostich it is disclaimed created medium of operation, vid. p. 12. 

upon a simple Arian basis. The Semi- note z. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord 

arians were more open to this imputa- " the All-harmonious Instrument (0^70- 

tion ; Eusebius, as we have seen above, vov) of God." Protrept. p. 6. Eusebius 

distinctly calling our Lord a second u an animated and living instrument 

and another God. vid. p. 63, note g. (opyavov e]u\J/t>xoj ,) nay, rather divine 

It will be observed that this Anathema and vivific of every substance and na- 

contradicts the one which immediately ture." Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on 

follows, and the llth, in which Christ the other hand, insists that the Arians 

is called God; except, on the one reduced our Lord to " an inanimate in - 

hand, the Father and Son are One God, strument." opyavov &fyvxov, though they 

which was the Catholic doctrine, or, called Him vwovpy^ T\ei6raro^ most 

on the other, the Son is God in name perfect minister or under-worker. adv. 

only, which was the puie Arian or A no- Eunom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he says, 

inoean. " the nature of a cause is one, and the 

n The language of Catholics andhere- nature of an instrument, opydvov, au- 



being the sixth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 1 1 9 

(4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate, or a part of CHAP. 
Him 1 , was born of Mary, be he anathema. __! _ 

(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge 2 the Son l p. 1 H 
is before Mary and not that, generated from the Father before J* e . 
ages, He was with God, and that through Him all things were n ^ t e e> 
generated, be he anathema. 

(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the substance of God was 
enlarged or contracted 3 , be he anathema. 3 Orat. 

(?) Whosoever shall say that the substance of God being v -- 13. 
enlarged made the Son, or shall name the enlargement of His 
substance the Son, be he anathema. 

(8.) W 7 hosocver calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced 
Word 4 , be he anathema. 4 p. 1 13, 

(9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man only, be notez - 
he anathema. 

(10.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from Mary God 
and man, thereby means God the Ingenerate 5 , be he anathema. 5 p. 112, 

(11.) Whosoever shall exp)ain / am t lie First and / am the Last, IJ - ( 2 -\ 
and besides Me there is no God, which is said for the denial of " 
idols and of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, 
before ages God, as .lews do, be he anathema. 

(12.) Whosoever, because it is said Ihe Word was made Jlesh, John 1 , 
shall consider that the Word was changed into flesh, or shall say 4 - 
that He underwent an alteration and tcok flesh, be he anathema . 



other;. ..foreign then in nature is the 
Son from the Father, since such is an 
instrument from a workman." de Sp. S. 
n. 6 fin. vid. also n. 4 fin. and n. 20. 
Afterwards he speaks of our Lord as 
* not intrusted with the ministry of each 
work by particular injunctions in detail, 
for this were ministration ," \iTovpyiKbv, 
but as being " full of the Father s ex 
cellencies," and " fulfilling not an in 
strumental, bpyaviKfy, and servile min- 
istration,but accomplishinglhe Father s 
will like a Creator, 8-ri/j,iovpyiKws. ibid, 
n. 19. And so S. Gregory, " The Fa 
ther signifies, the Word accomplishes, 
not servilely, nor ignorantly, but with 
knowledge and sovereignty, and, tospeak 
more suitably, in the Father s way, 
traTpiK&s. Orat. 30. II. And S. Cyril, 
" There is nothing abject in the Son, 
as in a minister, v-rrovpycp, as they say ; 
for the God. and Father injoins not, eVi- 
TaTTet, on His Word, Make man, but 
as one with Him, by nature, and in 
separably existing in Him as a co- 
operator," &c. in Joann. p. 48. Ex 
planations such as these secure for the 
Catholic writers some freedom in their 
modes of speaking, e. g. we have seen, 
snpr. p. 15. note d. that Athan. speaks 
of the Son, as " enjoined and min 



Orat. ii. . 22. Thus S. Irenwus speaks 
of the Father being well-pleased and 
commanding, /ceAeiWros, and the Son 
doing and framing. User, iv. 75. S. 
Basil too, in the same treatise in which 
are some of the foregoing protests, 
speaks of" the Lord ordering. Trpoo-Taa-- 
crovra, and the Word framing." de Sp. S. 
n. 38. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of " Him 
who bids, eVre AAercu, bidding to one who 
is present with Him," Cat. xi. 16. vid. 
also v-m}pfT(av rfj fiov\fj, Justin. Tryph. 
J26. and virovpybv, Theoph. ad Autol. 
ii. lO.e luTTT/peTaij/tfeA^uaTt, Clem. Strom, 
vii. p. 832. 

The 1 2th and 13th Anathemas are 
intended to meet the charge which is 
alluded to pp. 115, 123, notes f and u, 
that Arianism involved the doctrine that 
our Lord s di\ ine nature suffered. Atha- 
nasius brings this accusation against 
them distinctly in his work against 
Apollinaris, " Idle then is the fiction 
of the Arians, who suppose tbat the 
Saviour took flesh only, irreligiously 
imputing the notion of suffering to the 
impassible godhead." contr. Apollin. i. 
15. vid. also Ambros. de Fide, iii. 31. 
Salig in his de Eutychianismo ant. 
Eutycben takes notice of none of the 
passages in the text. 



COUNC, 

ARIM. 

AND 

SELEU. 

Gen. 1, 
26. 

l p. 114, 
ref. 2. 



Gen.K, 
24. 



1*20 r l he first Creed of Sirmium, ayainst Phot mas, 

( 1 3.) Whosoever, as hearing the Only-begotten Son of God was 
crucified, shall say that His Godhead underwent corruption, 
or passion, or alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he 
anathema. 

(14.) Whosoever shall say that Let Us make man 1 was not said 
by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he ana 
thema P. 

(15.; Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but 
the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema^. 

(lf>.) Whosoever shall Hay that with Jacob, not the Son as man, 
but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, did wrestle, be he 
anathema 1 ". 

(l?.) Whosoever shall explain, The Lord rained fire from the Lord 
not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained from 



i This Anathema is directed against 
the Sabellians, especially Marcellus, 
who held the very opinion which it de 
nounces, that the Almighty spake with 
Himself. Euseb. Eccles. Theol ii. 15. 
The Jews said that Almighty God spoke 
to the Angels. Basil. Hexaem. fin. 
Others that the plural was used as au 
thorities on earth use it in way of dig 
nity. Theod. in Gen. 19. As to the 
Catholic Fathers, as is well known, 
they interpreted the text in the sense 
here given. It is scarcely necessary to 
refer to instances; Petavius, however, 
cites the following. First those in 
which the Eternal Father is considered 
to speak to the Son. Theophilus, ad 
Autol. ii, 18. Novatian, de Trin. 26. 
Tertullian, de Cam. Christ. 6. Synod. 
Antioch. contr, Paul. ap. Rnuth. Re- 
liqu. t. 2. p. 468. Basil. Hexaem. tin. 
Cyr. Hieros. Cat. x. 6. Cyril. Alex. 
Dial. iv. p. 516. Athan. contr. Gentes. 
46. Orat. iii. . 29. fin. Chrysost. in 
Genes. Horn, viii.3. Hilar. iv. 17. v. 8. 
Ambros. Hexaem. vi. 7 Augustin. ad 
Maxim, ii. 26. n. 2. Next those in 
which Son and Spirit are considered as 
addressed. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 18. 
Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. v. p. 315. 
Pseudo-Chrysost. cle Trin. t. i. p. 832. 
Cyril. Thesaur.p. 12.Theodor. inGenes. 
19. Hcer. v. 3. and 9. But even here, 
where the Arians agree with Catholics, 
they differ in this remarkable respect, 
that in this and the following Canons 
they place certain interpretations of 
Scripture under the sanction of an 
anathema, shewing how far less free 
the system of heretics is than that of 
the Church. 

q This again, in spite of the wording, 
which is directed against the Catholic 
doctrine, and of an heretical implica 
tion, is a Catholic interpretation, vid. 
(besides Philo de Somniis. i. 12.) Justin. 



Tryph. 56. and 126. Iren. Har. iv. 10. 
n. 1. Tertull. de earn. Christ. 6. adv. 
Marc. iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de 
Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Horn. iv. 5. 
Cyprian, adv. Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. Syn. 
contr. Paul, apud Routh. Rell. t. 2. p. 
469, Athan. Orat.ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor. 
29 and 39. Hajr. 71. 5. Chrysost. in 
Gen. Horn. 41. 7. These references are 
principally from Petavius ; also from 
Dorscheus, who has written an elabo 
rate commentary on this Council. The 
implication alluded to above is, that 
the Son is of a visible substance, and 
thus is naturally the manifestation of 
the Invisible God. Petavius maintains, 
and Bull denies, (Defens. F. D. iv.3.) 
that the doctrine is found in Justin, 
Origen, &c. The Catholic doctrine is 
that the Son has condescended to be 
come visible by means of material ap 
pearances. Augustine seems to have 
been the first who changed the mode of 
viewing the texts in question, and con 
sidered the divine appearance, not God 
the Son, but a created Angel, vid. de 
Trin. ii. passim. Jansenius considers 
that he did so from a suggestion of St. 
Ambrose, that the hitherto received 
view had been the origo hseresis Ari- 
anse, vid. his Augustinus, lib. procem. 
c. 12. t. 2. p. 12. The two views are not 
inconsistent with each other. It is re 
markable that in this and the next 
anathema for " partem ejus" in Hilary, 
Petavius should propose to read " pa- 
trem"againsttheoriginal text in Athan. 
/j.pos avrov, and the obvious explanation 
of it by the phrase //.epos 6/j.oov<nov, 
which was not ^infrequently in the 
mouths of Arian objectors, vid. supr. 
p. 97, note i. 

r This and the following Canon are 
Catholic in their main doctrine, and 
might be illustrated, if necessary, as 
the foregoing. 



being the sixth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 121 

Himself, be he anathema. For the Son Lord rained from the CHAP. 
Father Lord. 1L 

(18.) Whosoever hearing that the Father is Lord and the Son 
Lord and the Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, 
says there are two Gods, be he anathema. For we do not place 
the Fon in the Father s order, but as subordinate to the Father; 
for He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father s will 1 , * p- H8, 
nor did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the noten 
Father authorizing it. Nor is He of Himself set down on the 
right hand, but He hears the Father saying, Sit Thou on My right Ps. 110, 
hand. 

(19.) Whosoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy 
Ghost are One Person, be he anathema. 

(20.) W T hosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as Paraclete, shall 
speak of the Ingenerate God, be he anathema s . 

(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us, that the 
Paraclete is other than the Son, for He hath said, And another j hnJ4, 
Paraclefe shall the Father send to you, rvhom I rvill ask, be he 16. 
anathema. 

(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is part of the 
Father or of the Son 2 , be he anathema. 2 p . 120, 

(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the Son and the n. (16.) 
Holy Ghost be three Gods, be he anathema. 

(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at the will of 
God came to be, as one of the works, be he anathema. 

(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son was generated, the 
Father not wishing it 3 , be he anathema. For not by compulsion, 3 p. 115, 
forced by physical necessity, did the Father, as He wished not, n - (?) 
generate the Son, but He at once willed, and, after generating Him 
from Himself apart from time and passion, manifested Him. 

(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is ingenerate and un- 
originate, as if speaking of two unoriginate and two ingenerate, 
and making two Gods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, 
which is the origin of all : and God is the Head, which is the 
origin of Christ 4 ; for thus to one unoriginate origin of the uni--p.98, 
verse do we religiously refer all things through the Son. cir. fin. 

(27.) And in accurate delineation of the idea of Christianity we^ J* 3 x 
say this again ; Whosoever shall not say that Christ is God, Son of" 
God, as being before ages, and having subserved the Father in 



3 It was an expedient of the Mace- But, as the Arians had first made the 

donians to deny that the Holy Spirit alternative only between Ingenerate 

was God because it was not usual to call and created, and Athan. de Deer. 

Him Ingenerate ; and perhaps to their . 28. supr. p. 53, note g. shews that 

form of heresy which was always im- generate is a third idea really distinct 

plied in Arianism, and which began to from one and the other, so S. Greg, 

shew itself formally among the Semi- Naz. adds, processive, e/cTropeurbj/, as 

arians ten years later, this anathema an intermediate idea, contrasted with 

may be traced. They asked the Ca- Ingenerate, yet distinct from generate. 

tholics whether the Holy Spirit was In- Orat. xxxi. 8. In other woids, Ingene- 

generate, generate, or created, for into rate means, not only not generate, but 

these three they divided all things, vid. not from any origin, vid. August, de 

Basil, in Sabell. et Ar. Horn. xxiv. 6. Trin. xv. 26. 



1*22 The second Creed of Sirmium, subscribed by Hosius, 

CouNC.the framing of the Universe, but that from the time that He was 
A RIM. born of Mary, from thence He was called Christ arid Son, and 
s AND took an origin of being God, be he anathema. 

* 9g^ 1 5. Casting aside the whole of this, as if they had discovered 
something better, they propound another faith, and write at 
Sirmium in Latin what is here translated into Greek*. 

vii.Con- Whereas it has seemed good that there should be some dis- 
fession, cuss i O n concerning faith, all points have been carefully investi- 
^ 2nf gated and discussed at Sirmium in the presence of Valens, and 

oirmian, <J?T , , . , , 

A. D. Ursaeius, and Germamus, and the rest. 

357. It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father 

Almighty, as also is preached in all the world. 

And His One Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
generated from Him before the ages; and that we may not 
John 20, speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, I go to My 
!? f Father and your Father, and My God and your God. On this 
P~ account He is God of all, as also the Apostle has taught: Is He 
Uom. 3 @d f ^ ie J GWS only, is lie not also of the Gentiles? yea of the 
29. Gentiles also: since there is one God who shall justify the circum 
cision from faith, and the uncircumcision throutjh faith; and every 
thing else agrees, and has no ambiguity. 

Rut since many persons are disturbed by Questions concerning 
what is called in Latin f: Substantia," but in Greek " Usia," that 
is, to make it understood more exactly, as to " One in Substance," 
or what is called, " Like in substance," there ought to be no 
mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the 
Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine 
Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above 
men s knowledge and above men s understanding; and because 
Is. 53, 6. no one can declare the Son s generation, as it is written, Who 
shall declare His generation? for it is plain that the Father only 
knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how He 
has been generated by the Father. And to none can it be a 
question that the Father is greater : for no one can doubt that 
vid> the Father is greater in honour and dignity and Godhead, and in 
JohnlO, the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, The Father 
29. that sent Me is greater than I. And no one is ignorant, that it 
JohnH, j g Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and 
i v lroTf- ; on a]nc ^ ^at t 16 Father is greater, and the Son subordinated 1 to 
the Father together with all things which the Father has subordi- 

1 The Creed which follows was not calls this a " blasphemia, and upon it 

put forth by a Council, but at a meeting followed the Semi-arian Council byway 

of a few Arian Bishops, and the author of protest at Ancyra. St. Hilary tells 

was Potamius, Eishop of Lisbon. It is us that it was the Confession which 

important as marking the open separa- Hosius was imprisoned and tortured 

lion of the Eusebians or Acacians from into f-igning. Whether it is the one 

the Semi-arians, and their adoption of which Pope Liberius signed is doubtful ; 

Anomcean tenets. Hilary, who defends but he signed an Arian Confession at 

the Eusebian Councils up to this date, this time. 



being the seventh of the Eusebians, Arian. 1 23 

nated to Him, and that the Father has no origin, and is invisible, CHAP. 
and immortal, and impassible; but that the Son has been generated H. 
from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, and that His **<<*- 
generation, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And * ttl v - 
that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that is, JJecr-V 
a body, that is, man, from Mary the Virgin, as the Angel heralded 31. p. 56. 
beforehand ; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the Orat. i. 
Apostle Himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took man of ; 34 
Mary the Virgin, through which He suffered. And the whole ^fy 3 
faith is summed up 1 , and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever jj 
be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, Go ye and laicize all the Mat. 28, 
nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the HolyW* 
Ghost. And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but 
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came 
according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the 
Apostles and all believers 11 . 

16. After drawing up this, and then becoming dissatisfied, 29. 
they composed the faith which to their shame they paraded 
with " the Consulate." And, as is their wont, condemning this 
also, they caused Martinian the notary to seize it from the 
parties who had the copies of it*. And having got the Em 
peror Constantius to put forth an edict against it, they form 
another dogma afresh, and with the addition of certain 
expressions, according to their wont, they write thus in 
Isauria. 

We decline not to bring forward the authentic faith published atix. Con. 

fession,, 
atSeleu- 

Tt will be observed that this Con- Sardican Confession, (vid. above, pp. C ! Q^ 
fession; 1. by denying "two Gods," 84, 85, note c,) and turns them into 
and declaring that the One God is the another evidence rf this additional 
God of Christ, implies that our Lord is heresy involved in Arianism. " Im- 
not God. 2. It says that the word " sub- passibilis Deus," says Phrebadius, 
stance," and its compounds, ought not " qnia Deus Spirit tt9 . . . non ergo 
to be used as being unscriptural, mys- passibilis Dei Spiritus, licet in homine 
terious, and leading to disturbance; suo passus." Now the Sardican Con- 
3. it holds that the Father is greater fession is thought ignorant, as well as 
than the Son "in honour, dignity, and unauthoritative, (e.g. by Natalis Alex, 
godhead ;" 4. that the Son is subordi- Ssec. 4. Diss. 29.) because it imputes 
nate to the Father with all other to Valens and Ursacius the following 
things; 5. that it is the Father s cha- belief, which he supposes to be Patripas- 
racteristic to be invisible and impassi- sianism, but which exactly answers to 
ble. On the last head, vid. supr. pp. 1 15. this aspect and representation of Arinn- 
1 19. notes f. o. They also say that our ism : on 6 \6yos Kal ori rb irvev/na Kal 
Lord, hominem suscepisse per quern effTavp<f)9r] Kal eatyd yi) Kal a.TrtQa.vzv Kal 
compassusest,a. word which Phrebadius aveaTt}. Theod. Hist. li. 6 p. 844. 
condemns in his remarks on this Con- * Some critics suppose that the 
fession ; where, by the way, he uses transaction really beiorgs to the second 
the word u spiritus in the sense of instead of the third Confession of Sir- 
Hilary and the Ante Nicene Fathers, ininm. Socrates connects it with the 
in a connection which at once explains second. Hist. ii. 30. 
the obscure words of the supposititious 




1 24 Creed of Seleucia, ninth of the JEusebians, Homosan. 

CouNc.the Dedication at Antiochy; though certainly our fathers at the 
ARIM. time met together for a particular subject under investigation. 

S AND But since "One in substance" and "Like in substance 1 ," have 
^ troubled many persons in times past and up to this day, and since 
moreover some are said recently to have devised the Son s " Un- 
likeness 2 " to the Father, on their account we reject "One in sub- 
stance" and " Like in substance," as alien to the Scriptures, but 
fi Unlike" we anathematize, and account all who profess it as 
aliens from the Church. And we distinctly confess the " Like- 

3 8/j.oiov ness 3 " of the Son to the Father, according to the Apostle, who 

Col. 1, says of the Son, Who is the Image of the Invisible God. 

I 5 - And we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 

the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. 
And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, gene 
rated from Him impassibly before all the ages, God the Word, 
God from God, Only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, 
through whom all things were made, in the heavens and on the 
earth, whether visible or invisible. He, as we believe, at the end 
of the world, for the abolishment of sin, took flesh of the Holy 
Virgin, and was made man, and suffered for our sins, and rose 
again, and was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right 
hand of the Father, and is coming again in glory, to judge quick 
and dead. 

We believe also in the Holy Ghost, which our Saviour and 
Lord named Paraclete, having promised to send Him to the 
disciples after His own departure, as He did send; through 
whom He sanctifieth all in the Church who believe, and are 
baptized in the Name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. 

But those who preach aught beside this faith the Catholic 
Church regards as aliens. And that to this faith that is equi 
valent which was published lately at Sirmium, under sanction of 
his religiousness the Emperor, is plain to all who read it. 

. 30. 17. Having written thus in Isauria, they went up to Con 
stantinople 2 , and there, as if dissatisfied, they changed it, as is 

y The Semi-arian majority in the Letter was finished, and contain later 

Council had just before been confirming occurrences in the history of Ariminum, 

the Creed of the Dedication; hence this than were contemplated when he wrote 

beginning. vid.supr. p. 89, note o. They supra, ch. i. n. 15. init. vid. note h, in 

had first of all offered to the Council the loc. In this place Athan. distinctly 

third Sirmian, or " Confession with a says, that the following Confession, 

Date,"supr.. 3. which their coadjutors which the Acacians from Seleucia 

offered at Ariminum, Soz. iv. 22. and at adopted at Constantinople, was trans- 

the end of the present they profess that mitted to Arimirum, and there forced 

the two are substantially the same, upon the assembled Fathers. This is 

They seem to mean that they are both not inconsistent with what seems to be 

Homcean or Scriptural Creeds; they the fact, that the Confession was drawn 

differ in that the latter, as if to pro- up at a Council held at Nice in Thrace 

pitiate the Semi-arian majority, adds near Adrianople in Oct. 359, whither 

an anathema upon Anomcean as well the deputies from Ariminum had been 

as on the Homousion and Homoeu- summoned by Constantius. vid. Hilar. 

eion. Fragm. viii. 5. There the deputies 

z These two sections seem to have signed it, and thence they took it back 

been inserted by Athan. after his to Ariminum. In the beginning of the 



Creed of Nice, tenth, signed at Ariminum, Homoean. 125 

their wont, and with certain additions against using even CHAP. 
" Subsistence" of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they trans- ~ii 
mitted it to the Council at Ariminum, and compelled even 
the Bishops in those parts to subscribe it, and those who 
contradicted them they got banished by Constantius. And 
it runs thus : 

We believe in One God the Father Almighty, from whom are x. Con- 
all things ; fcseion 

And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God *jj 
before all ages and before every origin, by whom all things were on . 
made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only s tanti- 
from the Father only a , God from God, like to the Father thatuople. 
begat Him according to the Scriptures ; whose generation no A - D - 
one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we 359 - 360 - 
acknowledge, the Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending 
Him, came hither from the heavens, as it is written, for the un 
doing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary 
the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed 
with the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole economy ac 
cording to the Father s will, was crucified and dead and buried 






following year 360 it was confirmed by 
a Council at Constantinople, after the 
termination of that of Ariminum, and to 
this confirmation Athanasius refers. 
Socrates says, Hist. ii. 37 fin. that they 
chose Nice in order to deceive the 
ignorant with the notion that it was 
Nicfpa, and their creed the Nicene 
faith, and the place is actually called 
Niceea, in the Acts of Ariminum pre 
served by Hilary, p. 1346. Such a 
measure, whether or not adopted in 
matter of fact, might easily have had 
success, considering the existing state 
of the West. "We have seen, supr. p. 76, 
note i, that S. Hilary had not heard the 
Nicene Creed till he came into Asia 
Minor A. D. 356. and he says of his 
Gallic and British brethren, " O blessed 
ye in the Lord and glorious, who hold 
the perfect and apostolic faith in the 
profession of your conscience, and up 
to this time know not creeds in writing. 
For ye needed not the letter, who 
abounded in the Spirit ; nor looked for 
the hand s office for subscription, who 
believed in the heart, and professed 
with the mouth unto salvation. Nor 
was it necessary for you as bishops to 
read, what was put into your bands as 
neophytes on your regeneration. But 
necessity hath brought in the usage, 
the creeds should be expounded and 
subscriptions attached. For when what 



our conscience holds is in danger, then 
the letter is required; nor surely is 
there reason against writing what there 
is health in confessing." de Syn. 63. It 
should be added that at this Council 
Ulphilas the Apostle of the Goths, who 
had hitherto followed the Council of 
NicaBa, conformed, and thus became 
the means of spreading through his 
countrymen the Creed of Ariminum. 

a fji6vos e/c fji.6vov. Though this is an 
Homoean or Acacian,not an Anomoean 
Creed, this phrase may be considered a 
symptom of Anomcean influence ; /j.6vos 
Trapojor virb, fj.6vov being one special for 
mula adopted by Eunomius, explanatory 
of /Aovoyevfys, in accordance with the ori 
ginal Arian theory, mentioned de Deer. 
. 7. supra, p. 12. that the Son was the 
one instrument of creation. Eunomius 
said that He alone was created by the 
Father alone; all other things being 
created by the Father, not alone, but 
through Him whom alone He had first 
created, vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 25. p. 239 
St. Basil observes that, if this be a true 
sense of p.ovoyev^]s, then no man is such, 
e. g. Isaac, as being born of two, contr. 
Eunom. ii.21. Acacius has recourse to 
Gnosticism, and illustrates the Arian 
sense by the contrast of the irpo/SoA^ of 
the $Jons, which as described supra, 
p. 97, note h, was e/c iro\\S)v- ap. Epiph. 
User. 72. 7. p. 839. 



126 Creed of Antioch, 

CouNc.and descended to the parts below the earth ; at whom hell itself 

ARIM. shuddered : who also rose from the dead on the third day, and 

AND abode w ith the disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was 

ELEU - taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the 

Father, to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father s 

glory, that He may render to every man according to his works. 

And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only -begotten Son of God 
Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race 
of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, " the Spirit of truth, which 
He sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens." 

But the name of " Substance," which was set down by the 
Fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused 
offence, because the Scriptures contain it not, it has seemed good 
to take away, and for the future to make no mention of it at all ; 
since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Sub 
stance of Father and Son. For neither ought Subsistence to be 
named concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But we say 
that the Son is Like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and 
teach; and all the heresies, both those which have been afore 
condemned already, and whatever are of modern date, being 
contrary to this published statement, be they anathema b . 

. 31. 18. However, they did not stand even to this; for coming 
xi. Con- down, from Constantinople to Antioch, they were dissatisfied 
at And- that they had written at all that the Son was " Like the 
^ h p Father, as the Scriptures say ;" and putting their ideas upon 
361. paper, they began reverting to their first doctrines, and said 
that " the Son is altogether unlike the Father," and that 
the " Son is in no manner like the Father," and so much 
did they change, as to admit those who spoke the Arian 
doctrine nakedly and to deliver to them the Churches with 
licence to bring forward the words of blasphemy with im 
punity . Because then of the extreme shamelessness of 

b Here as before, instead of speaking sis, as well as the Greek original. This 

of Arianism, the Confession anathema- circumstance might be added, to those 

tizes a// heresies, vid.supr. p. 108,noteg. enumerated supra, p. 69, &c. to shew 

It will be observed, that for "Like in that in the N icene formulary substance 

all things," which was contained in the and subsistence are synonymous. 

Confession (third Sirmian) first sub- c Acacius, Eudoxius, and tbe rest, 

mitted to the Ariminian Fathers, is after ratifying at Constantinople the 

substituted simply " Like." Moreover, Creed framed at Nice and subscribed 

they include hypostasis or subsistence at Ariminum, appear next at Antioch 

though a Scripture term, in the list of a year and a half later, when they 

proscribed symbols, vid. also ad Afros. 4. throw off the mask, and, avowing the 

The object of suppressing i>Tr6<na<ns, Anomoean Creed, " revert," as St. Atha- 

seeins to have been that, since the Cretd, nasius says, " to their first doctrines, 1 

which was written in Latin, was to go to i.e. those with which Arius started. 

Ariminum, the West might be forced to The Anomoean doctrine, it may be ob- 

deny the Latin version or equivalent of served, is directly opposed rather to the 

0/j.oovcriov, unius substantial, or hyposta- Homceusian than to the Homoiision, as 



eleventh of the Eusebians, Anomcean. 



127 



their blasphemy they were called by all Anomceans, having CHAP. 
also the name of Exucontian d , and the heretical Constantius 
for the patron of their ungodliness, who persisting up to the 
end in irreligion, and on the point of death, thought good 
to be baptized 6 ; not however by religious men, but by 
Euzoius 1 , who for his Arianism had been deposed, not once, 
but often, both when he was a deacon, and when he was in 
the see of Antioch. 

19. The forementioned parties then had proceeded thus far, . 32. 
when they were stopped and deposed. But well I know, not even 
under these circumstances will they stop, as many as have now 
dissembled %, but they will always be making parties against 



indeed the very symbols shew; "unlike 
in substance, being the contrary to 
" like in substance." It doubtless 
frightened the Semi-arians, and hast 
ened their return to the Catholic doc 
trine, 

d From e OVK OVTCCV, u out of no 
thing," one of the original Arian posi 
tions concerning the Son. Theodoret 
says that they were also called Exa- 
cionitse, from the nature of their place 
of meeting, Ha>r. iv. 3. and Du Cange 
confirms it so far as to shew that there 
was a pi ace or quarter of Constantinople 
called Exocioniutn or Exacionium. 

e At this critical moment Constantius 
died, when the cause of truth was only 
not in the lowest state of degradation, 
because a party was in authority and 
vigour who could retiuce it to a lower 
still; the Latins committed to an Anti- 
Catholic Creed, the Pope a renegade, 
Hosius fallen and dead, Athanasius 
wandering in the deseits, Arians in the 
sees of Christendom, and their doctrine 
growing in blasphemy, and their pro 
fession of it in boldness, every day. The 
Emperor had come to the throne when 
almost a boy, and at this time was but 
44 \ ears old. In the ordinary course of 
things, he might have reigned till, hu 
manly speaking, orthodoxy was extinct. 
This passage shews that Athanasius 
did not insert these sections till two 
years after the composition of the work 
itself; lor Constantino died A.D. 361. 

f Euzoius, at this time Arian Bishop 
of Antioch, was excommunicated with 
Arius in Egypt and at Nicaea, and was 
restored with him to the Church at the 
Council of Jerusalem. He succeeded 
at Antioch S. Meietius, who on being 
placed in that see by the Arians pro 



fessed orthodoxy, and was forthwith 
banished by them. 

8 vTTKpivai To. hypocrites, is almost 
a title of the Arians, (with an ap 
parent allusion to 1 Tim. iv. 2. vid. 
Socr. i. p. 13. Athan. Orat. i. . 8.) 
and that in various senses. The first 
meaning is that, being heretics, they 
nevertheless used orthodox phrases and 
statements to deceive and seduce Catho 
lics. Thus the term is used by Alex 
ander in the beginning of the contro 
versy, vid. Theol. Hist. i. 3. pp. 729. 
746. Again, it implies that they agreed 
with Arius, but would not confess it; 
professed to be Catholics, but would 
not anathematize him. vid. Athan. ad 
Ep. ^Eg. 20. or alleged untruly the 
N icene Council as their ground of com 
plaint, infr. . 39. Again, it is used of 
the hollowness and pretence of their 
ecclesiastical proceedings, with the Em 
peror at their head; which were a sort 
of make-belief of spiritual power, or 
piece of acting, 8pa^aroi>pyr]ij.a. Ep. 
Encycl- 2 and 6. It also means geneial 
insincerity, as if they were talking 
about what they did not understand, 
and did not realize what they said, and 
were blindly implicating themselves in 
evils of a fearful character. Thus Athan. 
calls them TOVS T//J- Apeiov fj.avias 
viroicpiTds. Orat. ii. . 1. init. and he 
speaks of the evil spirit making them 
his sport, TO IS vwoKpii ojui.ti oi.s ryv fj.a.v(o.v 
avTou. ad Serap. i. 1. And hence fur 
ther it is applied, as in this place, though 
with severity, }et to those who were 
near the truth, and who, though in 
sin, would at length come to it or nor, 
according as the state of their hearts 
was. He is here anticipating the re 
turn into the Church of those whom he 






128 More Creeds in prospect till they submit to the Nicene. 
COUNC. the truth, until they return to themselves and say, " Let us 

A "R. 1 M 

AND rise and go to our fathers, and say unto them, We anathe- 
SELEU. matize the Ariari heresy, and we acknowledge the Nicene 
Council 11 ;" for against this is their quarrel. Who then, with 
ever so little understanding, will bear them any longer? who, 
on hearing in every Council some things taken away and 
others added, but comprehends their treachery and secret 
depravity against Christ? who on seeing them embodying to 
so great a length both their professions of faith, and their own 
exculpation, but sees that they are giving sentence against 

1 p. 6, themselves *, and studiously writing much which may be 

likely by an officious display and an abundance of w r ords 
to seduce the simple and hide what they are in point of 
heresy? But as the heathen, as the Lord said, using vain 
words in their prayers, are nothing profited; so they too, after 
all their words were spent, were not able to extinguish the 
judgment pronounced against the Arian heresy, but were 
convicted and deposed instead ; and rightly ; for which of 
their formularies is to be accepted by the hearer ? or with 
what confidence shall they be catechists to those who come 
to them ? for if they all have one and the same meaning, 

2 p. no, what is the need of many 2 ? But if need has arisen of so 
note q. m any, it follows that each by itself is deficient, not complete; 

and they establish this point better than we can, by their in- 

3 p. 81, novating on them all and re-making them 3 . And the number 
note t. O f tne i r Councils, and the difference of their statements is a 

proof that those who were present at them, while at variance 
with the Nicene, are yet too feeble to harm the Truth. 



thus censures. In this st nse, though monasteries of the deserts, in close 

with far more severity in what he says, concealment, (unless we suppose he 

the writer of a Tract, imputed to Athan. really had issued thence and was 

against the Catholicising Semi-arians present at Seleucia,) this is a rematk- 

of 363, entitles it " on the hypocrisy of able instance of accurate knowledge 

Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata. of the state of feeling in the heretical 

It is remarkable that what Athan. here party, and of foresight. From his 

predicts was fulfilled to the letter, even apparent want of knowledge cf the 

of the worst of these " hypocrites." Anomoeans, and his unhesitatingly 

For Acacius himself, who in 361 signed classing them with the Arians, it 

the Anomoean Confession above re- would seem in a grtat mea.- ure to 

corded, was one of those very men arise from the intimate comprehension 

who accepted the Homoiision with an of the doctrine itself in dispute and of 

explanation in 363. its bearings. There had been at that 

h Considering that Athanasius had time no parallel of a great aberration 

now been for several years among the and its issue. 



CHAP. III. 

ON THE SYMBOLS " OF THE SUBSTANCE" AND " ONE IN 
SUBSTANCE." 

We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the 
sense ; meaning of the Symbols ; the question of their not being in 
Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, not to be 
considered Arians. Reasons why " one in substance" better than u 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 -ariation in the use of Ingenerate; quotation from Ignatius and 
.another ; reasons for using one in substance ;" objections to it ; 
examination of the word itself; further documents of the Council of 
Ariininum. 

1. BUT since they are thus minded both towards each other CHAP. 

Ill 
and towards those who preceded them, proceed we to ascer- r-o<r- 

tain from them what extravagance they have seen, or what 
they complain of in the received phrases, that they should thus 
disobey their fathers, and contend against an Ecumenical 
Council*? " The phrases l of the substance and one in 
substance, " say they 5 " do not please us, for they are an 
offence to some and a trouble to many V This then is what 

8 The subject before us, naturally clear the way fora re-union of Christen- 

rises out of what has gone before, dom. The remainder of his work then 

Athan. has traced out the course of is devoted to the consideration of the 

Arianism to what seemed to be its u one in substance," (as contrasted 

result, the resolution of it into a better with " like in substance, ") which had 

element or a worse, the precipitation confessedly great difficulties in it. vid. 

of what was really unbelieving in it p. 147, note u. 

in the Anomoaan form, and the gradual b This is only stating what the above 

purification of that Semi-arianisni which Confessions have said again and again, 

prevailed in the Eastern Sees. vid. p. The objections made to it were, 1. that 

103, note t. The Anomoaan creed was it was not in Scripture; 2. that it had 

hopeless; but with the Semi-arians all been disowned by the AntiocheneCoun- 

that remained was the adjustment of cil against Paul of Samosata; 3. that 

phrases. They had to reconcile their it was of a material nature, and be- 

minds to terms which the Church had longed to the Manichees; 4. that it 

taken from philosophy and adopted as was of a Sabellian tendency ; 5. that 

her own. Accordingly, Athan. goes on it implied that the divine substance 

to propose such explanations as might was distinct from God. 






1 30 They who held the doctrine, would admit the terms ofNicaa. 

CouNc.they allege in their writings; but one may reasonably 
ARIM answer them thus: If the very words were by themselves 



AND 



SELEU. a ca use of offence to them, it must have followed, not that 
some only should have offended, and many troubled, but 
that we also and all the rest should have been affected by 
them in the same way ; but if on the contrary all men are 
well content with the words, and they who wrote them were 
no ordinary persons but men who came together from the 
whole world, and to these testify in addition the 400 Bishops 
and more who have now met at Ariminum, does not this 
plainly prove against those who accuse the Council, that the 
terms are not in fault, but the perverseness of those who 
misinterpret them ? How many men read divine Scripture 
wrongly, and as thus conceiving it, find fault with the 
Saints ? such were the Jews formerly, who rejected the 
Lord, and the Manichees at present who blaspheme the 
^id. Law 1 ; yet are not the Scriptures the cause to them, but 
8 Jv 23. their own evil humours. If then ye can shew the terms to 
be actually unsound, do so and let the proof proceed, and 
drop the pretence of offence created, lest you come into the 
condition of the Pharisees formerly, when, on pretending 
Mat. 15, offence at the Lord s teaching, He said, Every plant, which 
My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. By 
which He shewed that not the words of the Father planted 
by Him were really an offence to them, but that they mis 
interpreted good words and offended themselves. And in 
like manner they who at that time blamed the Epistles of 
the Apostle, impeached, not Paul, but their own deficient 
learning and distorted minds. 

. 34*. 2. For answer what is much to the purpose, Who are they 

whom you pretend are offended and troubled at these terms ? 

of those who are religious towards Christ not one ; on the 

contrary they defend and maintain them. But if they are 

Arians who thus feel, what wonder they should be distressed 

at words which destroy their heresy ? for it is not the terms 

which offend them, but the proscription of their irreligion 

2 p. 32, which afflicts them 2 . Therefore let us have no more mur- 

p^ 3 6) * muring against the Fathers, nor pretence of this kind ; or 

ref. 2, next c you will be making complaints of the Lord s Cross, 

p. 138, 

ref. 4. c &pa. vid. Orat. i. . 15. iv. . 10. Serap. ii. 1. Kalpos. de Deer. . 15. init. 



"Of God" if more than words, means " of His Substance" J31 

that it is to Jews an offence and to Gentiles foolishness, as CHAP. 
said the Apostle d . But as the Cross is not faulty, for to us r^V 
who believe it is Christ the power of God and the wisdom 0/23. 24, 
God, though Jews rave, so neither are the terms of the 
Fathers faulty, but profitable to those who rightly read, 
and subversive of all irreligion, though the Arians so often 
burst ! with rage as being condemned by them. p. 29, 

3. Since then the pretence that persons are offended does 
not hold, tell us yourselves, why is it you are not pleased 
with the phrase " of the substance," (this must first be 
enquired about,) when you yourselves have written that 
the Son is generated from the Father ? If when you name 
the Father, or use the word " God," you do not signify 
substance, or understand Him according to substance, who 

is that He is, but signify something else about Him 2 , not to 2 p. 38, 
say inferior, then you should not have written that the Son nc 
was from the Father, but from what is about Him or in 
Him e ; and so, shrinking from saying that God is truly 
Father, and making Him compound who is simple, in 
a material way, you will be authors of a new blasphemy. 
And, with such ideas, do you of necessity consider the Word 
and the title " Son," not as a substance but as a name 3 only; 3 p. 41, 
and in consequence the views ye have ye hold as far as names p ^ 
only, and your statements are not positive points of faith, but note h - 
negative opinions. 

4. But this is more like the crime of the Sadducees, and. 35. 
of those among the Greeks who had the name of Atheists. 

It follows that you deny that creation too is the handywork 
of God Himself that is ; at least, if " Father" and " God" do 



d u The Apostle > is a common title called the Apostle. Orat. i. 47. 
of St. Paul in antiquity. E. g. By e Vid. Orat. i. . 15. supra, de Deer, 

partaking of the Son Himself, we are p. 38, note z. Thus Eusebius calls our 

said to partake of God, and this is that Lord " the light throughout the uni- 

which Peter has said, that ye might verse, moving round (&/j.<j>i) the Father." 

be partakers of the divine nature, as de Laud. Const, p. 601. It was a 

says also the Apostle, " Know ye not Platonic idea, which he gained from 

that ye are the temple of God, &c." Plotinus ; whom he quotes speaking 

Orat. i. . 16. " When the Apostle of his second Principle as " radiance 

is mentioned, says S. Augustine, if it around, from Him indeed, but from one 

is not specified which, Paul only is un- who remains what He was ; as the 

derstood, because he is more celebrated sun s bright light circling around it, 

from the number of his Epistles, and (irepiOeov,) ever generated from it, which 

laboured more abundantly than all the nevertheless remains." Evang. Prop, 

rest." ad Bonifac. iii. 3. St. Peter is xi. 17- vid. above, p. 51, note b. 

K2 



132 If "of God" not "of Substance" Christ a creature. 

CouNc.not signify the very substance of Him that is, but something 

AND else, which you imagine: which is irreligious, and most 

S .5^E: shocking even to think of. But if, when we hear it said, / 

p o *-* 

]4/ am that 1 am, and, In the beginning God created the heaven 
Gen< ! and the earth, and, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one 
T)eut.6,Lord, and, Thus saith the Lord Almighty, we understand 
4 * nothing else than the very simple, and blessed, and incom 
prehensible substance itself of Him that is, (for though we 
be unable to master that He is, yet hearing " Father," and 
" God," and " Almighty," we understand nothing else to be 
1 P 34 > meant than the very substance of Him that is 1 ;) and if ye 
too have said, that the Son is from God, it follows that you 
have said that He is from the " substance" of the Father. 
And since the Scriptures precede you which say, that the 
Lord is Son of the Father, and the Father Himself precedes 
Mat. 3, them, who says, This is My beloved Son, and a son is no 
other than the offspring from his father, is it not evident 
that the Fathers have suitably said that the Son is from the 
Father s substance? considering that it is all one to say in an 
orthodox sense "from God," and to say "from the substance." 
For all the creatures, though they be said to be generated 
from God, yet are not from God as the Son is ; for they are 
Gen. 1,1. not offsprings in their nature, but works. Thus, it is said, in 
the beginning God, not " generated," but made the heaven and 
the earth, and all that is in them. And not, " who generates," 
Ps. 104, but who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame 
4*Cor 8 f fi re * Arid though the Apostle has said, One God, from 
6 - whom all things, yet he says not this, as reckoning the Son 
2 de with other things; but, whereas some of the Greeks consider 2 
p. 33, that the creation was held together by chance, and from the 

ref l. combination of atoms 3 , and spontaneously from elements of 
3 Epicu- ... ., 

ms. similar structure 4 , and has no cause; and others consider 

4Anaxa "that it came from a cause, but not through the Word: and 

goras. . B 

each heretic has imagined things at his will, and tells his 

fables about the creation ; on this account the Apostle was 

obliged to introduce from God, that he might thereby certify 

the Maker, and shew that the universe was framed at His 

l Cor. 8, will. And accordingly he straightway proceeds: And one 

5 S3fio Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things, by way of 

p. 54 fin. excepting the Son from that " all 5 ," (for what is called God s 



Objection that the Nicene Symbols are unscriptural. 133 

work, is all done through the Son ; and it is not possible CHAP. 
that the things framed should have one generation with their - 
Framer,) and by way of teaching that the phrase of God, 
which occurs in the passage, has a different sense in the 
case of the works, from what it bears when used of the 
Son ; for He is offspring, and they are works: and therefore 
He, the Son, is the proper offspring of His substance, but 
they are the handywork of His will. 

5. The Council, then, comprehending this 1 , and aware of . 36. 
the different senses of the same word, that none should sup- p d e r 
pose, that the Son was said to be from God like the creation, . 19. 
wrote with greater explicitness, that the Son was "from the p< 3S 
substance." For this betokens the true genuineness of the Son 
towards the Father; whereas, in its being said simply " from 
God," only the Creator s will concerning the framing of all 
is signified. If then they too had this meaning, when they 
wrote that the Word was " from the Father," they had no 
thing to complain of in the Council 2 ; but if they meant " of 2 p. iso, 
God," in the instance of the Son, as it is used of the crea~ ref< 2 
tion, then as understanding it of the creation, they should 
not name the Son, or they will be manifestly mingling blas 
phemy with religiousness ; but either they have to cease 
reckoning the Lord with the creatures, or at least to make 
statements not unworthy, and not unbecoming of the Son. 
For if He is a Son, He is not a creature; but if a creature, 
then not a Son. Since these are their views, perhaps they 
will be denying the Holy Laver also, because it is adminis 
tered into Father and into Son ; and not into Creator and 
Creature, as they account it. 

6. "But," they say, "all this is not written: and we reject 
these words as unscriptural." But this, again, is an unblush 
ing excuse in their mouths. For if they think every thing 
must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when the 
Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scrip 
ture 3 , "Out of nothing, "and "the Son was not before His gene- 3 p. 31, 
ration," and "Once He was not," and "He is alterable," note l } - 
and " the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son," and 
"the Son knows not even His own substance;" and all that 
Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia, why 
do not they speak against these, but rather take their part; 



184 Arian inconsistency in refusing theological terms. 

CouNc.and on that account contend with their own Fathers? And, 
AND * in what Scripture did they on their part find " Ingenerate," 
SELEU - and the name of " substance," and " there are three subsist 
ences," and "Christ is not very God," and " He is one of the 
hundred sheep," and " God s Wisdom is ingenerate and in- 
originate, but the created powers are many, of which Christ is 
1 supr. one ?" Or how, when in the so-called Dedication, the party of 
I* j 06 Acacius and Eusebius used expressions not in Scripture 2 , and 
note b. sa id that " the First-born of the creation" was " the unvarying 
Image of the divine substance, and power, and will of God," 
do they complain of the Fathers, for making mention of un- 
scriptural expressions, and especially of substance ? For they 
ought either to complain of themselves, or to find no fault 
with the Fathers. 

. 37. 7. Now, if certain others made excuses of the expressions of 
the Council, it might perhaps have been set down, either to 
ignorance or to reverence. There is no question, for instance, 
about George of Cappadocia f , who was expelled from Alex 
andria; a man, without character in years past, nor a Chris 
tian in any respect; but only pretending to the name to suit 
1 Tim. the times, and thinking religion to be a means of gain. And 
6> 6 therefore reason is there, none should complain of his making 
mistakes about the faith, considering he knows neither what 
he says, nor whereof he affirms; but, according to the text, 
v j d - goeth after all, as a bird. But when Acacius, and Eudoxius, 
22. 23. and Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve the strongest 
reprobation ? for while they write what is unscriptural 



f George, whom Athanasius, Gregory pieces in a rising of the heathen popu- 

Naz., and Socrates, call a Cappadocian, lace. He had laid capital informations 

was born, according to Ammianus, in against many persons of the place, and 

Epiphania of Cilicia, at a fuller s mill, he tried to persuade Constantius, that as 

He was appointed pork-contractor to the successor of Alexander its founder 

the army, as mentioned above, . 12. he was proprietor of the soil and had a 

and being detected in defrauding the claim upon the houses built on it. Am- 

government, he fled to Egypt. Naz. mian. xxii. 11. Epiphanius tells us, 

Orat. 21. 16. How he became ac- Hser. 76. 1. that he made a monopoly of 

quainted with the Eusebian party does the nitre of Egypt, farmed the beds of 

not appear. Sozomen tells us that he re- papyrus, and the salt lakes, and even 

commended himself to the see of Alex- contrived a profit from the undertakers, 

andria, by his zeal for Arianism and his His atrocious cruelties to the Catholics 

rrbSpaffT-fipiov, and Gregory calls him the are well known. Yet he seems to have 

hand of the heresy as Acacius (?) was the collected a choice library ofphilosophers 

tongue. Orat 21.21. He made himself and poets and Christian writers, which 

so obnoxious to the Alexandrians, that Julian seized on; Pithaeus in loc. Am- 

in the reign of Julian he was torn to mian. also Gibbon, ch. 23. 



Likeness in Substance the only true likeness. 135 

themselves, and have accepted many times, the term " sub- CHAP. 
stance" as suitable, especially on the ground of the letter of 
Eusebius 1 , they now blame their predecessors for using terms p. 62 
of the same kind. Nay, though they say themselves, that the 
Son is "God from God," and " Living Word," "Unvarying 
Image of the Father s substance ;" they accuse the Nicene 
Bishops of saying, that He who was begotten is " of the sub 
stance" of Him who begat Him, and " One in substance" with 
Him. But what marvel the conflict with their predecessors and 
their own Fathers, when they are inconsistent to themselves, 
and fall foul of each other? For after publishing, in the so- 
called Dedication at Antioch, that the Son is unvarying Image 
of the Father s substance, and swearing that so they held and 
anathematizing those who held otherwise, nay, in Isauria, writ 
ing down, " We do not decline the authentic faith published 
in the Dedication at Antioch 2 ," where the term "sub- 2 up r . 

c OQ 

stance" was introduced, as if forgetting all this, shortly after, 9 
in the same Isauria, they put into writing the very contrary, 
saying, We reject the words "one in substance," and "like in 
substance," as alien to the Scriptures, and demolish the term 
" substance," as not contained therein 3 . ^ 8% * 

8. Can we then any more account such men Christians ? or . 38. 
what sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor 
writing, but alter and change every thing according to the 
times ? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you " do not 
decline the faith published at the Dedication," and in it is 
written that the Son is " Unvarying Image of God s substance," 
why is it ye write in Isauria, " we reject the Like in sub 
stance ?" for if the Son is not like the Father according to 
substance, how is He " unvarying image of the substance ?" 
But if you are dissatisfied at having written " Unvarying 
Image of the substance," how is it that ye " anathematize 
those who say that the Son is Unlike ?" for if He be not ac 
cording to substance like, He is altogether unlike : and the 
Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does not 
hold that he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, J hnl4 
there being then the greatest difference possible between 9 
Them, or rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other. And 
Unlike cannot possibly be called Like. By what artifice then 
do ye call Unlike like, and consider Like to be unlike, and so 



136 Arians had no fixedness, because no earnestness. 

COUNC. pretend to say that the Son is the Father s Image ? for if the Son 
be not like the Father in substance, something is wanting to 
the Image, and it is not a complete Image, nor a perfect radi- 
Coloss. ance g . How then read ye, In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
John 1, Godhead bodily? and, from His fulness have all we received? 
how is it that ye expel the Arian Aetius as an heretic, though 
ye say the same with him? for thy companion is he, O 
Acacius, and he became Eudoxius s master in this so great 
irreligion h ; which was the reason why Leontius the Bishop 
made him deacon, that using the name of the diaconate as 
a sheep s clothing, he might be able with impunity to pour 
. 39. forth the words of blasphemy. What then has persuaded you 
p. 81, to contradict each other 1 , and to procure to yourselves so 
te * great a disgrace? You cannot give any good account of it; 
this supposition only remains, that all you do is but outward 
profession and pretence, to secure the countenance of Con- 
stantius and the gain from thence accruing. And ye make 
nothing of accusing the Fathers, and ye complain outright of 
the expressions as being unscriptural ; and, as it is written, 
Fz, 16, have opened thy feet to every one that passed by ; so as to 
change as often as they wish, in whose pay and keep you 
are. 

9. Yet, though aman use terms not in Scripture, it makes no 
difference, so that his meaning be religious 1 . But the heretic, 

s Athan. here says, that when they h Aetius was the first to carry out 

spoke of " like," they could not con- Arianism in its pure Anomoean form, 

sistently mean any thing short of "like- as Eunomius was its principal apologist, 

ness of substance," for this is the only He was born in humble life, and was at 

true likeness; and that, while they used first a practitioner in medicine. After 

the words airapd\\a.KTos eftcwi/, unvary- a time he became a pupil of the Arian 

ing image, to exclude all essential like- Paulinus; then the guest of Athanasius 

ness, was to suppose instead an image of Nazarbi; then the pupil of Leontius 

varying utterly from its original. Ft of Antioch, who ordained him deacon, 

must not he supposed from this that he and afterwards deposed him. This was 

approves the phrase fytotos /car ova-lav or in 350. In 351 he seems to have held 

o/jLoioiKTios, in this Treatise, for infr. a dispute with Basil of Ancyra, at Sir- 

. 53. he rejects it on the ground that mium; in the beginning of 360 he was 

when we speak of "like," we imply formally condemned in the Council of 

qualities, not substance. According to Constantinople, which confirmed the 

him then the phrase "unvarying image" Creed of Ariminum, and just before 

was, strictly speaking, self-contra- Eudoxius had been obliged to anathe- 

dictory, for every image varies from matize his confession of faith. This 

the original because it is an image, was at the very time Athan. wrote the 

Yet he himself frequently uses it, as present work. 

other Fathers, and Orat. i. . 26. uses vid.p.31,note p. And so S. Gregory 

d/j.oios rf)s ovcrlas. And all human terms in a well-known passage; "Why art 

are imperfect; and " image" itself is thou such a slave to the letter, and 

used in Scripture. takest up with Jewish wisdom, and 



Scripture uses terms not in Scripture. 137 

though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dan- CHAP. 
gerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the LLi_ 
Spirit, Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My cove- ?* 50 > 
nant in thy mouth? Thus whereas the devil, though speaking 
from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, the blessed 
Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, The Cretans are Tit. 1,2. 
always liars, and, For we are His offspring, and, Evil commu-^s. * 
nications corrupt good manners, yet has a religious meaning, } 5 Cor * 
as being holy, is doctor of the nations, in faith and verity, i Tim. 
as having the mind of Christ, and what he speaks, he utters |*Q^ r 
religiously. What then is there even plausible, in the Arian2, 16. 
terms, in which the caterpillar and the locust 1 are preferred to Joel 2 > 
the Saviour, and He is reviled with "Once Thou wast not,"ii is. 
and "Thou was created," and "Thou art foreign to God? 10L 
in substance," and, in a word, no insult is spared against 
Him ? On the other hand, what good word have our Fathers 
omitted ? yea rather, have they not a lofty view and a Christ- 
loving religiousness? And yet these men have written, "We 
reject the words ;" while those others they endure in their insults 
towards the Lord, and betray to all men, that for no other cause 
do they resist that great Council but that it condemned the 
Arian heresy. For it is on this account again that they speak 
against the term One in substance, about which they also en 
tertain wrong sentiments. For if their faith was orthodox, and 
they confessed the Father as truly Father, believed the Son to 
be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of the 
Father, and as to saying that the Son is from God, if they did 
not use the words of Him as of themselves, but understood 
Him to be the proper offspring of the Father s substance, as 
the radiance is from light, they would not every one of them 
have found fault with the Fathers ; but would have been 
confident that the Council wrote suitably ; and that this is 
the orthodox faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. 

10. "But," say they, "the sense of such expressions is* 



pursuest syllables to the loss of things? for words belong as much to him who 
For if thou wert to say, twice five, or demands them as to him who utters." 
twice seven, and I concluded ten Orat. 31. 24. vid. also Hil. contr. Con 
or fourteen from your words, or from stant. 16. August. Ep. 238. n. 4 6. 
areasonablemortalanimal Iconcluded Cyril. Dial. i. p. 391. Petavius refers 
man, should I seem to you absurd? to other passages, de Trin. iv. 5. 
how so, if 1 did but give your meaning? . 6. 



138 Pretence that the Nicene Symbols are obscure. 

COUNC. obscure to us;" for this is another of their pretences, " We 
A A*KB re j ect them 1 ," say they, "because we cannot master their 
SET.EU. meaning." But if they were true in this profession, instead 

1 * 8 * of saying, " We reject them," they should ask instruction 

from the well informed ; else ought they to reject whatever 
they cannot understand in divine Scripture, and to find fault 
with the writers. But this were the crime of heretics rather 
than of us Christians; for what we do not understand in the 
sacred oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from persons to 
whom the Lord has revealed it, and from them we ask for 
instruction. But since they thus make a pretence of the 
obscurity of such expressions, let them at least confess what 

2 p. 31, is annexed to the Creed, and anathematize those who hold 2 
note p that " the Son is from nothing," and " He was not before 

His generation," and " the Word of God is a creature and 
work," and " He is alterable by nature," and "from another 
subsistence ;" and in a word let them anathematize the 

3 p. 108, Arian heresy, which has originated such irreligion 3 . Nor let 
note g. th em sa y an y m0 re, " We reject the terms," but that " we 

do not yet understand them;" by way of having some 
reason to shew for declining them. But well know T, and 
am sure, and they know it too, that if they could confess all 
this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they would no 
4 P 5 > longer deny those terms of the Council 4 . For on this account 
it was that the Fathers, after declaring that the Son was 
begotten from the Father s substance, and One in substance 
with Him, thereupon added, But those who say," (what has 
just been quoted, the symbols of the Arian heresy,) " we 
anathematize;" I mean, in order to shew that the statements 
are parallel, and that the terms in the Creed imply the dis 
claimers subjoined, and that all who confess the terms, will 
certainly understand the disclaimers. But those who both 
dissent from the latter and impugn the former, such men are 
proved on every side to be foes of Christ. 

.41. 11. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently 
exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept 
every thing else that was defined at Nicaea, and quarrel only 
about the One in substance, must not be received as enemies; 
nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as oppo 
nents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as 



Semi-Brians not to be regarded as Brians. 139 

brothers with brothers 1 , who mean what we mean, and dispute CHAP. 
only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from t vi(L 
the substance of the Father, and not from other subsistence 2 , p. 141, 

F6f ^5 

and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and 2 j^ote, 
natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father P- 66< 
as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from ac 
cepting even the phrase " One in substance ;" of whom is Basil 
of Ancyra, in what he has written concerning the faith k . For 
only to say " like according to substance," is very far from 
signifying " of the substance 3 ," by which, rather, as they say 3 p- 6 . 4 , 
themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is 
signified, Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, 
and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, 
nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog 1 . But 
since they say that He is " of the substance" and " Like in 
substance," what do they signify by these but " One in 
substance" 1 ?" For, while to say only "Like in substance," 
does not necessarily convey " of the substance," on the 
contrary, to say " One in substance," is to signify the 
meaning of both terms, " Like in substance," and " of the 
substance." And accordingly they themselves in contro 
versy with those who say that the Word is a creature, 
instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their 
proofs against them from human illustrations of son and 
father 11 , with this exception that God is not as man, nor the 

* Basil, who wrote against Mai eel- unscrupulous slanders, 
lus, and was placed by the Arians in his l So also de Deer. . 23. p. 40. Hyp. 

see, has little mention in history till the Mel. et Euseb. Hil. de Syn. 89. vid. 

date of the Council of Sardica, which p. 35, note u. p. 64, note i. The illus- 

deposed him. Constantius, however, tration runs into this position, u Things 

stood his friend, till the beginning of that are like, cannot be the same." vid. 

the year 360, when Acacius supplanted p. 136, note g. On the other hand, 

him in the Imperial favour, and he was Athan. himself contends for the ravrbv 

banished into Illyricum. This was a TT? dfjioiuxrci, a the same in likeness. 7 

month or two later than the date at de Deer. . 20. p. 35. vid. infr. note r. 
which Athan. wrote his first draught m \id.Socr.iii.25.p.204.a.b. Una 

or edition of this work. He was con- substantia religiose praedicabitur quse 

demned upon charges of tyranny, and ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturse 

the like, but Theodoret speaks highly similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una 

of his correctness of life and Sozomen dicatur. Hil. de Syn. 67. 
of his learning and eloquence, vid. n Here at last Athan. alludes to the 

Theod. Hist. ii. 20. Soz. ii. 33. A Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph. 

very little conscientiousness, or even Hser. 73. 5 and 7. about which he has 

decency of manners, would put a man kept a pointed silence above, when trac- 

in strong relief with the great Arian ing the course of the Arian confessions, 

party which surrounded the Court, and That is, he treats the Semi-arians as 

a very great deal would not have been tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon as they 

enough to secure him against their break company with the Arians. The 



COUNC. 

ARIM. 

AND 

SELETJ. 



Prov. 8, 
12. 

Johnl4, 
6. 



Deer. 
.10. 
p. 17. 



140 The Son of God not like a human offspring. 

generation of the Son as offspring of man, but as one which 
may be ascribed to God, and it becomes us to think. Thus 
they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, 
and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Off 
spring from the Fountain, as He says, / am the Life, and, / 
Wisdom dwell with Prudence. B ut the Radiance from the Light, 
and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can 
these be so suitably expressed as by " One in substance ?" 

12. And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring 
from men are one in substance, the Son, by being called One 
in substance, be Himself considered as a human offspring 
too ? perish the thought ! not so ; but the explanation is easy. 
For the Son is the Father s Word and Wisdom ; whence we 
learn the impassibility and indivisibility l of such a generation 
from the Father". For not even man s word is part of Him, 
nor proceeds from Him according to passion 2 ; much less 
God s Word ; whom the Father has declared to be His own 
Son, lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard of " Word," 



Ancyrene Council of 358 was a protest 
against the " blasphemia" or second 
Sirmian Confession, which Hosius 
signed. 

u It is usual with the Fathers to use 
the two terms " Son" and " Word," to 
guard and complete the ordinary sense 
of each other. Their doctrine is that 
our Lord is both, in a certain transcend 
ent, prototypical, and singular sense ; 
that in that high sense that are coinci 
dent with one another ; that they are ap 
plied to human things by an accommoda 
tion, as far as these are shadows of Him 
to whom properly they really belong ; 
that beingbutpartially realized on earth, 
the ideas gained from the earthly types 
are but imperfect; that in consequence 
if any one of them is used exclusively of 
Him, it tends to introduce wrong ideas 
respecting Him; but that their re 
spective imperfections lying on different 
sides, when used together they correct 
each other, vid. p. 18, note o. and p. 43, 
note d. The term Son, u<ed by it 
self, was abused into Arianism ; and 
the term Word into Sabellianism ; again 
the term Son might be accused of in 
troducing material notions, and the term 
Word of imperfection and transited - 
ness. Each of them corrected the other. 
"Scripture," says Athan. "joining 
the two, has said Son, that the natural 
and true offspring of the substance may 



be preached; but that no one may un 
derstand a human offspring, signifying 
His substance a second time, it calls 
Him Word, and Wisdom, and Radi 
ance." Orat. i. . 28. vid. p. 20, note t. 
vid. also iv. . 8. Euseb. contr. Marc, 
ii. 4. p. 54. Isid. Pel. Ep. iv. 141. 
So S. Cyril says that we Jearu " from 
His being called Son that He is from 
Him, rb e|auTot); from His being called 
Wisdom and Word, that He is in Him," 
rb eV avrtf Thesaur. iv. p. 31. How 
ever, S. Athanasius observes, that pro 
perly speaking the one term implies the 
other, i. e. in its fulness. "Since the 
Son s being is from the Father, there 
fore He is in the Father." Orat. iii. 
. 3. " If not Son, not Word either; 
and if not Word, not Son. For what is 
from the Father is Son ; and what is 
from the Father, but the Word, &c." 
Orat. iv. . 24. fin. On the other hand 
the heretics accused Catholics of in 
consistency, or of a union of opposite 
errors, because they accepted all the 
Scripture images together. But Vi- 
gilius of Thapsus says, that " error 
bears testimony to truth, and the dis 
cordant opinions of misbelievers blend 
in concordance in the rule of ortho 
doxy." contr. Eutych. ii. init. Grande 
miraculum, ut expugnatione sui veritas 
confirmetur. ibid. circ. iuit. vid. also i. 
init. and Eulogius,ap. Phot, 225. p. 759. 



Inconsistent to admit (( of the" not " one in Substance." 141 

we should suppose Him, such as is the word of man, unsub- CAP. 
sistent 1 ; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknow- ? 
ledge Him to be a living Word and a substantive 2 Wisdom, o-raroj/ 
Accordingly, as in saying " offspring," we have no human *^%Q 
thoughts, and, though we know God to be a Father, we 
entertain no material ideas concerning Him, but while we 
listen to these illustrations and terms 3 , we think suitably of 3 p. 153. 
God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when we hear note d * 
of " one in substance," we ought to transcend all sense, and, 
according to the Proverb, understand by the understanding Prov. 
that is set before us ; so as to know, that not by will, but in 
truth, is He genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain, 
and Radiance from Light. Else 4 why should we understand 4 vid. 
"offspring" and "son," in no corporeal way, while we conceive jj^j-. * 
of " one in substance" as after the manner of bodies ? espe- I 3 - 3 - 
cially since these terms are not here used about different 
subjects, but of whom " offspring" is predicated, of Him is 
" one in substance" also. And it is but consistent to attach 
the same sense to both expressions as applied to the Saviour, 
and not to interpret " offspring," as is fitting, and " one in 
substance" otherwise ; since to be consistent, ye who are thus 
minded and who say that the Son is Word and Wisdom of 
the Father, should entertain a different view of these terms 
also, and understand in separate senses Word, and in dis 
tinct senses Wisdom. But, as this would be extravagant, 
(for the Son is the Father s Word and Wisdom, and the 
Offspring from the Father is one and proper to His substance,) 
so the sense of " offspring" and "one in substance" is one, 
and whoso considers the Son an offspring, rightly considers 
Him also as " one in substance." 

13. This is sufficient to shew that the phrase of " one in . 43. 
substance" is not foreign nor far from the meaning of these 
much loved persons 5 . But since, as they allege 6 , (for I have 5 p. 157, 
not the Epistle in question,) the Bishops who condemned e via. 1 
Samosatene have laid down in writing that the Son is not P ilar - 

de Syn. 

one in substance with the Father, and so it comes to pass that 81 init. 

Epiph. 
Hser.73, 

There were three Councils held text, which contrary to the opinion of ^* 

against Paul of Samosata, of the dates Pagi, S. Basnage, and Tillemont, 

of 264, 269, and an intermediate Pearson fixes at 265 or 266. 
year. The third is spoken of in the 



142 Dionysius used " One in Substance," if not Antiochenes. 

COUNC. they, for reverence and honour towards the aforesaid, thus feel 
A ^ about that expression, it will be to the purpose reverently to 
SELEU. argue with them this point also. Certainly it is unbecoming 
to make the one company conflict with the other; for all are 
fathers; nor is it religious to settle, that these have spoken 
well, and those ill; for all of them have gone to sleep in 
Christ. Nor is it right to be disputatious, and to compare 
the respective numbers of those who met in the Councils, or 
the three hundred may seem to throw the lesser into the 
shade; nor to compare the dates, lest those who preceded 
seem to eclipse those that came after. For all, I say, are 
Fathers ; and, any how the three hundred laid down nothing 
new, nor was it in any self-confidence that they became 
champions of words not in Scripture, but they started from 
their Fathers, as the others, and they used their words. For 
there were two Bishops of the name of Dionysius, much 
older than the seventy who deposed Samosatene, of whom 
one was of Rome, and the other of Alexandria ; and a 
charge had been laid by some persons against the Bishop of 
Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as if he had said 
that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the 
Father. This had given great pain to the Roman Council ; 
and the Bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments 
in a letter to his namesake. This led to his writing an ex 
planation which he calls the Book of Refutation and Apology; 
and it runs thus : 

. 44. 14. And 1 I have written in another Letter, a refutation of the 
i vid. false charge which they bring against me, that I deny that Christ 
de Deer. is one in substance with God. For though I say that I have not 
25 found or read this term any where in holy Scripture, yet my re- 
?eViYet- mar ks a which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not in- 
pfoaTa consistent with that belief. For I instanced a human production, 
which is evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably 
fathers differed from their children, only in not being the same 
individuals; otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. 
Arid 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 op 
portunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection, that 
I adduced many 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, and yet altogether one in nature 
with it; and that a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its 



Apparent contradictions in Scripture. 143 

appearance and its name, for that neither the fountain was called CHAP. 
stream, nor the stream fountain, but both existed, and that the H 1 * 
fountain was as it were father, but the stream was what was 
generated from the fountain. 

15. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds fault with the . 45. 
Fathers at Nicaea, as if they contradicted the decisions of 
their predecessors, he may reasonably find fault also with the 
Seventy, because they did not keep to the statements of their 
own predecessors ; for such were the two Dionysii and 
the Bishops assembled on that occasion at Rome. But 
neither these nor those is it religious to blame; for all were 
legates of the things of Christ, and all gave diligence against 
the heretics, and while the one party condemned Samosatene, 
the other condemned the Arian heresy, And rightly did both 
these and those define, and suitably to the matter in hand. And 
as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said, The Law Rom. 7, 
is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and 
just and good ; (and soon after, What the Law could not do, Rom. 8, 
in that it was weak,) but wrote to the Hebrews, The Law H e b. 7, 
made no one perfect ; and to the Galatians, By the Law no J?^ 
one is justified, but to Timothy, The Law is good, if a man n. 
use it lawfully ; and no one would accuse the Saint ofg TimJ 
inconsistency and variation in writing, but rather would 
admire how suitably he wrote to each, to teach the Romans 
and the others to turn from the letter to the spirit, but to 
instruct the Hebrews and Galatians to place their hopes, not 
in the Law, but in the Lord who gave the Law ; so, if the 
Fathers of the two Councils made different mention of the 
One in substance, we ought not in any respect to differ from 
them, but to investigate their meaning, and this will fully 
shew us the meaning of both the Councils. For they who 
deposed Samosatene, took One in substance in a bodily 
sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, "Unless 
Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is One in 
substance with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are 
three substances, one the previous substance, and the other two 
fromit;" and therefore guarding against this they said with good 
reason, that Christ was not One in substance?. For the Son 

P This is in fact the objection which stance, supr. . 16. when he calls it the 
Arius urges against the One in sub- doctrine of Manichaeus and Hieracas, 



144 Why the Council of Antioch declined " One in Substance" 

COUNC. is not related to the Father as he imagined. But the Bishops 
A^RIM. w j lo ana th ema tized the Arian heresy, understanding Paul s 
SELEU. craft, and reflecting that the word " One in substance," has not 
this meaning when used of things immaterial*, and especially 
of God, and acknowledging that the Word was not a creature, 
but an offspring from the substance, and that the Father s 
substance was the origin and root and fountain of the Son, 
and that He was of very truth l His Father s likeness, and not 
of different nature, as, we are, and separate from the Father, 
but that, as being from Him, He exists as Son indivisible, 
as radiance is with respect of Light, and knowing too the 
illustrations used in Dionysius s case, the " fountain," and the 
defence of " One in substance," and before this the Saviour s 
2 fvoetiri saying, symbolical of unity 2 , / and the Father are one, and 
ref 7. h e that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, on these grounds 
Johnio, reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was One 
Johnl4,in substance. And as, according to a former remark, no 
one would blame the Apostle, if he wrote to the Romans 
about the Law in one way, and to the Hebrews in another ; 
in like manner, neither would the present Bishops find fault 
with the ancient, in regard to their interpretation, nor 
again on the view of theirs and of the need of their so 
writing about the Lord, would the ancient censure the 
present. 



vid. p. 97, note 1. The same objection that the Son was a distinct being from 
is protested against by S. Basil, contr. the Father, and appealing to (what 
Eunoin. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. might be plausibly maintained) that 
Yet, while S. Basil agrees with A than, spirits are incommensurable with one 
in his account of the reason of the another, or that each is sui simile, con- 
Council s rejection of the word, S. eluded that * like in substance" was 
Hilary on the contrary reports thatPaul the only term which would express the 
himself accepted it, i. e. in a Sabellian relation of the Son to the Father. Here 
sense, and thereforethe Council rejected then the word " one in substance" did 
it. u Male homoiision Samosatenus just enable the Catholics to join issue 
confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii with them, as exactly expressing what 
negaverunt." de Syn. 86. the Catholics wished to express, viz. 
i The Eusebians tried to establish a that there was no such distinction be- 
distinction between 6/j.oovcriov and ofjioi- tween Them as made the term * like 
ovtnoV) " one in substance and u like necessary, but that Their relation to 
in substance," of this sort; that the Each Other was analogous to that of a 
former belonged to things material, and material offspring to a material parent, 
the latter to immaterial, Soz. iii. 18. a or that as material parent and offspring 
remark which in itself was quite suf- are individuals under one common 
ficient to justify the Catholics in insist- species, so the Eternal Father and 
ing on the former term. For the heretical Son are Persons under one common 
party, starting with the notion in which individual substance. 
their heresy in all its shades consisted, 



Each Council acted with a reason. 145 

16. Yes surely, each Council had a sufficient reason for its CHAP. 
own language ; for since Samosatene held that the Son was m< 
not before Mary, but received from her the origin of His 
being, therefore the assembled Fathers deposed him and 
pronounced him heretic ; but concerning the Son s Godhead 
writing in simplicity, they arrived not at accuracy concerning 
the One in substance, but, as they understood the word, so spoke 
they about it. For they directed all their thoughts to destroy 
the device of Samosatene, and to shew that the Son was 
before all things, and that, instead of becoming God from 
man, God had put on a servant s form, and the Word had 
become flesh, as John says. This is how they dealt with the 
blasphemies of Paul ; but when the party of Eusebius and 
Arius said that though the Son was before time, yet was 
He made and one of the creatures, and as to the phrase 
"from God," they did not believe it in the sense of His being 
genuine Son from Father, but maintained it as it is said of 
the creatures, and as to the oneness 1 of likeness 1 between the * vid. 
Son and the Father, did not confess that the Son is like the Ha!r.73. 
Father according to substance, or according to nature, but 9tin 
because of Their agreement of doctrines and of teaching 2 ;a p . JQ;, 
nay, when they drew a line and an utter distinction between note f - 
the Son s substance and the Father, ascribing to Him an 
origin of being, other than the Father, and degrading Him 
to the creatures, on this account the Bishops assembled at 
Nicaea, with a view to the craft of the parties so thinking, 
and as bringing together the sense from the Scriptures, 
cleared up the point, by affirming the u One in substance ;" 
that both the true genuineness of the Son might thereby be 
known, and that things generated might be ascribed nothing in 

r TTV TTJS 6fj.oicaffe(i)s kvhrr\ra. and so rb elicit, of the Son, "iii. , 5 fin. The 

ravrbv rfj <fyioict>crei de Deer. . 20. p. 35. Father s godhead is the Son s, rb irarpi- 

rrjV eV^TTjTa TTJS (pvcreoos Kal rr\v ravr6- /cbj/ (pus 6 vl6s. iii. . 53. fj.iav rriv 6e6- 

TTjTa rov (pcaros. ibid. . 24. p. 41. init. TTJTCI Kal rb t8iov TTJS ov<rias rov irarpds. 

also . 23. And Basil, ravr 6rr)ra TTJS .56. " As the water is the same which 

(pvfffcas. Ep. 8.3. ravrdrrjra TTJS ovcrids. is poured from fountain into stream, so 

Cyril in Joan. v. p. 302. Hence it is the godhead of the Father into the Son 

uniformly asserted by the Catholics that is intransitive and indi visible, appeva-roos 

the Father s godhead, 0e<$TTjs, is the Kal aSiaiperus. Expos. . 2. vid. p. 155, 

Son s; e.g. "the Father s godhead being note f. This is the doctrine of the Una 

in the Son," infr. . 52. r\ irarpitdi Res, which, being nor defined in General 

(pvffis avrov. Orat. i.. 40. worshipped Council till the fourth Lateran, many 

Kara rr\v irarpiKyv lSiorr}ra. . 42. ira- most injuriously accuse the Greek 

rpiK^y avrov ee6rrira. $.45 fin. . 49 fin. Fathers, as the two Gregories, of 

ii. . 18. . 73 fin. iii. . 26. " the Fa- denying. That Council is not here 

ther s godhead and propriety is the being, referred to as of authority. 



146 As " One in Substance" so "Ingenerate variously used. 

COUNC. common with Him. For the precision of this phrase detects 
A A 1 ^ their pretence, whenever they use the phrase " from God," and 
SELEU. g ets r id o f all the subtleties with which they seduce the simple. 
For whereas they contrive to put a sophistical construction on 
all other words at their will, this phrase only, as detecting 
their heresy, do they dread ; which the Fathers did set down as 
a bulwark 8 against their irreligious speculations, one and all. 
. 46. 17. Cease we then all contention, nor any longer conflict 
we with each other, though the Councils have differently taken 
the phrase "One in substance," for w r e have already assigned 
a sufficient defence of them ; and to it the following may be 
added: We have not derived the word " Ingenerate" from 
Scripture, (for no where does Scripture call God Ingenerate,) 
yet since it has many authorities in its favour, I was curious 
i p. 52, about the term, and found that it too has different senses 1 . 
Some, for instance, call what is, but is neither generated, nor 
3 p. 5-2, has any cause at all, ingenerate ; and others, the increate 2 . 
As then a person, having in his mind the former of these 
senses, viz. "that which has no cause," might say that the Son 
was not ingenerate, yet would not be blaming any one he 
perceived looking to the other meaning, " not a work or crea 
ture but an eternal offspring," and affirming accordingly that 
the Son was ingenerate, (for both speak suitably with a view 
to their own object,) so, even granting that the Fathers have 
spoken variously concerning the One in substance, let us not 
dispute about it, but take what they deliver to us in a re 
ligious way, when especially their anxiety was directed in 
behalf of religion. 

.47. 18. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in 

Antioch after the Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ, 

writes concerning the Lord thus : " There is one physician, 

fleshly and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God in man, 

3 vid. true life in death, both from Mary and from God 3 ;" whereas 

Rph ^ some teachers who followed Ignatius, write in their turn, 

s firiTixi<r/ji.a ; in like manner ovv- of the sincere profession of the One in 

Sefffj-ov Trio-Tews. Epiph. Ancor. 6. substance. " Hser. 69. 70. " That 

" Without the confession of the One term did the Fathers set down in their 

in substance, "says Epiphanius, "no formula of faith, which they perceived 

heresy can be refuted ; for as a serpent to be a source of dread to their adver- 

hates the smell of bitumen, and the saries ; that they themselves might 

scent of sesame-cake, and the burning unsheath the sword which cutoff the 

of agate, and the smoke of storax, so head of their own monstrous heresy." 

do Arius and Sabellius hate the notion Ambros. de Fid. iii. 15. 



We ought to enter into the Fathers meaning, not carp at it. 147 

" One is the Ingenerate, the Father, and one the genuine CHAP. 
Son from Him, true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the 
Father 4 ." If therefore we have hostile feelings towards these 
writers, then have we right to quarrel with the Councils ; but 
if, knowing their faith in Christ, we are persuaded that the 
blessed Ignatius was orthodox in writing that Christ was 
generate on account of the flesh, (for He was made flesh,) yet 
ingenerate, because He is not in the number of things made 
and generated, but Son from Father, and are aware too that the 
parties who have said that the Ingenerate is One, meaning 
the Father, did not mean to lay down that the Word was 
generated and made, but that the Father has no cause, but 
rather is Himself Father of Wisdom, and in Wisdom hath 
made all things that are generated, why do we not combine all 
our Fathers in religious belief, those who deposed Samosatene 
as well as those who proscribed the Arian heresy, instead of 
making distinctions between them and refusing to entertain a 
right opinion of them ? I repeat, that these, looking towards 
the sophistical explanation of Samosatene, wrote, "He is not 
one in substance";" and those with an apposite meaning, 
said that He was. For myself, I have written these brief 
remarks, from my feeling towards persons who were religious 
to Christ-ward ; but were it possible to come by the Epistle 
which we are told that they wrote, I consider we should 
find further grounds for the aforesaid proceeding of these 
blessed men. For it is right and meet thus to feel, and 
to maintain a good understanding with the Fathers, if we 
be not spurious children, but have received the traditions 
from them, and the lessons of religion at their hands. 

19. Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense of 4-8. 
the Fathers, proceed we even in their company to examine once 

1 The writer is not known. The nasius to allow of its satisfactory dis- 

Presidentof Magdalen h: j s pointed out cnssion iu this volume. The lamented 

to the Editor the following similar pas- Dr. Burton, in Mr. Faber s Apostolicity 

sage in St. Clement. ev/uej/ rbo^eWTjToi , of Trinitarianism, \ol. 2. p. 302. is the 

6 iravroKpaTup Ofbs, ef 8e Kal rb irpo- last writer who has denied the rejection 

1*vvr\Q\v 5t ov ra Trdvra tycvfro, Kal of the symbol ; but, (as appears to the 

X<"pls O.VTOV tyevero ou5e eV. Strom, vi. presentwriter,)notonsufficientgrounds. 

7. p. 769. Reference is made to a Creed or Ecthe- 

There is much to say on the sub- sis, found among the acts of Ephesus, 

ject of the rejection of the byioovffiov at and said to have been published against 

thisCounoilof Autioch; but it branches Paul; and on this some remarks are 

into topics too far from the text of Atha- made in Note p. 165. 



148 " Of the Substance" implies " One in Substance" 

CouNc.more the matter, calmly and with a good understanding, with 
A A R jJn reference to what has been said before, viz. whether the Bishops 
SELEU. collected at Nicaea did not really exercise an excellent judg 
ment. For if the Word be a work and foreign to the Father s 
substance, so that He is separated from the Father by the 
difference of nature, He cannot be one in substance with 
Him, but rather He is homogeneous by nature with the 
i supr. works, though He surpass them in grace 1 . On the other 
p " n hand, if we confess that He is not a work but the genuine 
offspring of the Father s substance, it would follow that He 
inseparable from the Father, being connatural 2 , because He 
is begotten from Him. And being such, good reason He 
should be called One in Substance. Next, if the Son be not 
such from participation 3 , but is in His substance the Father s 
o-ias Word and Wisdom, and this substance is the offspring of 
* p. 155, the Father s substance 4 , and its likeness as the radiance is of 
John io, the light, and the Son says, / and the Father are One, and, 
30< he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, how must we 
9. understand these words ? or how shall we so explain them as 
to preserve the oneness of the Father and the Son ? Now as 
s ffvii- to its consisting in agreement 5 of doctrines, and in the Son s 
(j>j/fa,p. nf) disagreeing with the Father, as the Arians say. such an 

107,note J 

f. yet interpretation will not stand ; for both the Saints and still 
^ ip more Angels and Archangels have such an agreement with 
co.-itr. God, and there is no disagreement among them. For he who 
was in disagreement, the devil, was beheld to fall from the 
heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore if by reason of agree 
ment the Father and the Son are one, there would be things 
generate which had this agreement with God, and each of 
these might say, / and the Father are One. But if this be 
shocking, and so it truly is, it follows of necessity that we 
must conceive of Son s and Father s oneness in the way of 
Cyril, substance. For things generated, though they have an agree- 
Jul.viii. ment with their Maker, yet possess it only by influence 6 , and 
p. 274. by participation, and through the mind; the transgression 
Nyss. of which forfeits heaven. But the Son, being an offspring 



f rom tne substance, is one in substance, Himself and the 
. 49. Father that begat Him. 

\lffT" 20 * Tllis is why He has e( i ualit y with the Father b y titles 

p. 144, expressive of unity 7 , and what is said of the Father, is said in 
ref. 2. 



The Son has all things of the Father, but being the Father. 149 

Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father*. CHAP. 
For the Son Himself says, All things that the Father hath - 
are Mine; and He says to the Father, All Mine are Thine, John 
and Thine are Mine; as for instance 1 , the name God; for j^ hn 6 
the Word was God; Almighty, Thus saith He that is, andit, 10. 
that was, and that is to come, the Almighty,- the being <>at*.iii. 
Light, / am, He says, the Light; the Operative Cause, All- 4 - 
things were made by Him, and, whatsoever I see the Father}, i. 
do, I do also; the being Everlasting, His eternal power and ^^ 
godhead, and, In the beginning was the Word, and, He ivas John 
the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into j h n * 



the world; the being Lord, for, The Lord rained fire and 1 , 3 - 
brimstone from the Lord, and the Father says, / am thes^ig. 



Lord, and, Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty God; and o 
the Son Paul speaks thus, One Lord Jesus Christ, through John 
whom all things. And on the Father Angels serve, and j oh ^ 
again the Son too is worshipped by them, And let all thei,9- 
Angels of God tvorship Him; and He is said to be Lord of 19 24. 
Angels, for the Angels ministered unto Him, and the Son o/ Isa<45 > 
Man shall send His Angels. The being honoured as the i Cor. 
Father, for that they may honour the Son, He says, as they^^ 
honour the Father; being equal to God, He thought it noti,G. 
robbery to be equal with God; the being Truth from the True, 4j \\\ 
and Life from the Living, as being truly from the Fountain Matt. 
of the Father ; the quickening and raising the dead as the John 
Father, for so we read in the Gospel. And of the Father it p h ?, 3> 
is written, The Lord thy God is One Lord, and, The God of 2, 6. 
gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth; and of 6 e ^ 
the Son, The Lord God hath shined upon us, and, The God? 8 -,*- 
of gods shall be seen in Sion. And again of God, Esaias27. 
says, Who is a God like unto Thee, taking away iniquities ^ Si - 83 > 



* By " the Son being equal to the Father, et/cwi/ (pvffiK^ Kal airapd\\aKTos 

Father," is but meant that He is His /card Trdvra 6p.oia. r$ Trarpl, irX^v rrjs 

11 unvarying image ;" it does not imply ay^vfrjaias Kal TTJS TrarpoTTjros. Damasc. 

any distinction of substance. " Per- de Imag. iii. 18. p. 354. vid. also Basil. 

fectse aequalitatis significantiam habet contr. Eun. ii. 28. Theod. Incoufus. 

similitudo."Hil.deSyn,73. Butthough p. 91. Basil. Ep. 38. 7 fin. For the 

He is in all things His Image, this Sou is the Image of the Father, not 

implies some exception, for else He as Father, but as God. The Arians 

would not be like or equal, but the on the other hand, objecting the phrase 

same. " Non est sequalitas in dis.simi- " unvarying image," asked why the 

libus, nee similitudo e^t intra unum " Son was not in consequence a Father, 

ibid. 72. Hence He is the Father s and the beginning of a Beoyoi/ia. A than. 

image in all things except in being the Orat. i. 21. vid. infra, note z. 



150 The Son is One with the Father, because equal to Him. 

Covnc.and passing over unrighteousness? but the Son said to whom 
^N He would, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; for instance, when, 
SELEU.QII the Jews murmuring, He manifested the remission by 
Matt. 9, jj. g ac ^ sa yi n g to the paralytic, Rise, take up thy bed, and 
Mark2,, Un f thy house. And of God Paul says, To the King 
\ Tim. eternal; and again of the Son, David in the Psalm, Lift 
Pa 24 7 U P y ur heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting 
doors, and the King of glory shall come in. And Daniel 
Dan. 4, heard it said, His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and 
Dan. 7 His Kingdom shall not be destroyed. And in a word, all 
14 - that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said 

of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said. 
. 50. 24. If then any think of other origin, and other Father, 
considering the equality of these attributes, it is a mad 
thought. But if, since the Son is from the Father, all 
that is the Father s is the Son s as in an Image and 
Expression, let it be considered dispassionately, whether 
a substance foreign from the Father s substance admit of 
such attributes ; and whether such a one be other in nature 
1 a\\o- and alien in substance ! , and not one in substance with the 
Father. For we must take reverent heed, lest transferring 
what is proper 9 to the Father to what is unlike Him in 
substance, and expressing the Father s godhead by what is 
3 &,/o- unlike in kind 3 and alien in substance, we introduce another 
/WH076- su bstance foreign to Him, yet capable of the properties of 
the first substance y, and lest we be silenced by God Himself, 
Isaiah saying, My glory I will not give to another, and be discovered 
42 > 8 - worshipping this alien God, and be accounted such as were 
John the Jews of that day, who said, Wherefore dost Thou, being 
io,33. a man ^ make Thyself God? referring, the while, to an 
other source the things of the Spirit, and blasphemously 
Luke sa yi n g> He casteth out devils through Beelzebub. But if 
11 15 this is shocking, plainly the Son is not unlike in sub 
stance, but one in substance with the Father; for if what 
the Father hath is by nature the Son s, and the Son 

y Arianism was placed in the perilous greatness of the latter error. This of 

dilemma of denying Christ s divinity, course was the objection which attached 

or introducing a second God. The to the words 6/j.oiovffiov cbrapaAAa/fToy 

Arians proper went off in the former eftccoj/, &c. when disjoined from the 

side of the alternative, the Semi-arians opoovcnov ; and Eusebius s language, 

on the latter; and Athan., as here ad- supr. p. (>3, note g, shews us that, it 

dressing the Semi-arians, insists on the is not an imaginary one. 



If the Son by participation , He could not impart Sonship. 151 

Himself is from the Father, and because of this oneness CHAP. 

III. 
of godhead and of nature He and the Father are one, and 

He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, reasonably 
is He called by the Fathers " One in substance ;" for to 
what is other in substance, it belongs not to possess such 
prerogatives. 

22. And again, if, as we have said before, the Son is not. 51. 
such by participation 1 , but, while all things generated have, ^TOV- 
by participation, the grace of God, He is the Father s Wisdom a 

and Word, of which all things partake 2 , it follows that He 2 deDecr. 
being the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in j* 5 n ^ 
which all things are deified and quickened, is not alien in e - 
substance from the Father, but one is substance. For by 
partaking 3 of Him, we partake 4 of the Father; because that ^ra 
the Word is proper to the Father. Whence, if He w 
Himself too from participation, and not from the Father His 
substantial Godhead and Image, He would not deify 5 , being 
deified Himself. For it is not possible that He, who but 
possesses from participation, should impart of that partaking . 7$.^ 
to others, since what He has is not His own, but the Giver s; j^ ec g * 
and what He has received, is barely the grace ^sufficient for p. 23. 
Himself. 

23. However, let us fairly enquire why it is that some, as 
is said, decline the "One in substance," whether it does not 
rather shew that the Son is one in substance with the Father. 
They say then, as you have written, that it is not right to say 
that the Son is one in substance with the Father, because 
He who speaks of one in substance speaks of three, one sub 
stance pre-existing, and that those who are generated from 
it are one in substance: and they add, " If then the Son be 
one in substance with the Father, then a substance must be 
previously supposed, from which they have been generated ; 
and that the One is not Father and the Other Son, but they 
are brothers together z ." As to all this, though it be a Greek 

z And so Eunomius in St. Cyril, the Son, and brought forth the Son, 

" * Unless once the Son was not, saith and remained! Father, and is not called 

he, or if eternal, and co-existent with Son of any; and the Son is Son, and 

the Father, you makt- Him not a Son remaineth what He is, and is not called 

but a brother. The Father and the brother of any by nature. What place 

Son are not from any pre-existing then shall brotherhood have in such ?" 

origin, that they should be thought Thesaur. pp. 22, 23. vid. Athan. Orat. 

brothers, but the Father is origin of i. . 14. 



152 " One in Substance" does not imply a whole and parts. 

COUNC. interpretation, and what Greeks say have no claim upon us a , 
^^jf * still let us see whether those things which are called one in 
SELEU. substance and are collateral, as derived from one substance 
pre-supposed, are one in substance with each other, or with 
the substance from which they are generated. For if only with 
each other, then are they other in substance and unlike, when 
referred to that substance which generated them; for other in 
substance is opposed to one in substance ; but if each be one 
in substance with the substance which generated them, it is 
thereby confessed that what is generated from any thing, is 
one in substance with that which generated it ; and there is no 
need of seeking for three substances, but merely to seek whether 
it be true that this is from that b . For should it happen that 



a vid. p. 52, note d. The word ovvia 
in its Greek or Aristotelic sense seems 
to have stood for an individual sub 
stance, numerically one, which is pre- 
dicable of nothing but itself. Improperly 
it stood for a species or genus, vid*. 
Petav. de Trin. iv. 1. . 2. but as 
Anastasius observes in many places 
of his Vise dux, Christian theology 
innovated on the sense of Aristotelic 
terms, vid. c. 1. p. 20. c. 6. p. 96 c. 9. 
p. 150. c. 17. p. 308. There is some 
difficulty in determining how it in 
novated. Anastasius and Theorian, 
Hodeg. 6. Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. 
say that it takes ovcrla to mean an 
universal or species, but this is nothing 
else than the vsecond or improper Greek 
use. Rather it takes the word in a sense 
of its own, such as we have no example 
of in things created, viz. that of a Being 
numerically one, suhsisting in three 
persons; so that the word is a predi- 
cable or in one sense universal, with 
out ceasing to be individual ; in which 
consists the mystery of the Holy Trinity. 
However, heretics, WJQ refused the 
mystery, objected it to Catholics in its 
primary philosophical sense ; and then, 
as standing for an individual substance, 
when applied to Father and Son, it 
either implied the parts of a material 
subject, or it involved no real dis 
tinction of persons, i. e. Sabelhanism. 
The former of these two alternatives 
is implied in the text by the " Greek 
use ; the latter by the same phrase as 
used by the conforming Seminarians, 
A.D. 363. "Nor, as if any passion 
were supposed of the ineffable gene 
ration, is the term l substance taken 



by the Fathers, &c. nor according to 
any Greek use, Socr. iii. 25. Hence 
such charges against Catholicism on 
the part of Arians as Alexander pro 
tests against, of either Sabellianism 
or Valentinianism, OVK . . . &crirep 2a- 
jSeXAfy al Ba\ej"nV<y So/ce?. Thtod. 
Hist. i. 3. p. 743. In like manner, 
Damascene, speaking of the Jacobite 
use of (pixris and virtvraffis says, "Who 
of holy men ever thus spoke? unless ye 
introduce to us your St. Aristotle, as 
a thirteenth Apostle, and prefer the 
idolater to the divinely inspired." cont. 
Jacob. 10. p. 399. and so again Leon- 
tius, speaking of Philoponus, who from 
the Monophysite confusion of nature 
and hypostasis was led into Tritheism. 
" He thus argued, taking his start 
from Aristotelic principles; for Aris 
totle says that there are of individuals 
particular substances as well as one 
common." de Sect. v. fin. 

b The argument, when drawn out, 
is virtually this: if, because two sub 
jects are consubstantial, a third is pre 
supposed of which they partake, then, 
since either of these two is consubstan 
tial with that of which both partake, a 
new third must be supposed in which it 
and the pre-existing substance partake, 
and thus an infinite series of things 
ccnsubstantial must be supposed. The 
only mode (which he puts first) of meet 
ing this, is to deny that the two things 
are consubstantial with the supposed 
third ; but if so, they must be different 
in substance from it; that is, they must 
differ from that, as partaking of which, 
they are like each other, which is ab 
surd, vid. Basil. Ep. 52. n. 2. 



" One in Substance" does not imply two substances. 153 

there were not two brothers, but that only one had come of CHAP 
that substance, he that was generated would not be called 
alien in substance, merely because there was no other from 
the substance than he; but though alone, he must be one in 
substance with him that begat him. For what shall we say 
about Jephthae s daughter; because she was only -begotten, 
and he had not, says Scripture, other child; and again, con-Jud. H, 
cerning the widow s son, whom the Lord raised from the dead, 
because he too had no brother, but was only-begotten, was on 
that account neither of these one in substance with the pa 
rent ? Surely they were, for they were children, and this is 
a property of children with reference to their parents. And 
in like manner also, when the Fathers said that the Son of 
God was from His substance, reasonably have they spoken of 
Him as one in substance. For the like property has the 
radiance compared with the light. Else it follows that not 
even the creation came out of nothing. For whereas men 
beget with passion 1 , so again they work upon an existing sub- 1 Orat.i. 
ject matter, and otherwise cannot make. But if we do not^ 28 * 
understand creation in a human way c , when we attribute it to 
God, much less seemly is it to understand generation in a 
human way, or to give a corporeal sense to One in substance ; 
instead of receding from things generate, casting away human 
images, nay, all things sensible, and ascending 2 to the Father d , * Naz. 
lest we rob the Father of the Son in ignorance, and rank ^ ratt280 
Him among His own creatures. 

24. Further, if, in confessing Father and Son, we spoke of two * 5^ 
origins or two Gods, as Marcion 3 and Valentinus 4 , or said that 3 p> 45> 
the Son had any other mode of godhead, and was not the Image note h -. 

and Expression of the Father, as being by nature born from 3. 

H 

c vid. de Deer. . 11. supr. p. 18, human sense which can apply to Him. 
note o. also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p. 29. Now yew-riais implies two things, pas- 
Basil, contr. Eun. ii. 23. Hil.de Syn. sion, and relationship, OIK fluff is Qixrews ; 
17. accordingly we must take the latter as 

d S. Basil says in like manner that, an indication of the divine sense of the 

though God is Father Kvpicas properly, term. On the terms Son, Word, &c. 

(vid. Ath. Orat. i. 21 fin. and p. 16, being figurative, or illustrations, and 

note k. p. 18, note o. p. 66, note k.) how to use them, vid. also de Deer, 

yet it comes to the same thing if we . 12. supr. p. 20. Orat. i. . 26, 27. ii. 

were to say that He is TpoviKcas and . 32. iii. . 18. 67- Basil, contr. Eunom. 

K percKpopas, figuratively, such; contr. ii. 17. Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also 

Eun. ii. 24. for in that case we must, as A than, ad Scrap, i. 20. and Basil. Ep. 

in other metaphors used of Him, (anger, 38. n. 5. and what is said of the office 

sleep, flying,) take that part of the of faith in each of these. 



1 54 The Father and Son not two Gods, for the Sonfrom the Father, 

CouNc.Him, then He might be considered unlike; for such sub- 
AND stances are altogether unlike each other. But if we acknow- 
SELEU - ledge that the Father s godhead is one and sole, and that of 
Him the Son is the Word and Wisdom ; and, as thus believ 
ing, are far from speaking of two Gods, but understand the 
oneness of the Son with the Father to be, not in likeness of their 
teaching, but according to substance and in truth, and hence 
speak not of two Gods but of one God; there being but one 
Face 6 of Godhead, as the Light is one and the Radiance; (for 
Gen. 32, this was seen by the Patriarch Jacob, as Scripture says, The 
p * sun rose upon him when the Face of God passed by ; and 
beholding this, and understanding of whom He was Son 
and Image, the holy Prophets say, The Word of the Lord 
came to me; and recognising the Father, who was beheld 
and revealed in Him, they were bold to say, The God of our 
fathers hath appeared unto me, the God of Abraham, and 
Isaac, and Jacob;} this being so, wherefore scruple we to 
call Him one in substance who is one with the Father, and 
appears as doth the Father, according to likeness and oneness 
of godhead ? For if, as has been many times said, He has 
it not to be proper to the Father s substance, nor to resem 
ble, as a Son, we may well scruple : for if this be the illu 
minating and creative Power, specially proper to the Father, 
without whom He neither frames nor is known, (for all things 
consist through Him and in Him ;) wherefore, having cog 
nizance of this truth, do we decline to use the phrase convey 
ing it ? For what is it to be thus connatural with the Father, 
but to be one in substance with Him ? for God attached not 
deDecr. to Him the Son from without 1 , as needing a servant; nor are 
p. 14, " the works on a level with the Creator, and are honoured as 
note b. He"is, or to be thought one with the Father. Or let a man 
venture to make the distinction, that the sun and the radiance 
are two lights, or different substances ; or to say that the 
radiance accrued to it over and above, and is not a single 

e fvos OVTOS eiSovs 0e($T7jTos; the word and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i. e. 

eftJos, face or countenance, will come as one and all denoting the Una Res, 

beforeusin Orat. iii. 16. It is generally which is Almighty God. They differed, 

applied to the Son, as in what follows, in that the word hypostasis regards the 

and is synonymous with hypostasis; One God a* He is the Son. The ap- 

but it is remarkable that here it is parent confusion is useful then as re- 

almost synonymous with ovaria or Averts, minding us of this great truth; vid. the 

Indeed in one sense nature, substance, fcext note. 



as the sun and radiance not two lights. 



155 



and uncompounded offspring from the sun; such, that sun and CHAP. 
radiance are two, but the light one, because the radiance is an - 
offspring from the Sun. But, whereas not more divisible, nay 
less divisible is the nature f of the Son towards the Father, 
and the godhead not accruing to the Son, but the Father s 
godhead being in the Son, so that he that hath seen the Son 
hath seen the Father in Him ; wherefore should not such a 
one be called One in substance ? 

25. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those . 53. 
who have said that the Son was one in substance with the Father, 
and yet let us examine the very term "One in substance," in 
itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and 
whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. 
For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that 
Like is not predicated of substances, but of habits, and 
qualities; for in the case of substances we speak, not of like 
ness, but of identity e. Man, for instance, is said to be like 



f tyvffiS) nature, is here used for person. 
This seems an Alexandrian use of the 
word. It is found in Alexander, ap. 
Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740. And it gives 
rise to a celebrated question in the 
Monophysite controversy, as used in S. 
Cyril s phrase /j.ia <f>v(ris (reffapKca/j-evri. 
S. Cyril uses the word both for person 
and for substance successively in ths 
following passage. " Perhaps some one 
will say, How is the Holy and Ador 
able Trinity distinguished into three 
Hypostases, yet issues in one nature 
of Godhead? Because the Same in 
substance necessarily following the 
difference of natures, recalls the minds 
of believers to one nature of Godhead." 
contr. Nest. iii. p. 91. In this passage 
" One nature" stands for a reality ; but 
"thiee Natures" is the One Eternal 
Divine Nature viewed in that respect 
in which He is Three. And so S. Hilary, 
naturae ex natura gignente nativitas; 
de Syn. 17. and essentia de essen- 
tia, August, de Trin. vii. n. 3. and de 
seipso genuit Deus id quod est, de 
Fid. et Syrrtb. 4. i. e. He is the Ador 
able 6f6rris or Godhead viewed as begot 
ten. And Athan. Oral. iv. . 1. calls the 
Son eou<riccs ou<riw57js. vid.supr. p. 148. 
ref. 4. These phrases mean that the Son 
who is the Divine Substance, is from the 
Father who is the [same] divine sub 
stance. As,(tospeakofwhatisawa/ogroM* 
not parallel,) we might say that " man 



is father of man, not meaning by man 
the same individual in both cases, but 
the same nature, so here we speak not 
of the same Person in the two cases, 
but the same Individuum. All these 
expressions resolve themselves into the 
original mystery of the Holy Trinity, 
that Person and Iridividuum are not 
equivalent terms, and we understand 
them neither more nor less than we 
understand it. In like manner as regards 
the incarnation, when St. Paul says 
" God was in Christ;" he does not mean 
absolutely the Divine Nature, which is 
the proper sense of the word, but the 
Divine Nature as existing in the Person 
of the Son. Hence too, (vid. Petav. de 
Trin. vi. 10. . 6.) such phrases as " the 
Father begat, the Son from His sub 
stance." And in like manner Athan. just 
afterwards, speaks of "the Father s 
Godhead being in the Son." vid.supr. 
p. 145, note r. 

6 S. Athanasius, in saying that like 
is not used of substance, implies that 
the proper A rian senses of the 6/j.oiov are 
more natural, and therefore the more pro 
bable, if the word came into use These 
were, 1 .likeness in ivilland action, as crv/jL- 
(pwj/ia,of which infr.Orat.iii. 1 1.2.iikeness 
to the idea in God s mind in which the 
Son was created. Cyril Thesaur. p. 134. 
3. likeness to the divine act or energy by 
which He was created. Pseudo-basil, 
contr. Eun. iv. p. 282. Cyril in Joan. c.5. 



156 If we believe the Nicene sense, let us accept the words. 

CouNc.man, not in substance, but according to habit and character; 
AK ^Q f r i n substance men are one in nature. And again, man is 
SELEU. not said to be unlike dog, but to be other in nature. There 
fore, in speaking of Like according to substance, we mean 
i juerov- like by participation 1 ; (for Likeness is a quality, which may 
ffia attach to substance,) and this is proper to creatures, for they, 
s jU6Tox$?by partaking 2 , are made like to God. For when He shall 
1 John appear, says Scripture, we shall be like Him; like, that is, 
not in substance but in sonship, which we shall partake from 
3 M^rou- Him. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation 3 , 
then indeed call Him Like in substance ; but thus spoken of, 
He is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. For 
things which are from participation, are called like, not in 
reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they may 
fail, or be taken from those who share them. And this, again, 
is proper to creatures and works. Therefore, if this be extra 
vagant, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and 
truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and 
not by sharing, He would properly be called, not Like in 
substance, but One in substance. But what would not be 
asserted, even in the case of others, (for the Like has been 
shewn to be inapplicable to substance,) is it not folly, not 
to say violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead 
of the " One in substance ?" 

. 54. 26. This justifies the Nicene Council, which has laid down, 
what it was becoming to express, that the Son, begotten from 
the Father s substance, is one in substance with Him. And 
if we too have been taught the same thing, let us not fight 
with shadows, especially as knowing, that they who have so 
defined, have made this confession of faith, not to misrepresent 
the truth, but as vindicating the truth and religiousness towards 
Christ, and also as destroying the blasphemies against Him of 
4 p.9l, the Ario-maniacs 4 . For this must be considered and noted 
note q. carefully, that, in using unlike in substance, and other in 
substance, we signify not the true Son, but some one of the 
creatures, and an introduced and adopted Son, which pleases 
the heretics; but when we speak uncontroversially of the One 

iii. p. 304. 4. \Vs.e according to the Scrip- which was, aa they understood it, an 
tures; which of course was but an eva- evasion also, 
sion. 5. like in all things, KOTO, irdvra. 



Exhortation to maintain the truth and live in unity. 157 

in substance, we signify a genuine Son born of the Father ; CHAP. 
though at this Christ s enemies often burst with rage 1 . _H!L_ 

27. What then I have learned myself, and have heard men n j t e 2 ^ 
of judgment say, I have written in few words ; but ye re 
maining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast 
the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all 
strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the 
heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy h ; and the 
guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disappear, 
and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all, so that all 
every where may say the same thing, and think the same 
thing ; and that, no Arian contumelies remaining, it may be 
said and confessed in every Church, One Lord, one faith, oneE^.4,5. 
baptism, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the 
Father be the glory and the strength, unto ages of ages. 
Amen. 



b And so rats \oyo/naxiais. Basil de 
Sp. S. n. 16. It is used with an allusion 
to the fight against the Word, as XP 1<T " 
TO/ua^eiV and 6eo/j.axf iv. Thus \oyo/j.a- 
X f ? v /ieAeT^o-avTes, KO.\ \onrbv Tn/eu^ua- 
ro/j.axovfTfs, tffovrai juer o\iyov veKpol 
Tfj aXoyia. Serap. iv. 1. 

1 This sentiment will give opportu 
nity for a note on the Semi-arians, 
which has been omitted in its proper 
place, . 41 and 43. vid. p. 141. ref. 4. 
There S. Athanasius calls certain of 
them " brethren" and " beloved," 070- 
TnjTof. S. Hilary too calls them u sanc- 
tissimi viri." de Syn. 80. On the other 
hand, Athan. speaks severely of Eusta- 
thius and Basil. Ep. JEg. 7. and Hilary 
explains himself in his notes upon his 
de Syn. from which it appears that he 
had been expostulated with on his con 
ciliatory tone. Indeed all throughout 
he had betrayed a consciousness that 
he should offend some parties, e. g. 
. 6. In . 77, he had spoken of " having 
expounded the faithful and religious 
sense of like in substance, which is 
called Homceusion." On this he ob 
serves, note 3, " I think no one need be 
asked to consider why I have said in 
this place religious sense of like in 
substance, except that I meant that 
there was also an irreligious ; and that 
therefore I said that like was not only 
equal but the same. vid. p. 139, note 
1. In the next note he speaks of 
them as not more than hopeful. Still 



it should be observed how careful the 
Fathers of the day were not to mix up 
the question of doctrine, which rested 
on Catholic tradition with that of the 
adoption of a certain term which rested 
on a Catholic injunction. Not that the 
term was not in duty to be received, 
but it was to be received on account of 
its Catholic sense, and where the Ca 
tholic sense was held, the word might 
even by a sort of dispensation be waived. 
It is remarkable that Athanasius 
scarcely mentioned the word " One 
in substance 1 in his Orations or Dis 
courses which are to follow; nor does 
it occur in S. Cyril s Catecheses, of 
whom, as being suspected of Semi- 
arianism, it might have been required, 
before his writings were received as of 
authority. The word was not imposed 
upon Ursacius and Valens, A. D. 349, 
by Pope Julius ; nor in the Council of 
Aquileia in 38 1 , was it offered by St. 
Ambrose to Palladius and Secundianus. 
S. Jerome s account of the apology 
made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of 
the same kind. " We thought," they 
said, " the sense corresponded to the 
words, nor in the Church of God, where 
there is simplicity, and a pure confes 
sion, did we fear that one thing would 
be concealed in the heart, another 
uttered by the lips. We were deceived 
by our good opinion of the bad." ad 
Lucif. 1 9. 



158 Letter of Constantius to the Council of Ariminum. 

COUNC. 

ARIM - Postscript. 

AND 

SF L LE _^ 28. After I had written my account of the Council 1 , 1 had 

OO, information that the most irreligious 2 Constantius had sent 

note h! Letters to the Bishops remaining in Ariminum ; and I have 

note 90 taken P a i ns to get copies of them from true brethren and to 

send them to you, and also what the Bishops answered ; that 

you may know the irreligious craft of the Emperor, and the 

firm and unswerving purpose of the Bishops towards the 

truth. 

Interpretation of the Letter k . 

Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus, to all 
Bishops who are assembled at Ariminum. 

That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care, your excel 
lencies are not ignorant; but as yet we have been unable to receive 
the twenty Bishops sent by your wisdom, and charged with the 
legation from you, for we are pressed by a necessary expedition 
against the Barbarians ; and as ye know, it beseems to have the 
soul clear from every care, when one handles the matters of the 
Divine Law. Therefore we have ordered the Bishops to await 
our return at Adrianople; that, when all public affairs are well- 
arranged, then at length we may hear and weigh their sug 
gestions, Let it not then be grievous to your constancy to await 
their return, that, when they come back with our answer to you, 
ye may be able to bring matters to a close which so deeply affect 
the well-being of the Catholic Church 

29. This was what the Bishops received at the hands of 
three messengers. 

Reply of the Bishops. 

The letter of your humanity we have received, most religious 
Lord Emperor, which reports that, on account of stress of public 
affairs, as yet you have been unable to attend to our legates; and 
in which you command us to await their return, until your godli 
ness shall be advised by them of what we have defined conformably 
to our ancestors. However, we now profess and aver at once by 
these presents, that we shall not recede from our purpose, as we 
also instructed our legates. We ask then that you will with serene 
countenance command these letters of our mediocrity to be read 
before you; as well as will g aciously receive those, with which 
we charged our legates. This however your gentleness com 
prehends as well as we, that great grief and sadness at present 

k These two Letters are both in Socr. ii. 15. p. 878. in a different version 
ii. 37. And the latter is in Theod. Hisr. from the Latin original. 



Letter of the Council of Ariminum to Constantius. 159 

prevail, because that, in these your most happy days, so many CHAP. 
Churches are without Bishops. And on this account we again HI. 
request your humanity, most religious Lord Emperor, that, if 
it please your religiousness, you would command us, before the 
severe winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, that so 
we may be able, unto God Almighty and our Lord and Saviour 
Christ, His Only -begotten Son, to fulfil together with our flocks 
our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed 
we have ever performed them, and at this time make them. 



NOTE on Chapter II. 
Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium. 



NOTE IT has been thought advisable to draw up, as carefully as may 

ON be, a statement of the various Arian Confessions which issued at 

A RiM C Sirmium, with the hope of presenting to the reader in a compen- 

AND dious form an intricate passage of history. 
SELEU. 

1. A. D. 351. Confession against Photinus, 
(First Sirmian. supr. p. 118.) 

This Confession was published at a Council of Eastern Bishops, 
(Coustant in Hil. p. 1 174, note 1,) and was drawn up by the whole 
body, Hil. de Syn. 37- (according to Sirmond. Diatr. 1. Sirm. p. 
366. Petavius de Trin. 1. 9. . 8. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 318 init. 
and Coustant. in Hil. 1. c.) or by Basil of Ancyra (as Valesius con 
jectures in Soz. iv. 22. and Larroquanus, de Liberio, p. 147.) or 
by Mark of Arethusa, Socr. ii. 30. but he confuses together the 
dates of the different Confessions, and this is part of his mistake, 
(vid. Vales, in loc. Coustant. in Hil. de Syn. 1. c. Petav. Animad. 
in Epiph. 1. c. ) It was written in Greek. 

Till Petavius % Socrates was generally followed in ascribing all 
three Sirmian Confessions to this one Council, though at the same 
time he was generally considered mistaken as to the year. E. g. 
Baronius places them all in 357- Sirmond defended Baronius 
against Petavius ; (though in Facund. x. 6. note c, he agrees 
with Petavius, ) and assigning the third Confession to 359, 
adopted the improbable conjecture of two Councils, the one 
Catholic and the other Arian, held at Sirmium at the same time, 
putting forth respectively the first and second Creeds somewhat 
after the manner of the contemporary rival Councils of Sardica. 
Pagi, Natalis Alexander, Valesius, de Marca, Tillemont,S. Basnage, 
Montfaucon, Coustant, Larroquanus (de la Roque,) agree with 
Petavius in placing the Council at which Photinus was deposed, 
and the Confession published by it, in A.D. 351. Mansi dates 
it at 358. 

a Dicam non jactantise causa, sed ut precabor, quin id vanissime a me dictum 

eniditi lectoris studium excitem, for- omnes arbitrentur. Petav. Animadv. in 

tassis audacius, ab hinc mille ac ducen- Epiph. p. 306. Nos ex antiquis patri- 

tis propemodum annis liquidam ac sin- bus primum illud odorati sumus, tres 

ceram illorum rationem ignoratam. fu- omnino conventus Episcoporum eodem 

isse. Quod nisi certissimis argumentis in Sirmiensi oppido, non iisdem tempo- 

indiciisque monstravero, nihil ego de- ribus celebratos fuisse. ibid. p. 113. 






Sirmian Confessions. 161 

This was the Confession which Pope Liberius signed according NOTE 
to Baronius, N. Alexander, and Coustant in Hil. note n. p. 1335-7, Is 
and as Tillemont thinks probable. Comic 

In p. 11 4, note b. supr. the successive condemnations of Pho- ARIM. 
tinus are enumerated; but as this is an intricate point on which AND 
there is considerable difference of opinion among critics, it may be SELEU. 
advisable to state them here, as they are determined by various 
writers. 

Petavius, (de Photino Haeretico, 1.) enumerates in all five 
Councils: 1. at Constantinople, A.D. 336, when Marcellus was 
deposed, vid. supr. p. 109, note m - (where for " same" year, read 
next" year.) 2. At Sardica, AD. 347- 3. At Milan, A.D. 347. 
4. At Sirmiura, 349. 5. At Sirmium, when he was deposed, 
A.D. 351. Of these the 4th and 5th were first brought to light 
by Petavius, who omits mention of the Macrostich in 345. 

Petavius is followed by Natalis Alexander, Montfaucon, (vit. 
Athan.) and Tillemont; and by De Marca, (Diss. de temp. Syn. 
Sirm.) and S. Basnage, (Annales,) and Valesius, (in Theod. Hist. 

11. 16. p. 23. Socr. ii. 20.) as regards the Council of Milan, except 
that Valesius places it with Sirmond in 346 ; but for the Council 
of Sirmium in 349, they substitute a Council of Rome of the same 
date, while de Marca considers Photinus condemned again in the 
Eusebian Council of Milan in 355. De la Roque, on the other 
hand, (Larroquan. Dissert, de Photino Haer.) considers that Pho 
tinus was condemned, 1. in the Macrostich, 346 [JS45]. 2. at 
Sardica, 347. 3. at Milan, 348. 4. at Sirmium, 350. 5. at Sirmium, 
351. 

Petavius seems to stand alone in assigning to the Council of 
Constantinople, 336, his first condemnation. 

2. A.D. 357. The Blasphemy of Potamius and Hosius, 
(Second Sirmian. supr. p. 122.) 

Hilary calls it by the above title, de Syn. 11. vid. also Soz. 
iv. 12. p. 554. He seems also to mean it by the blasphemia 
Ursacii et Valentis, contr Const. 26 

This Confession was the first overt act of disunion between 
Arians and Semi-Arians. 

Sirmond, de Marca and Valesius, (in Socr. ii. 30,) after Pha?- 
badius, think it put forth by a Council; rather, at a Conference 
of a few leading Arians about Constantius, who seems to have 
been present; e. g. Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius. Soz. iv. 

12. Vid. also Hil. Fragm. vi. 7. 

It was written in Latin, ocr. ii. 30 Potamius wrote very 
barbarous Latin, judging from the Tract ascribed to him in 
Dacher. Spicileg t 3. p. 299, unless it be a translation from the 
Greek, vid. also Galland. Bibl. t. v. p 96. Petavius thinks the 
Creed not written, but merely subscribed by Potamius. de Trin. 
i. 9 8. and Coustant. in Hil. p. 1155, note f, that it was written 
by Ursacius, Valens, and Potamius. It is remarkable that the 
Greek in Athanasius is clearer than the original. 

This at first sight is the Creed which Liberius signed, because 

M 



162 Sirmian Confessions. 

NOTE S. Hilary speaks of the latter as " perfidia Ariana," Fragm. 6. 

I - Blondel, ( Prim, dans 1 Eglise, p. 484.) Larroquanus, c. are of this 

Cou^c pi n i n - And tne Roman Breviary, Ed. Ven. 148<?, and Ed. 

ARIM. Par. J 543, in the Service for S. Eusebius of Rome, August. 14. 

AND says that " Pope Liberius consented to the Arian misbelief," 

SELEU. Launnoi Ep. v. 9- c. 13. Auxilius says the same, ibid, vi 14. 

Animadv. 5. n. 18. Petavius grants that it must be this, if any 

of the three Sirmian, (Animadv. in Epiph. p. 31 6,) but we shall 

see his own opinion presently. 

3. A. D. 367. The foregoing interpolated. 

A creed was sent into the East in Hosius s name, Epiph Hser. 
73. 14. Soz. iv. 15. p 558, of an Anomoean character, which the 
" blasphemia" was not. And S. Hilary may allude to this when 
he speaks of the " deliramenta Osii, et increinenta Ursacii et 
Valentis," contr. Const 23- An Anomoean Council of Antioch 
under Eudoxius of this date, makes acknowledgments to Ursacius, 
Valens, and Germinius Soz. iv. 12, fin. as being agents in the 
Arianisino of the West. 

Petavius and Tillemont consider this Confession to be the 
" blasphemia" interpolated. Petavius throws out a further con 
jecture, which seems gratuitous, that the whole of the latter part 
of the Creed is a later edition, and that Liberius only signed the 
former part. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 3 1 6. 

4. A. D. 358 The Ancyrene Anathemas. 

The Semi- Arian party had met in Council at Ancyra in the early 
spring of 358 to protest against the "blasphemia," and that with 
some kind of correspondence with the Gallic Bishops who had 
just condemned it, Phsebadius of Agen writing a Tract against it, 
which is still extant. They had drawn up and signed, besides, a 
Synodal Letter, eighteen anathemas, the last against the " One in 
substance." These, except the last, or the last six, they submitted 
at the end of May to the Emperor who was again at Sirroium. 
Basil, Eustathius, Eleusius, and another, formed the deputation ; 
and their influence persuaded Con^tantius to accept the .Ana 
themas, and even to oblige the party of Valens, at whose " blas 
phemia" they were levelled, to recant and subscribe them. 

5. A. D. 358. Semi-Arian Digest of Three Confessions. 

The Semi-Arian Bishops pursuing their advantage, composed 
a Creed out of three, that of the Dedication, the first Sirmian, and 
the Creed of Antioch against Paul 26 4 270, in which the " One 
in substance" is said to have been omitted or forbidden. Soz. iv. 
15. Tin s Confession was imposed by Imperial authority on the 
Arian party, who signed it. So did Liberius, Soz ibid. Hil. Fragm. 
vi. 6. 7; and Petavius considers that this is the subscription by 
which he lapsed, de Trin. i. 9- 5. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 31 6 . 
and S. Basnage, in Ann. 358. 13. 

It is a point of controversy whether or not the Arians at this 
time suppressed the " blasphemia." Socrates and Sozomen say 



Sirmian Confessions. 163 

that they made an attempt to recall the copies they had issued, NOTE 
and even obtained an edict from the Emperor for this purpose, I 
but without avail. Socr. ii. 30 fin. Soz. iv. 6. p. 543. 

Athanasius, on the other hand, as we have seen, supr, p. 123, 
relates this in substance of the third Confession of Sirmium, not AISD 
of the blasphemia" or second. SELEU. 

Tiilemont follows Socrates and Sozomen ; considering that 
Basil s influence with the Emperor enabled him now to insist on 
a retractation of the " blasphemia." And he argues that Germi- 
nius in 366, being suspected of orthodoxy, and obliged to make 
profession of heresy, was referred by his party to the formulary 
of Ariminum, no notice being taken of the ft blasphemia," which 
looks as if it were suppressed; whereas Germinius himself appeals 
to the third Sirmian, which is a proof that it was not suppressed. 
Hil. Fragm. 15. Constant, in Hil contr. Const. 26, though he 
does not adopt the opinion himself, observes, that the charge 
brought against Basil, Soz. iv. 132. Hil. 1. c. by the Acacians of 
persuading the Africans against the second Sirmian is an evi 
dence of a great effort on his part at a time when he had the 
Court with him to suppress it. We have just seen Basil uniting 
with the Gallic Bishops against it. 

6. A. D. 359. The Confession with a date, 
(third Sirmian, supr. p. 83.) 

The Semi-Arians, with the hope of striking a further blow at 
their opponents by a judgment against the Anomceans, Soz. iv. 16 
init. seem to have suggested a general Council, which ultimately 
became the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum. If this was their 
measure, they were singularly out-mano3uvred by the party of 
Acacius and Valens, as we have seen in Athanasius s work. A pre 
paratory Conference was held at Sirmium at the end of May in this 
year; in which the Creed was determined which should belaid 
before the great Councils which were assembling. Basil and Mark 
were the chief Semi-Arians present, and in the event became com 
mitted to an almost Arian Confession. Soz. iv. 16. p. 56 2. It was 
finally settled on the Eve of Pentecost, and the dispute lasted till 
morning. Epiph. Haer. 73. 22. Mark at length was chosen to 
draw it up, Soz. iv. 22. p. 573. yet Valens so managed that Basil 
could not sign it without an explanation. It was written in 
Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Soz. iv. 17- p 563. Constant, however, in 
Hil. p. 1152, note i, seems to consider this dispute and Mark s 
confession to belong to the same date (May 22,) in the foregoing 
year; but p. 1363, note b, to change his opinion. 

PetaviuS; who, Animadv. in Epiph. p. 3 18, follows Socrates in con 
sidering that the second Sirmian is the Confession which the Arians 
tried to suppress, nevertheless, de Trin i 9. . 8. yields to the testi 
mony of Athanasius in behalf of the third, attributing the measure to 
their dissatisfaction with the phrase " Like in all things," which 
Constantius had inserted, and with Basil s explanation on sub 
scribing it, and to the hopes of publishing a bolder creed which 
their increasing influence with Constantius inspired. He does 

M 2 



104 Sirmian Confessions. 

NOTE not think it impossible, however, that an attempt was made to 
* suppress both. Constant, again, in Hil. p. 1353, note b, asks when 

CCHJNO i* could be that the Eusebians attempted to suppress the second 

AUIM.* Confession; and conjectures that the ridicule which followed 
AND their dating of the third and their wish to get rid of the " Like in 

SELEU. a l| things," were the causes of their anxiety about it. He observes 
too with considerable speciousness that Acacius s second formu 
lary at Seleucia (Confession ixth, supr p 123 ) and the Confession 
of Nice (xth, supr. p. 125.) resemble second editions of the third 
Sirmian. Valesius in Socr. ii. 30. and Montfaucon in Athan. Syn. 
. 29. take the same side. 

Pagi in Ann. 35?. n. 13. supposes that the third Sirmian was 
the Creed signed by Liberius. Yet Coustant, in Hil. p. 1335, 
note n, speaking of Liberius s, " perfidia Ariana," as S. Hilary calls 
it, says, " Solus Valesius existimat tertiam Qconfessionem] hie 
memorari:" whereas Valesius, making four, not to say five, Sirmian 
Creeds, understands Liberius to have signed, not the third, 
but an intermediate one, between the second and third, as Peta- 
vius does, in Soz. iv. 15 and 1(3. Moreover, Pagi fixes the date as 
A.I). 358. ibid. 

This Creed, thus drawn up by a Semi-Arian. with an Acacian or 
Arian appendix, then a Semi-Arian insertion, and after all a Semi- 
Arian protest on subscription, was proposed at Seleucia by 
Acacius, Soz. iv. 22. and at Ariminum by Valens, Socr. ii. 37. 
p. 132. 

7. A. D 359. Nicene Edition of the third Sirmian, 
(Tenth Confession, supr. p. I 25.) 

The third Sirmian was rejected both at Seleucia and Ariminum; 
but the Eusebians, dissolving the Council of Seleucia, kept the 
Fathers at Ariminum together through the summer and autumn. 
Meanwhile at Nice in Thrace they confirmed the third Sirmian, 
Socr. ii. 37 p- 141. Theod Hist. ii. 1 6. with the additional 
proscription of the word hypostasis ; apparently lest the Latins 
should by means of it evade the condemnation of the " One in 
substance." This Creed, thus altered, was ultimately accepted at 
Ariminum; and was confirmed in January 360 at Constantinople; 
Socr. ii. 41. p. 153. Soz. iv. 24 init. 

Liberius retrieved his fault on this occasion ; for, whatever was 
the confession he had signed, he now refused his assent to the 
Arirninian, and, if ^ cerates is to be trusted, was banished in con 
sequence, Socr. ii. 37- p. 140. 



NOTE on page 147. 

On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of 
Samosata. 

A number of learned writers have questioned the fact, testified NOTE 
by three Fathers, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, and S. Hilary, of the 
rejection of the word opoovaiov in the Antiochene Council against (-J^^ 
Paul between A.D. 264 270. It must be confessed that both ARIM. 
S. Athanasius and S. Hilary speak from the statements of the Semi- AND 
arians, without having seen the document which the latter had SKLEU. 
alleged, while S. Basil who speaks for certain lived later. It must 
also be confessed, that S. Hilary differs from the two other Fathers 
in the reason he gives for the rejection of the word. There is, 
however, a further argument urged against the testimony of the 
three Fathers of a different kind. A Creed, containing the word, 
is found in the acts of the Council of Ephesus 431, purporting to 
be a Definition of faith "of the Nicene Council, touching the 
Incarnation, and an Exposition against Paul of Samosata." This 
Creed, which (it is supposed) is by mistake referred to the Nicene 
Council, is admitted as genuine by Baronius, J. Forbes, Instr. Hist. 
Theol. i. 4. . 1. Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. t. 2. p. 255. Wormius, Hist. 
Sabell. p 116119. (vid. Routh, Rell. t. 2. p. 523.) Simon de 
Magistris, Praef. ad Dionys. Alex. p. xl. Feverlin.Diss. de P.Samos. 
9- Molkenbuhr, Dissert. Crit. 4. Kern, Disqu. Hist. Crit. on the 
subject; Dr. Burton in Faber s Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 
vol. ii. p. 302. and Mr. Faber himself. As, however, I cannot but 
agree with the President of Magdalen 1. c. that the Creed is of a 
later date, (in his opinion, post lites exortas Nestorianas,) or at least 
long after the time of Paul of Samosata, I will here set down one 
or two peculiarities in it which make me think so. 

The Creed is found in Harduin Concil. t. 1. p. 1640. Routh, 
Rell, t. 2. p. 524. Dionys. Alex. Opcr. Rom. 1696 [1796]. p. 289. 
Burton, Testimonies, p. 397 399. Faber, Trinitarianism, vol. 2. 
p. 287- 

1. Now first, the Creed in question has these words: o\ov 6/j.o- 

oiKTiov $eo> /cat /nera TOV trcojuaroj, aXX ov^i Kara TO crcap-a OJJLOOVCTIOV TG> #&> 

Now to enter upon the use of the word 6p.oovaiov, as applied to the 
Holy Trinity, would be foreign to my subject; and to refer to 
the testimony of the three Fathers, would be assuming the point 
at issue; but still there are other external considerations besides, 
which may well be taken into account. 

(l) And first the Fathers speak of it as a new term, i. e. in 
Creeds, "To meet the irreligion of the Ariau heretics, the Fathers 
framed the new name Homoiision." August, in Joann. 97. 11. 4. He 
says that it was misunderstood at Ariminum "propter novitatem 
verbi." contr. Maxim, ii. 3. though it was the legitimate "off 
spring of the ancient faith." Vigilius also says, "an ancient 



166 Alleged Confession of Antiocli 

NOTE subject received the new name Homoiision." Disp Ath. et Ar. t. v. 
Tr - p- 695. (the paging wrong.) Bibl. P. Col. l6l8. vid. Le Moyne. 



( 2 ) Next Sozonien informs us, Hist. iv. 15. (as we have seen 
AND above, p 162.) that the Creed against Paul was used by the Semi- 

SELEU. arians at Sirmium, A D. 358, in order to the composition of the 
Confession, which Liberius signed. Certainly then, if this be so, 
we cannot suspect it of containing the opoovo-iov. 

(3) Again, we have the evidence of the Semi-arians themselves to 
the same point in the documents which Epiphanius has preserved, 
Haer. 73. They there appeal to the Council against Paul as an 
authority for the use of the word ouo-i a, and thereby to justify their 
own ouoiovaiov; which they would hardly have done, if that Council 
had sanctioned the opoova-iov as well as ovcrla. But moreover, as we 
have seen, supr. p. 162. the last Canon of their Council of Ancyra 
actually pronounced anathema upon the 6p.ooixriov ; but if so, with 
what face could they appeal to a Council which made profession 
of it? 

(4) And there is nothing improbable in the Antiochene Council 
having suppressed or disowned it; on the contrary, under their 
circumstances it was almost to be expected. The Fathers con 
cerned in the first proceedings against Paul, Dionysius, Gregory of 
Neocaesarea, Athenodorus, and perhaps Firmilian, were immediate 
disciples of Origen, who is known to have been very jealous of 
the corporeal ideas concerning the Divine Nature which Paul (ac 
cording to Athanasius and Basil) imputed to the word opoovaiov. 
There were others of the Fathers who are known to have used 
language of a material cast, and from them he pointedly differs. 
Tertullian speaks of the Divine Substance as a corpus, in Prax. 7- 
and he adopts the Valentinian word 71-^0,80X77, as Justin had used 
TrpopXrjdev yeVz Ty/xa, (vid. supr. p. 97, note h.) whereas Origen in 
his controversy with Candidus, who was of that heresy, condemns 
it; and he speaks in strong language against the work of Melito 
of Sardis, Trept eWoyiarou 6eov, in Genes. Fragm. t 2. p. 25. w r hom 
he accuses of teaching it. vid. also de Orat. 23. His love of 
Platonism would tend the same way, for the Platonists, in order 
to mark their idea of the perfection and simplicity of the Divine 
Nature, were accustomed to consider It "above substance." 

Thus Plotinus calls the Divine Being the "origin of being and 
more excellent than substance." 5 Ennead. v. 11. and says that He 
" transcends all, and is the cause of them, but is not they." ibid. 
c. ult. The views of physical necessity too, which the material 
system involved, led him to speak of His energy and will being 
His substance. 6 Enn. viii. 13. And hence Origen; "Nor doth 
God partake of substance, rather He is partaken, than partakes." 
contr. Cels. vi. 64. And thus the word vTrepovo-iov is used by 
Pseudo-Dion, de div. nom. i n. 2. whose Platonic tone of thought 
is well known ; as by S. Maximus, " Properly substance is not 
predicated of God, for He is v-rrepova-ios" in Pseudo-Dion, de div. 
nom. v. init. Vid. also Dam. F. O. i. 4. and 8. pp. 137. 147 while 
S. Greg. Naz. also speaks of Him as vnep ri]v ovaiav. Orat. 6. 12. 

Nay further, in Joann. t. 20. 1 6. Origen goes so far as to object 



against Paul of Samosata. 1(>7 

to the phrase CK. TT/S ovcrtas TOV Trarpbs ycyevvrjadai TOV vlov, but Still NOTE 
assigning the reason that such a phrase introduced the notion of a II. 
[jifiaxris, or the like corporeal notions, into our idea of God. , c N 

It is scarcely necessary to add, that there was no more frequent ^[^ c " 
charge against the op-oovviov in the mouths of the Arians, AND* 
than that it involved the Gnostic and Manichsean doctrine ofSELEu. 
materiality in the Divine Nature, vid. supr. p. 17, note 1. p 63, 
note h. 

Again we know also that S. Dionysius did at first decline or at 
least shrink from the word ofioovaiov. accepting it only when the 
Bishop of Rome urged it upon him. But an additional reason 
for such reluctance is found in the rise of Manichaeism just in the 
time of these Councils against Paul, a heresy which adopted* the 
word 6/xoouo-ioi/ in its view of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 
and that in a material sense ; so that the very circumstances of 
the case exactly fall in with and bear out the account of their 
rejection of the word given by the two Fathers. 

(5) Nor is there any thing in S. Hilary s reason for it incon 
sistent with the testimony of S. Athanasius and S. Basil. Both 
accounts may be true at once. The philosophical sense of ovo-ia, 
as we have seen, supr. p. 152, note a, was that of an individual or 
unit. When then the word 6p,oovo-ios was applied to the Second 
Person in the Blessed Trinity, or He was said to be of one substance 
with the Father, such a doctrine, to those who admitted of no 
mystery in the subject, involved one of two errors, according as 
the ovo-ia was considered a spiritual substance or a material. Either 
it implied that the Son of God was a part of God, or p.epos opnovo-iov, 
which was the Manichsean doctrine; or if the ovo-ia were immaterial, 
then, since it denoted an individual being, the phrase "one in 
substance" involved Sabellianism. Paul then might very naturally 
have urged this dilemma upon the Council, and said, "Your doc 
trine implies the opoovo-iov, which is Manichaean, unless it be taken, 
as I am willing to take it in a Sabellian sense." And thus it might 
be at once true as Athanasius says, that Paul objected, " Unless 
Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is One in sub 
stance with the Father ; and if so, of necessity there are three 
substances, &c." supr. . 45. and also, according to Hilary s testi- 
mon y " Homoiision Samosatentis confessus est; sed nunquid 
melius Ariani negaverunt ?" de Syn. 86. 

2. The Creed also says, jnera rijs deorrjTOS wv Kara adpKa 6/j.ooixrws 



There are strong reasons for saying that the phrase 6/xoouy-ios fjjj.lv 
is of a date far later than the Council of Antioch. 

(1) Waterland considers the omission of the phrase in the 
Athanasian Creed as an argument that it was written not lower 
than Eutychian times," A.D. 451. " A tenet," he observes of it, 
" expressly held by some of the ecclesiastical writers before 
Eutyches s time, but seldom or never omitted in the Creeds or 
Confessions about that time, or after. To be convinced," he 
proceeds, " of the truth of this .... article, one need but look 
into the Creeds and Formularies of those times, viz. into that of 



168 Alleged Confession of Antioch 

NOTE Turrihius of Spain in 447, of Flavian of Constantinople, as also 
II. of Pope Leo in 44-9. of the Chalcedon Council in 451, of Pope 
ON Felix III, in 485, and Anastasius II, in 496, and of the Church of 

A RIM Alexandria in the same year; as also into those of Pope Hormisclas. 
AND and the Churches of Syria, and Fulgentius, and the Umperor 

SELEU. Justinian, and Pope John II, and Pope Pelagius I, within the 

~6 th century. In all which we shall find either express denial of 

one nature, or express affirmation of two natures, or the doctrine of 

C fir int s consubstantiality with us, or all three together, though they 

are all omitted in the Athanasian Cread." vol. iv. p. 247 

(<?) The very fact of Kutyches denying it seems to shew that 
the phrase was not familiar, or at least generally received, in the 
Church before. ." Up to this day." he says in the Council of 
Constantinople A D. 448, "1 have never said that the Body of 
our Lord and God was consubstantial with us, but I confess that 
the Holy Virgin was consubstantial with us, and that our God 
was incarnate of her." Cone, t 2. p. lf)4, 5. The point at issue, 
as in other controversies, seems to have been the reception or re 
jection of a phrase, which on the one hand was as yet but in local 
or private use, and on the other was well adapted to exclude the 
nascent heresy. The Kutychians denied in like manner the word 
ffrvais, which, it must be confessed, was seldom used till their date, 
when the doctrine it expressed came into dispute. And so of the 
phrase 6/noovo iov T< -Harp], and of vTroo-racm ; vid. Note, supr. p. 71. 
Now the phrase "consubstantial with us" seems to have been in 
troduced at the time of the Apollinarian controversy, and was natu 
rally the Catholic counter-statement to the doctrine of Apollinaris 
that Christ s body was "consubstantial to the Godhead;" a doctrine 
which, as Athanasius tells us, ad Epict. 9. was new to the world 
when the Apollinarians brought it forward, and, according to 
Epiphariius, was soon abandoned by them, Haer 77, 25. It is 
natural then to suppose that the antagonist phrase, which is here in 
question, came into use at that date, and continued or was dropped 
according to the prevalence of the heretical tenet. Moreover both 
sections into which the Apollinarians soon split, seemed to have 
agreed to receive the phrase " consubstantial with us, and only 
disputed whether it contented to be predicable of our Lord s body 
on and after its union with the divine Nature, vid. Leont. de fraud. 
Apollin. and this of course would be an additional reason against 
the general Catholic adoption of the phrase. It occurs however 
in the Creed of John of Antioch, A.D about 431, on which S. Cyril 
was reconciled to him. Rustic, contr. Aceph. p. 709. but this is 
only twenty-one years before the Council of Chalcedon, in which 
the phrase was formally received, as the opoovaiov TO> Trarpl was re 
ceived at Nicaea. ibid. p. 805. 

The counter-statement more commonly used by the orthodox to 
that of the flesh being opoovaiov 0et r??Ti, was not " consubstantial with 
us," but "consubstantial with Mary." S. Amphilochius speaks thus 
generally, " It is plain that the holy Fathers said that the Son was 
consubstantial with His Father according to the Godhead and con- 
substantial with His Mother according to the manhood." apud. Phot. 
Bibl. p. 789- Proclus, A.D 434, uses the word o/io</>vAoi>, and still 



against Paul of Samosata. 1(>9 

with " the Virgin." r<p Trarpl Kara rqv deurrjTa ofioovaios, ovro)s 6 avros Kal NOTE 
777 Trapdtvw Kara rr/v crdpKa 6p.6fpv\os. ad Arm. p. 6l8, circ. init. vid. also II. 
p. 6l 3 fin. p. 6l 8. He uses the word 6p.oovo-iov frequently of the ON 
Divine Nature as above, yet this does not suggest the other use 1 & 
of it. Another term is used by Athanasius, TOV f)v<i)p.vov narpl Kara ANU " 
7rvvp.a, rji-nv Se KOTO. adpKa. apud Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 139- Or SELKU. 
again that He took flesh of Mary, e. g. OVK CK Mapias d\\ e/< rijs ~ 
fttvrov ovvias o-cofia. ad Epict. 2. Or reXeioy (iv6pa>7ros, C. g. Prod, ad 

Arm. p. 613. which though Apollinaris denied, Eutyches allowed, 
Concil. t. 2. p. 157- Leon. Ep. 21. 

However,, S. Eustathius (A. D. 325.) says that our Lord s 

soul was rats -^v\als TO>V dvOpantov o/zoovcrtos, coaTrep Kal rj (rapt; op-oovatos 

rij TWV dvdpwTTGw aapKi. ap. Theod. Eranist. i. p. 56. vid. also Leon, 
contr. Nestor, et Eutych. p. 977. and S. Ambrose, ibid. Dial. ii. 

p. 1 39 O/JLOOVCTIOV r<a Trarpl Kara rf)v OeoTrjTa, Kill 6p,oovaiov fjp.lv Kara rfjv 

dvQpayrroTTjTa, but the genuineness of the whole extract is extremely 
doubtful, as indeed the Benedictines almost grant, t. 2. p. 729. 
Waterland, Athan. Creed, ch. 7- p. 254. seems to think the internal 
evidence strong against its genuineness, but yields to the ex 
ternal ; and Coustant. App. Epist. Pont. Rom. p. 79. considers 
Leontius a different author from the Leontius de Sectis, on 
account of his mistakes. Another instance is found in Theophilus 
ap. Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 154. 

This contrast becomes stronger still when we turn to documents 
of the alleged date of the Confession. A letter of one of the 
Councils 263 270, or of some of its Bishops, is still extant, and 
exhibits a very different phraseology. Instead of 6/xoovo-toy fj/juv we 
find the vaguer expressions, not unlike Athanasius, &c. of the Son 
" being made flesh and made man," and " the Body from the 
Virgin," and " man of the seed of David," and " partaking of flesh 
and blood." Routh Rell. t. 2. p, 473 And the use of the word ovo-ia 
is different ; and its derivatives are taken to convey the idea, neither 
of the divine nature of our Lord, nor the human, but of the divine 
nature substantiated or become a substance, in the material world : 
almost as if under the feeling that God in Himself is above sub 
stance, as I had just now occasion to mention. E. g. Pseudo- 

DionysiuS asks TTWS o VTrepovo-ios l^eroC s dvdpa)7ro(pviais dXrjdciais ouo"icorut. 

Myst. Theol. iii. vid. also de Div. Nom. i 2- and Epist. 4. 

Hence Africanus says, ovcriav 6\rjv oixruoOfls, avdpotTrns Ae yerat. 
African. Chron. ap. Routh, t. 2. p. 125. In like manner the 
Antiochene Fathers insist, KaQb Xptcrros, ev Kal TO avrb &v rfj ova-iq. 

Routh Rel. t. 2. p. 474. and Malchion at the same Council 
accuses Paul of not admitting ova i&xrBai cv TV oXw o-wr^pt TOV vlov 
TOV povoycvri. ibid. p. 476. or that the Son was "substantially 
present in the whole Saviour." vid. also p. 485. In all these pas 
sages ovo-t a is used for nothing else than substance, whereas in the 
phrase opoova-iov f)p,1v it rather stands for cpvais or yeVos. And so 
much was the former its meaning in the earlier times, that Hip- 
polytus plainly denies that men are one substance one with 

another ; for he asks, /u?) Trdvres tv crap-d (rp.fv Kara rty ovffiav ; contr. 

Noet. 7 And this moreover altogether agrees with what was 
said above, that in Paul s argument against the 6/*oovcrtoi> narpl the 



170 Alleged Confession of Anlioch 

NOTE word ova-ia was taken (and rightly) in what Aristotle as Anastasius, 
II. Hodeg. 6. p. 96. and Theorian Leg. p. 441. after him, assigns as 
ON the proper sense of the word, viz. an individual, and not a common 



SEI.EU. 3. The Creed also speaks of our Lord as 

K OeoTTjTos ovpaviov Koi a.f6pa)7rtas crap/cos. 

Now the word crvvderov, in the Latin composition, is found in the 
fragment of Malchion s disputation in the Council. Routh Rell. 
t. 2. p. 476. But Trpoa-fonov and avvOerov 7rp6cra>7rov seem to me of a 
later date. 

The word persona, applied to our Lord in His two natures and 
in contrast with them, is to be found in Tertull. contr. Prax. 27. 
Though, however, it was not absolutely unknown to ecclesiastical 
authors, this is a very rare instance of its early occurrence. 

We also find Novatian de Trin. 21. speaking of the "regula 
circa Personam Christ! ;" and considering his great resemblance to 
Tertullian, it may be supposed that persona here denotes, not 
merely our Lord s subsistence in the Holy Trinity, but in His 
two natures. But on the other hand, he uses Christus absolutely 
for the Second Person all through his Treatise, e. g. 9. init. " Regula 
veritatis docetnos credere post patrem etiam in Filium Dei Christum 
Jesum, Dominum Deurn nostrum, sed Dei filium, &c." Again, 
" Christus habet gloriara ante mundi institutionem." 1 6. vid. also 
13. where he speaks of Christ being made flesh, as if the name 
were synonymous with "Word" in the text, John 1,14. And, 
moreover, subsequently to "persona Christi," he goes on to speak 
of " secundam personam post Patrem." 26 and 31. vid. also 27- 

However, in spite of these instances, one might seem to say 
confidently, if a negative can be proved, that it was not in 
common use at soonest before the middle of the fourth century, 
and perhaps not till much later. 

(1)1 have not discovered it in S. Athanasius s treatises against 
Apollinarianism, which were written about 370, except in two 
places, which shall be spoken of presently. Nor in S. Gregory 
Naz/s Ep. 202. ad Nectar, and Ep. 101. 102. ad Cledon. Nor in 
S. Gregory Nyssen. Fragm in Apollinarem. Nor in Theodoret s 
Eranistes, except in one place, in a Testimony, given to S. Ambrose, 
and which has already been mentioned as probably spurious. Nor 
is it found in the Creed of Damasus, by whom Apollinaris was 
condemned, vid Epp. 2 and 3; nor among the testimonies of the 
Fathers cited at the Council of Ephesus ; nor in Epiphanius s 
Creed, Ancor. 121. vid. also 75. 

(2) It is not used in passages where it might have been ex 
pected, but other modes of speech are usual instead ; and that by 
a sort of rule, so as to make them almost technical, or with such 
variety of expression as pointedly to mark the omission ; e. g. 
for "two natures and one Person" we always find OVK aXXo, aXXo, 

fls, ev, 6 avros. &C. &C. 

S. Irenseus: Non ergo alterum filium hominis novitEvangelium, 
nisi hunc qui ex Maria, &c. et eundem hunc passum resurrex- 
Jsse . . . Etsi lingua quidem confitentur unum Jesum Christum, 



against Paul of Samosata. \ 7 1 

. . . alterum, quidem passuin, et natum, &c. et esse alterum eorum, NOTE 
&c. Haer. iii. 16. n. 5. 6. unus quidem et idem existens, n. 7. per II. 
multa dividens Filium Dei. n. 8. unum et eundem, ibid. Si alter ON ^ 
. . . alter, . . . quoniam unum eum novit Apostolus, &c. n. 9. The 
passage upon the subject is extended to c. xxiv. AND 

S. Ambrose: Unus in utraque [divinitate et carne] loqu/tur SELEU. 
Dei Films; quia in eodeni utraque natura est; et si idem loquitur, 
non uno semper loquitur modo. de fid. ii. 9. vid. 58. Non divisus 
sed unm ; quia utrumque unus, et unus in utroque . . . non enim 
alter ex Patre, alter ex Virgine, sed idem aliter ex Pater, aliter ex 
Virgine, de Incarn. 35 vid. 47. 75. and Non enim quod ejusdem 
substantiae est, unus, sed unum est, 77 where persona follows of 
the Holy Trinity. 

S. Hilary: Non alius filius hominis quam qui filius Dei est 
neque alius in forma Dei quam qui in forma servi perfectus homo 
natus est; .... habens in se et totum verumque quod homo est, 
et totum verumque quod Deus est. de Trin. x. 19- Cum ipse ille 
filius hominis ipse sit qui et filius Dei, quia totus hominis filius 
totus Dei filius sit, &c. . . . Natus autem est, non ut esset alius 
atque alius, sed ut ante hominem Deus, suscipiens hominem, 
homo et Deus possit intelligi. ibid. 22. Non potest . . . ita ab se 
dividuus esse, ne Christus sit; cum non alius Christus, quam qui 
in forma Dei, &c. neque alius quam qui natus est, &c. . . . neque 
alius quam qui est mortuus, &c. in coelis autem non alius sit quam 
qui &c. ibid, ut non idem fuerit qui et, &c. ibid. 50. Totum ei Deus 
Verbum est, totum ei homo Christus est, . . .nee Christum aliud 
credere quam Jesum, nee Jesum aliud praedicare quam Christum. 
52. 

And in like manner S. Athanasius: oXXos, oXXos- erepos, eWpos- 
(is Kal auroV ravrov dSicu peros, Orat. iv. . 15 and 29 "XXo?, aXXoy. 
. 30. fva Kal TOV avrov. .31- ov% a>s TOV \6yov Kf^K>pio~p.fvov. ibid. 
TOV Trpbs avTov \r)<p6dfi>ra, <u Kal r)vwo~dat. 7rto"Teuerai, avBpoyiTOV air avTov 
Xupifrvcri. ibid, rrjv dveKCppaarov evo)(rti>. . 32. TO Qiiov ev Kal dnXovv 
HvvTripiov. ibid. TTJV evorrjra. ibid. o\ov avrov avdpcorrov re /cat 6fov 6fj.ov. 

. 35. vid. especially the long discussion in Orat. iii. . 30 58. 
where there is hardly a technical term. 

Other instances of ecclesiastical language are as follows : 
Mediam inter Deum et hominum substantiam gerens. Lactant. 
Instit. iv. 13. 6ebs KOI avdpairos reXfios 6 avros. Meliton. apud Roilth, 
Rell. i. p. 115. ex eo quod Deus est, et ex illo quod homo . . . 
permixtus et sociatus . . . alterum vident, a terum non vident. 
Novat. de Trin. 25. vid. also 11, 14, 21, and 24. duos Christos . . . 
unum, alium. Pamphil. Apol. ap Routh, Rell. t. 4. p. 320. 6 euro s 
e&Tiv det rrpos eavrbv maavToos e^wj/ Greg. NySS. t 2. p. 696. eva KOL TOV 
avTov. Greg. Naz- Ep. 101. p. 85. aXXo pev KOI aXXo TO. eg a>v 6 Scor^p. 
OVK a\\os 8e Kal aXXoy. p. 86. 

Vid. also Athan. contr. Apollin. i. 10 fin. 11 fin. 13, e 16. b. ii. 
1 init. 5. e. 12. e. 18. circ. fin. Theod. apud Theod. Eranist. ii. 

154. Hilar. ibid. p. 162. Attic, ibid. p. l6 7- Jerom. in Joan. 
eros. 35. 

A corresponding phraseology and omission of the term " per 
son" is found in the undoubted Epistle of the Antiochene Fathers; 



p 

l 



17*2 Alleged Confession of Antioch 



NOTE TO e>K T ^l s irapOfvov crw/xa ^(opfja-av TTO.V TO 7rAi7p<i>p.a TTJS 
II. TTJ deoTrjTi UTpfTTTOis rjv&rai KOI TcdfOTroirj-rar ov X 1 1 P LV avros debs KCU av- 
ON 0pc07T09 K. r. A. Routh, Rell. t. 2. p 4-73. OVTM K.CU 6 Xpio-ros rrpb rf/s 

L/OUNC. oYipKftxretos cos els oivop-aarai. K.a6b Xpifrros If KOI TO avTo &VTTJ ovata. ibid. 

A^D P- 4< 7 4< " " XXo *"" " XXo ^ M vl s - *kid. P- 485< An( * S0 

SELEU. Malchion, Unus factus est . . . unitate subsistens, &c. ibid. p. 476. 

(3) It is indisputable too that the word TT/JOO-COTTOI/ is from time 

to time used of our Lord by the early writers in its ordinary 

vague sense, which is inconceivable if it were already received 

in creeds as an ecclesiastical symbol. 

E. g. S. Clement calls the Son the "person" or countenance, 
TrpdcrooTToi , "of the Father." Strom, v. 6. p. 6(J5. and Paedag. i. 7- 
p. 182. vid. also Strom, vii. 10. p. 886, And so ev TTPOO-MTTM TraTpbs, 
Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 22. (vid. supr. p. 114, note d.) and even Cyril 
Alex. Dial. v. p. 554. Vid. also Cyril. Catech. xii. 14 fin. 6/ioto- 
. Chrysostom speaks of 8vo Trpoo-coTra, i. e. human and divine, 
Kara TTJV VTTOO-TCKTIV, in Hebr. Horn. iii. 1 fin. where too he 
has just been speaking against Paul of Samosata, against whom 
the Creed which we are examining is alleged to have been written. 
vid also Amphiloch= ap Theod. Eranist. i. p. 67 who speaks of 
Christ as saying, " My Father is greater than I," "from the flesh 
and not e /c Trpoo-wTrou Trjs 6foTrjTos" In these passages rrpoa-wrov seems 
to stand for clidracter, as is not unusual in Athanasius, vid. supr. p. 
22. note z, where instances are given. And thus I would explain 
those passages referred to just above, in which he seems to use 
irpoo-ayrrov for person , in Apoll. ii. 2. and 10. viz. ei/ 8iaipeaei TT poo-air cov, 
which LeQuien (in Damasc. dialect. 43.) most unnecessarily calls an 
instance, and as he thinks solitary, of TrpocrcoTroy being used for nature, 
though Athan. in one of the two passages explains the word him 
self, speaking of 77poo-o>7rcoi> rj ovop-drw. And this seems a truer 
explanation, though perhaps less natural, than to render it (supr. 
p. 22.) "not as if there were divisions of persons." These passages 
of Athan. might make us less decisive than Montfaucon as to the 
internal evidence against the fragment given in t- i. p. 1294. He 
says, after Sirmond in Facund. xi. 2. that it contains a doctrine 
l ab Athanasiana penitus abhorrentem ;" and this, because the 
Latin version, (another reason, but of a different kind, why it is 
difficult to judge of it,) speaks broadly of " duas personas, unam 
circa hominem, alteram circa Verbum." But besides the above 
instances, we find the same use in an extract from a work of 
Hippolytus preserved by Leontius, Hippol. t. 2. p. 45. where he 
seaks o 



speaks of Christ as dvo Trpoo-wirav p-eo-iY^, God and men. 

Again S. Hilary speaks of utriusque naturae personam. de Trin. 
ix. 14. ejus hominis quam assumpsit persona, in Psalm 63. n. 3. 
vid. also in Psalm 138. n. 5. and S. Ambrose, in persona hominis, 
de Fid. ii. n. 6l. v, n. 108. 124. Ep. 48. n. 4. From a passage 
quoted from Paschasius Diaconus, de Spir. . ii. 4. p. 194. by 
Petavius (de Trin. iv. 4. . 3.) it seems that the use of the word 
persona in the sense of quality or state had not ceased even in the 
6th century. 

Further, it would seem as if the vague use of the word " per 
son," as used in speaking of the Holy Trinity, which S. Theo- 



against Paul of Samosata. 173 

philus and S. Clement above exemplify, on the whole ceased with No IE 
the rise of the Sabellian controversy and the adoption of the 11- 
word, (as in Hippol. contr. Noet. 14.) as a symbol against the ONl 
heresy. It is natural in like manner that till the great con- ^KIM. 
troversy concerning the Incarnation which Apollinaris began, AND 
a similar indistinctness should prevail in its use relatively to thatSELEu. 
doctrine. 

And hence S. Cyril in his 4th anathema is obliged to explain 
the word by the more accurately defined term liypostasis: e l ris 
TTpoo-coTrois- dvol, fjyovv inroaTao-fo-i, K. T. X. Vid. also the Caution or 
protest of Vincentius Lirens. Comm. 14. 

(4) Moreover, a contrast is observable between the later 
accounts or interpretations of early writings, and those writings 
themselves as far as we have them; words and phrases being 
imputed, which in the original exist only in the ideas themselves 
intended by them. 

E. g. Ephrem of Antioch reports that S. Peter of Alexandria, 
S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, &c. acknowledge 
the doctrine of " the union of two natures and one Subsistence 
and one Person." ap. Phot. cod. 229. P- 805 7. but Chrysostom, 
&c. uses the words and phrases, eWo-iy, a-wdfaia, ev 6 6ebs \6yos KCU 
f) o-dpg; Nazianzen is silent about persona in his Ep ad Cledon. 
to which Ephrem there refers, and Peter in all that remains of 
him uses such words as aapg ytvopfvos OVK. (nrfXeicpdrj rrjs 
yeyovtv ev p-rjrpa rfjs napdevov crdpg- faos rjv (pixrei Kcii yeyovev 
<j>vo-i. Routh Rell. t. 3. p. 344346. 

Again, let it be observed how 8. Maximus comments upon 
S Gregory Nazianzen s words in the following passage : " The 
great Gregory Theologus seems to me thus to teach in his great 
Apologetic. One, cv t out of both, and both through One, as if lie 
would say, for as there is one out of both, that is, of two natures, 
One as a whole from parts according to the definition of hypostasis, 
so," &c. t. 2. p 282. 

Instances of this kind, which are not unfrequent, make one 
suspicious of such passages of the Fathers as come to us in 
translation, as Theodoret s and Leontius s extract from S. Ambrose, 
of which notice has been taken above; especially as the common 
Latin versions in the current editions of the Greek Fathers offer 
parallel instances of the insertion of the words persona, &c. not in 
the original, merely for the sake of perspicuity. 

(5) It might be shewn too that according as alleged works of 
the Fathers are spurious or suspected, so does persona appear as 
one of their theological terms. The passage of S Ambrose above 
cited is in point ; but it would carry us too far from the subject 
to illustrate this as fully as might be done ; nor is it necessary. 
Another specimen, however, may be taken from S. Athanasius. 
The absence of Trpdo-coTroi/ from his acknowledged works has already 
been noticed; but let us turn to the fragments at the end of vol. I. 
of the Benedictine edition. E. g. p. 1279 is a fragment which 
Montfaucon says olet quidpiam peregrinum, et videtur maxime 
sub finem Eutychianorum hseresin impugnare ; it contains the 
word 7rp6<T<07rov. And a third is the letter to Dionysius falsely 



174 Alleged Confession of Antioch 

N< TE ascribed to Pope Julius, in which as before Trpovu-nov occurs, n. 2. 
II- Coust. Ep. Pont. Rom. Append, p. 62. And for a fourth we may 

P . ON refer to the cK&cn? rrjs- Kara ij.<pos irla-Tftos ascribed to S. Gregory 

A RIM. Thaumaturgus, one of the Antiochene Fathers, but which accord- 
AND ing to Eulogius ap. Phot, cod 230. p. 846. is an Apollinarian 

SELEU forgery; it too uses the word " persona" of the union of natures 
in our Lord. And for a fifth to the Serm. in S. Thomam, which 
is quoted by the 6th General Council as S Chrysostom s, but 
which Montfaucon and his other Editors consider spurious, and 
Tillemont considers preached at Edessa, A D. 402. It contains 
the word 7rp6cra>7rov. Ed. Ben. torn. 8. part 2. p. 14 

(6) Too many words would have been spent on this point, were 
it not for the eminent writers who have maintained the genuine 
ness of the Creed in question ; and in particular, were it not for 
the circumstance, which is at first sight of great cogency, that 
Tertullipn, whose acquaintance with Greek theology is well 
known, not only contains in his contr. Prax. a fully developed 
statement of the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Incarnation, but 
uses the very word persona or 7rpo0-o>7roi> which has here been 
urged in disproof of the genuineness of the Creed under con 
sideration. 

Such passages shall here be subjoined as contain the word in 
its ecclesiastical sense, as far as I have met with them. 

In the extracts of the letters of Apollinaris and his disciples 
who wrote against each other (A.D. 380) the word occurs ap. 
Leont. p. 1033, b. p. 103?. b. p. 1039- b. as well as the opoovo-iov 
fjfjuv as noticed above. 

Also in an extract of Apollinaris, ap. Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 173. 

By an auctor against the Arians whom Sirmond called anti- 
quissimus. Opp. t. i. p. 223. 

By S. Athanasius, that is, as quoted by Euthymius, ap. Petav. 
Incarn. iii. 15, note 19. 

By S. Gregory Nyss. ap. Damasc. contr. Jacob, t. i. p. 424 

By S. Amphilochius, ap. Damasc. ibid, et ap. Anast. Hod. 10. 
p. 162. and ap Ephrem ap Phot. p. 828. 

In a Greek Version of S. Ambrose, ap. Phot. p. 805 

By S. Chrysostom, Ep. ad Caesar, fin. 

By Isidore Pelus, p. 94. Epist. i 360. 

In Pelagius s Creed, A.D 418. in S. August. Opp. t. 12 p. 210. 

By S, Augustine, contr. Serm. Arian 8. Ep. ad Volusian. 137- 
n. 11. de Corr. et Grat. 30. 

By Proclus ad Armen p. 6 13. 

After the third General Council, A.D 431, of course the word 
becomes common. 

(7) It may be objected, that Paul of Samosata himself main 
tained a Nestorian doctrine, and that this would naturally lead to 
the adoption of the word irpocrvTrov to represent our Lord s unity 
in His two natures, as it had already been adopted 60 years 
before by Hippolytus to denote His Divine subsistence against 
Noetus. But there is no good evidence of Paul s doctrine being 
of this nature, though it seems to have tended to Nestorianism 
in his followers. I allude to a passage in Athan. Orat. iv. . 30. 



against Paul of Samosata. 175 

where he says, that some of the Samosatenes so interpreted Acts x. NOTE 
S6, as if the Word was sent to tf preach peace through Jesus II. 
Christ." As far as the fragments of the Antiochene Acts state or ON 
imply, he taught more or less, as follows: that the Son s pre- j. UNO. 
existence was only in the divine foreknowledge, llouth Rell. t. 2. AND 
p. 4-66. that to hold His substantial pre-existence was to hold two SELKU. 
Gods, ibid. p. 46?- that He was, if not an instrument, an impersonal 
attribute, p. 469. that His manhood was not " unalterably made 
one with the Godhead," p. 473. " that the Word and Christ were 
not one and the same," p. 474. that Wisdom was in Christ as in 
the prophets, only more abundantly, as in a temple; that He who 
appeared was not Wisdom, p. 475. in a word as it is summed up, 
p. 484. that " Wisdom was born with the manhood, not substan 
tially, but according to quality." vid. also p. 476. 485. All this 
plainly shews that he held that our Lord s personality was in His 
Manhood, but does not shew that he held a second personality in 
His godhead; rather he considered the Word impersonal, though 
the Fathers in Council urge upon him that he ought to hold two 
Sons, one from eternity, and one in time, p 485. 

Accordingly the Synodal Letter after his deposition speaks of 
him as holding that Christ came not from Heaven, but from 
beneath. Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. S. Athanasius s account of his 
doctrine is altogether in accordance, (vid. supr. p. 16, note i.) that 
Paul taught that our Lord was a mere man, and that He was 
advanced to His divine power, TrpoKOTrrjs. 

However, since there was a great correspondence between Paul 
and Nestorius, (except in the doctrine of the personality and 
eternity of the Word, which the Arian controversy determined 
and the latter held,) it was not unnatural that reference should 
be made to the previous heresy of Paul and its condemnation 
when that of Nestorius was on trial. Yet the Contestatio against 
Nestorius which commences the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, 
Harduin. Cone. t. i. p 1272. and which draws out distinctly the 
parallel between them, says nothing to shew that Paul held a 
double personality. And though Anastasius tells us, Hodeg. c. 7. 
p. 108. that the "holy Ephesian Council shewed that the tenets of 
Nestorius agreed with the doctrine of Paul of Samosata," yet in 
c. 20. p. 323, 4. he shews us what he means by saying that 
Artemon also before Paul " divided Christ in two." Ephrem of 
Antioch too says that Paul held that " the Son before ages was 
one, and the Son in the last time another." ap. Phot. p. 814. but 
he seems only referring to the words of the Antiochene Acts, quoted 
above Again, it is plain from what Vigilius says in Eutych. t. v. 
p. 731. Ed. Col. 161 8. (the passage is omitted in Ed. Par. 1624.) 
that the Eutychians considered that Paul and Nestorius differed; 
the former holding that our Lord was a mere man, the latter a mere 
man only till He was united to the Word. And Marius Mercator 
says, " Nestorius circa Verbum Dei, non ut Paulus sentit, qui non 
substantivum sed prolatitium potentiae Dei efficax Verbum esse 
definit." p. 50. Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, though more 
suspicious witnesses, say the same, vid. Facund. vi. 3. iii, 2. and 
Leontius de Sectis, iii. p. 504. 



176 Alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosafa. 

NOTE The principal evidence in favour of Paul s Nestorianism consists 
1L in the Letter of Dionysius to Paul and his answer to Paul s Ten 
COUNC Q uest i ns > which are certainly spurious, as on other grounds, so 
ARIM. on some of those here urged against the professed Creed of 
AND Antioch, but which Dr. Burton in his excellent remarks on Paul s 
opinions, Bampton Lectures, No. 102, admits as genuine. And so 
does the accurate and cautious Tillemont, who in consequence is 
obliged to believe that Paul held Nestorian doctrines ; also Bull, 
Fabricius, Natalis Alexander, &c. In holding these compositions 
to be certainly spurious, I am following Valesius, Harduin, Mont- 
faucon, Pagi, Mosheim, Cave, Routh, and others. /.Vt./w / ff*4+A 

It might be inquired in conclusion, whether alter all the Creed 
does not contain marks of Apollinarianism in it, which, if answered 
in the affirmative, would tend to fix its date As, however, this 
would carry us further still from our immediate subject in this 
Volume, it has been judged best not to enter upon the question. 
Some indulgence may fairly be asked for what has been already 
said, from its bearing upon the history of the word 6/j.oovo-ioi/. 



FOUR DISCOURSES OF S. ATHANASIUS, 

ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 



DISCOURSE I. 



CHAP. I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

&eason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianisni; Arians 
not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder. 

1. OF all other heresies which have departed from the truth CHAP. 
it is acknowledged, that they have but devised a a madness 1 , 



and their irreligiousness 2 has long since become notorious i p* 2,* 
to all men. For, that b their authors went out from us, it 110 ^ 6 - 
plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they note q. 
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 3 of their own mortal poison, they may have 3 p. 5, 
companions in death. But, whereas one heresy and that the nc 

a tirivo-fiffaffai. This is almost a tech- but what from the beginning the Eccle- 

nical word, and has occurred again siastical Tradition declared." Hist. lit. 

and again already, as descriptive of 7. The sense of the word eirivoia. which 

heretical teaching in opposition to the will corne into consideration below, is 

received traditionary doctrine. It is akin to this, being the view taken by 

also founJ passim in other writers, the mind of an object independent of 

Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree (whether or not correspondent to) the 

of the Council of Alexandria, 362, object itself. 

against Apollinaris ; " for not originat- b rb yap eeA0e?j/ . . . . Sr]\ov Uv efy, 

ing, eTT/orj(raj/Ts, any novel devotion, i. e. T< and so infr. . 43. rb 5e Ka\ 

did they introduce it into the Church, irpocrKvve icrOai ST/AOI/ av efy. 

N 



178 Brians, unlike former heretics, appeal to Scripture. 

Disc, last, which, has now risen as harbinger 1 of Antichrist, the 
Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her 
note <]! elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her cun 
ning and profligacy, affects to array herself in Scripture 
language , 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 hath 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 
Job 41, it necessary, at your request, to unrip the folds of its breast- 
4 - Se P f - plate, 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 false 
hood truth, nor Arianism good ; nay, that those d who call 



c vid. infr. . 4. fin. That heresies 
before the Arian appealed to Scripture 
we learn from Tertullian, de Prsescr. 
42. who warns Catholics against in 
dulging themselves in their own view 
of isolated texts against the voice of the 
Catholic Church, vid. also Vincentius, 
who specifies obiter Sabellius and No- 
vatian.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. Haer. iii. 1. or they pro 
fessed a gift of prophecy introducing 
fresh reve ations, as Montanists, supr. 
p. 78. and Manichees, Aug. contr. 
Faust, xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians 
availed themselves of certain texts as 
objections, argued keenly and plau 
sibly from them, and would not be 
driven from them. Orat. ii. . 18. 
c. Epiph. Hser. 69. 15. Or rather they 
took pome words of Scripture, and 
made their own deductions from them ; 
viz. " Son," u made," " exalted," <fec. 
" Making their private irreligiousness 
as if a rule, they misinterpret all the 
divine oracles by it." Orat. i. . 52. vid. 
also Epiph. H ee r. 76. 5 fin. Hence we 
hear so much of their 6pv\Xt]Ta\ $<aval, 
Ae|ets, 67T77, prjra, sayings in general 
circulation, which were commonly 
founded on some particular text. e. g". 



infr. . 22. " amply providing them 
selves with words of craft, they used to 
go about, <fec. TrepLTipxoi/TO." vid. supr. 
p. 22. note y. Also &v<a /cal Kdr<a irepi- 
^epovrey, de deer. . 13. T< p^TCf re- 
9pv\\riKa<nTa iravraxov. Orat. 2. . 18. 
rb TroXv6pv\\r)Tov <r6<piff[ji.a, Basil, contr. 
Eunom. ii. 14. T^V iroXvQpv\\t)Tov 8t- 
aAe/crt/cVj Nyssen. contr. Eun. iii. 
p. 125. rV Opv\\ov/j.eviriv a-jroppo^v. 
Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505, r^v iroXv0pv\- 
ATJTOI/ tydavriv. Socr. ii. 43. 

d These Orations or Discourses seem 
written to shew the vital importance of 
the point in controversy, and the un 
christian character of the heresy, 
without reference to the word O/JLOOIKTIOV. 
He has insisted in the works above 
translated, p. 130. ref. 2. that the 
enforcement of the symbol was but 
the rejection of the heresy, and ac 
cordingly 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 indif 
ferent feeling as swaying the per 
son 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 Egyp 
tian, whose opinion, he says, it was 
u fearful to mention." S. Augustine 



Arians for Christ follow Arius. 179 

these men Christians, are in great and grievous error, as CHAP. 
neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Chris- L 
tianity at all, and the faith which it contains. 

2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the 2. 
religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said 

no evil ? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas J a Christian, deDecr. 
and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and t" 2 24 "*" 
to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour 41. .27, 
did no evil, and to recommend Hymenaeus and Alexander as P " 
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 under 
standing. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the 
Manichees Manichaeus ; and for Moses and the other saints 
they have made the discovery of one Sotades 2 , a man whom 2 p. 94, 
even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. note a * 
For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate 
tone, in the Thalias which he has written after him ; 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*, and for Christians 4 come to be called 3 vW.Hii. 
Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. v i> % 

3. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their Rom - l 
disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians after * p * 27, 
the names of their teachers 6 , that they themselves may appear note h * 



tells us that this man taught that " all by heresies are Arians called Ariaus. 

heresies were in the right path, and But ye, and ye only, call us Tradu- 

spoke truth," " which," he adds, " is cianists, as Arians call us Homoiisians, 

so absurd as to seem to me incredible." as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees 

Hser. 72. vid. also Philastr. Heer. 91. Pharisees, and as the other heretics 

e He seems to allude to Catholics use various titles." Op. imp. i. 75. 

being called Athanasians ; vid. how- It may be added that the heretical 

ever p. 181, ref. 1. Two distinctions name adheres , the Catholic dies away, 

are drawn between such a title as S. Chrysostom draws a second dis- 

applied to Catholics, and again to tinction, " Are we divided from the 

heretics, when they are taken by Church P have we heresiarchs ? are 

Catholics as a note against them, we called from man? is there any 

S. Augustine says, "Arian& call Catho- leader to us, as to one there is 

lies Athanasians or Homoiisians, not Marcion, to another Manicbaeus, to 

other heretics too. But ye not only by another Arius, to another some other 

Catholics but also by heretics, those author of heresy? for if we too have 

who agree with you and those who the name of any, still it is not those 

disagree, are called Pelagians; as even who began the heresy, but our superiors 



Disc. 

I. 



1 vid. 
however 
p. 179, 
note e, 
fin. 



>. 3. 



180 Self -condemned in that they are called after Arms 

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 1 
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 f . Yes 



and governors of the Church. We have 
not teachers upon earth ," c. in Act. 
Ap. Horn. 33 fin. 

f vid. foregoing note. Also, " Let us 
become His disciples, and learn to live 
according to Christianity; for wht so is 
called by other name beside this, is not 
of God." Ignat. ad Magn. 10. Hege- 
sippus speaks of " Menandiians, and 
Marciorntes, and Carpocratians, and 
Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Sa- 
turnilians," 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," <fec. 
Justin. Tryph. 35. "They have a name 
from the author of that most impious 
opinion Simon, being called Simonians." 
Iren. H<Tr. i. 23, " When men are 
called PI rygians, or Novatians, or 
Valentinians, or Marcicnites, or Ari- 
thropians, or by any other name, they 
cease to be Christians; for they have 
lost Christ s Name, and clothe them 
selves 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?" Ada 



mant. Dial. . 1. p. 8<:>9. " We never 
heard of Petrines, or Paulines, or Bar- 
tholomt ans, or Thaddeans, but from the 
first there was one preaching of all the 
Apostles, not preaching them, but Christ 
Jesus the Lord. Wherefore also they 
all gave one name to the Church, not 
their own, but that of their Lord Jesus 
Christ, since they began to be called 
C. ristia )s first at Antiuch ; which is 
the sole Catholic Church, having nought 
else but Christ s, being a Church of 
Christians, not of Christs, but of Chris 
tians; He being one, they from that 
one being called Christians. After this 
Church and her preachers, all others 
are no longer of the same character, 
making show by their own epithets, 
Manichseans, and Simonians, and Va 
lentinians, and Ebionites." Epiph. 
Hser. 42. p. 366. " This is the fearful 
thing, that they change the name of 
Christians of the Holy Church, which 
hath no epithet but the name of Christ 
alone, and of Christians, to be called 
by the name of Audius," &c. ibid. 70. 
15. vid. also Hser. 75. 6 fin. "Since 
one might properly and truly say that 
there is a Church of evil doers, I 
mean the meetings of the heretics, the 
Marcionists, and Manichees, and the 
rest, the faith hath delivered to thee 
by way of security the Article, And 
in One Holy Catholic Church, that 
thou mayes-t avoid their wretched 
meetings; and ever abide with the 
Holy Church Catholic, in which thou 
wast regenerated. And if ever thou 
art sojourning in any city, inquire not 
simply where the Lord s House is, (for 
the sects of the profane also make an 
attempt to call their own dens, bouses 
of the Lord,) nor merely where the 



as other heretics after their leaders. 181 

surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after CHAP. 
Christ, Marcion broached a heresy time since and was cast " 
out ; and those who continued with the Bishop who ejected 
him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion, 
were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcion- 
ites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichaeus, 
and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their 
followers; and are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, 
or as Manichees, or as Simonians ; and others, 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 8 ; and so in con 
sequence 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 henceforward 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 1 , nor is he named from them, but ! . 



all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. p 
For though we have a succession of teachers and become uotee 



Church is, but where is the Catholic gogue of Antichrist." Jerom. adv. 

Church. For this is the peculiar name Lucif. tin. 

of this Holy Body," c. Cyril Cat. & vid. supr. p. 89, note m. Meletius 

xviii. 26. " Were I by chance to was Bishop of Lycopolis in the The- 

enter a populous city, I should in this bais, in the first year of the fourth cen- 

day find Marcionites, Apollinarians, tury. He was convicted of sacrificing 

Cataphrygians, Novatians, and other to idols in the persecution, and deposed 

such, who called themselves Christian; by a Council under Peter, Bishop of 

by what surname should I recognise Alexandria, and subsequently martyr, 

the congregation of my own people, Meletius separatedfrom his communion, 

were it not called Catholic ? . . . . Cer- and commenced a schism ; at the time 

tainly that word Catholic is not of the Nicene Council it included as 

borrowed from man, which has sur- many as twenty-eight or thirty Bishops; 

vived through so many ages, nor as the in the time of Theodoret, a century and 

sound of Marcion or Apelles or Mon- quarter later, it included a number of 

tanus, nor takes heretics for its authors Monks. Though not heterodox, they 

. .Christian is my name, Catholic my supported the Arians on their first 

surname." Pacian. Ep. 1. " If you appearance, in their contest with the 

ever hear those who are called Chris- Catholics. The Council of Nicsea, in- 

tians, named, not from the Lord Jesus stead of deposing them, allowed their 

Christ, but from some one else, say Bishop? a titular rank in their sees, but 

Marcionites, Valentinians, Moun- forbade them to exercise their func. 

taiueers, Campestrians, know that it tions. 
is not Christ s Church, but the syna- 



182 For Scripture the Arians follow the Thalia. 

Disc, 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 innu 
merable successors in their heresy, yet for certain 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 are henceforth for 
Greeks called Christians; 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 at once are called 
Arians, as no longer holding Christ s faith, but having in 
herited Arius s madness. 

4. 4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are 
Ario-maniacs h ? or how are they of the Catholic Church, who 
have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of 
what is new and evil ? who, after abandoning the oracles 
of divine Scripture, call Arius s Thalias 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 abandoned 
metres? that, while a man, as Wisdom says, is known from 



Ecclus. 
4,24. 



h vid. p. 91, note q. Manes also Catech. vi. 20. vid. also ibid. 24 fin. 

was called mid; "Thou must hate a play upon the name, vid. p. 114, 

all heretics, but especially him who note b. 
even in name is a maniac." Cyril. 



In vain to appeal to Scripture, when doctrine is heretical. ] 83 

the utterance of his word, so from those numbers should be CHAP. 
seen the writer s effeminate soul and corruption of thought 1 . - 
In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection; but, for all 
his many writings 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, Johnio, 
being a man, make Thyself 6roc/ k , and sayest, / and the 
Father are one? And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadeari 
Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language 1 , l P- 178 > 



It is very difficult to gain a clear 
idea of the character of Arius. Atha- 
nasius speaks as if his Thalia was but 
a token of his personal laxity, and cer 
tainly the mere fact of his having 
written it seems incompatible with any 
remarkable seriousness and strictness. 
Yet Constantine and Epiphanius speak 
of him in very different terms, yet each 
in his own way, in the followiag ex 
tracts. It is possible that Constantine 
is only declaiming, for his whole in 
vective is like a school exercise or fancy 
composition. Constantine too had not 
seen Arius at the time of this invective 
which was prior to the Nicene Council, 
and his account of him is inconsistent 
with itself, for he also uses the very 
stronj? and broad language about Arius 
quoted supr. p. 94, note a. Look thtn, 
look all men, what words of lament he 
is now professing, being held with the 
bite of the serpent ; how his veins and 
flesh are possessed with poison, and are 
in a ferment of severe pain ; how his 
whole body is wasted, and is all 
withered and sad and p*le and shaking, 
and all that is miserable, and fearfully 
emaciated. How hateful to see, and 
filthy is his mass of hair, how he is half 
dead all over, with failing eyes, and 
bloodless countenance, and woe-begone! 
so that all these things combining in him 
at once, frenzy, madness, and lolly, for 
the countenance of the complaint, have 
made thee wild and savage. But not 
having any sense, what bad plight he is 
in, he cries out, I am transported with 
delight, and I leap and skip for joy, and 
1 fly: and again, with boyish impe 
tuosity, Be it so, he says, we are 



lost. " Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 457. 
Perhaps this strange account may be 
taken to illustrate the words " mania" 
and " Ario-maniacs." S.Alexander too 
speaks of Arius s melancholic tempera 
ment, jU,eA<x7XoAi/co?s T/p/xooyxeVTjs S^TJS 
Kfvrjs. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 741. S. Ba 
sil also speaks of the Eunocnians as ets 



contr. Eun. ii. 24. Elsewhere he speaks 
of the Pneumatomachists as worse than 
|U,eAa7X ^ J Tes &e Sp. S. 41. Epipha- 
nius s account of Aiius 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, capti 
vating to every guileless heart by that 
same crafty bearing. For ever habited 
in duke and vest he was pleasant of 
address, ever persuading souls and flat 
tering ; wherefore what was his very 
first work but to withdraw from the 
Church in one body as many as seven 
hundred women who professed virgin 
ity?" Hser. 69. 3. Arius is here said 
to have been tall; Athanasius, on the 
other hand, would appear to have bt en 
ehort, if we may so interpret Julian s 
indignant description of him.yurySe o-v^p, 
ciAA 5 avOpdnriffKOs eureA^s, u not even a 
man, but a common little fellow." Ep. 
61. Yet S. Gregory Nazianzen speaks 
of him as high in prowess, and hum 
ble in spirit, mild, meek, full of sympa 
thy, pleasant in speech, more pleasant 
in manners, anyelical in person, more 
angelical in mind, serene in his rebukes, 
instructive in his praises, <fec.&c. Orat. 
21.9. 



184 



Arianism an Atheism. 



Disc, but is on all sides recognised as godless k Arius, denying the 



T. 



Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures. 



k And so godless or atheist Ae- 
tius, supr. p. 81. vid. p. 3, note f. for 
an explanation of the word. In like 
manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2. 
that if a man says u 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 de- 
nieth 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 (e|o>) 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. And so again, "As the 
faith delivered [in the Holy Trinity] is 
one, and this unites us to God, and he 
who takes aught from the Trinity, and 
is baptized in the sole Name of the 
Father or of the Son, or in Father and 



Son without the Spirit, gains nothing, 
but remains empty and incomplete, 
both he and the professed administrator, 
(for in the Trinity is the completion, 
[initiation,]) so whoso divides the Son 
from the Father, or degrades the 
Spirit to the creatures, hath neither the 
Son nor the Father, but is an atheist 
and worse than an infidel and any 
thing but a Christian." Serap. i. 30. 
Eustathius speaks of the Arians as 
avOptiltirovs aOeovs, who were attempting 
/cpaTTjcraiToufletou.ap.Theod. Hist. i. 7. 
p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen 
TTo\v0eos aOe ia. Orat. 25. 15. and he 
calls faith and regeneration " a denial 
of atheism, cifletas, and a confession 
of godhead, 0e(*T7jTos, Grat. 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, TTJS ctfleou injyrjs" 
Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial 
officer, is av^p #0eos. ibid. 12. 



CHAP. II. 

EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS. 

Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; 
the Son out of nothing ; once He was not ; He was not hefore His gene 
ration ; He was created ; named Wisdom and Word after God s attributes ; 
made that H e might make us ; one out of many powers of God ; alterable ; 
exalted on God s foreknowledge 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. 

1. Now the commencement of Arius s Thalia and flip- CHAP. 
pancy, effeminate in tone and nature, runs thus : 



.5. 

" 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 1 : " God was not always ^eSyn. 
a Father;" but " once God was alone and not yet a Father, * 94 * 
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 generation," 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 frame 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 



166 Arms s Thalia 

Disc, that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute coexistent with 
- God, and next, that in this Wisdom the Son was generated, 



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, 

ideSyn-the locust and the caterpillar 1 , is called in Scripture, not 

101. merely the power, but the great power. The others are 

Joel 2, man y anc | are K^Q the Son, and of them David speaks in the 

Ps 24, Psalms, when he says, The Lord of hosts or powers. 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 

2p. 11, virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known 2 , 

j 6 ]4 * p did God bring it to pass that He, being such, should come 

note c. to be," 

. 6. 2. 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 dif 
ferent from God in substance, so too is " the Word alien and 
unlike in all things to the Father s substance and propriety," 
but belongs to things generated 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 compre- 



excites horror. 187 

hension*. but " He knows not even His own substance ;" CHAP. 

T T 

and that " the substances of the Father and the Son and the 



Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and dis 
connected, and alien ! , and without participation of each p. 43, 
other 2 ;" and, in his own words, " utterly unlike from each "p. ^ 
other in substance and glory, unto infinity." Thus as to note d - 
" likeness of glory and substance," 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 par 
taker of the Father. These are portions of Arius s fables as 
they occur in that jocose composition. 

3. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the metre of the 7. 
Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting 
on such matters as on a stage 3 ? who but must regard him, 3 Ep- 
when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the 6 n : 
serpent counselling the woman ? who, on reading what fol- Ep P 1 ); 
lows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doc- i. 
trine 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 Jer 2 > 
astonished, and the earth shuddered at the transgression of 
the Law. But the sun, with greater horror once, 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 



a Vid. supr. p. 96, note f. /coraATjiJ/is Father, was to deny that He was in the 
was originally a Stoical word, and even Father, i. e. the doctrine of the vept- 
when considered perfect, was, properly x ( ">P n a ts P* 95, note d. or to main- 
speaking, attributable only to an imper- tain that He was a distinct, and there- 
feet being. For it is used in contrast to fore a created, being. On the other hand 
the Platonic doctrine of ftJccu, to express Scripture asserts that, as the Holy 
the hold of things obtained by the mind Spirit which is in God, " searcheth all 
through the senses; it being a Stoical things, yea, the deep things" of God, 
maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod so the Son, as being in the bosom of 
non fuerit prius in sensu. In this sense the Father," alone " hath declared 
it is also used by the Fathers, to mean Him." vid. Clement. Strom, v. 12. 
realand certain knowledge after inquiry, And thus Athan. speaking of Mark 
though it is also ascribed to Almighty 13, 32. " If the ^on is in the Fa- 
God. As to the position of Arius, ther, and the Father in the Sou, 
since we are told in Scripture that none and the Father knows the day and 
"knoweth the things of a man save the the hour, it is plain that the Son too, 
spirit of man which is in him," if Kard- being in the Father, and knowing the 
i\.7]ij>is be an exact and complete know- things in the Father, Himself also 
ledge of the object of contemplation, knows the day and the hour." Orat. 
to deny that the Son comprehended the iii. 44. 



1 88 A Council s decision sufficient, even without argument. 

Disc, 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 unthank 
ful, in the words which He hath already uttered by the 
Hos. 7, 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 
* 15- lies against Me. And soon after, They imagine mischief 
against Me; they turn away to nothing. 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 
!p. 49. why the Ecumenical 1 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 
3 P- 6 Christ s foe 2 , and harbinger 2 of Antichrist. Though then so 
3 p. 178. great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men 
ref. i. ee f rom t ^ at i rre ligi ous heresy b , as I said above, yet since 
certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pre 
tence, think it as I then said, little different from the Truth, 
V 179, and call its professors Christians 4 ; proceed we to put some 
re 3 * questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to 
expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when 
thus encountered, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as 
from the sight of a serpent. 

b And so Vigilius of the heresies hseretici sunt pronunciati,orthodoxorum 

about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erro- securitati sufficeret, contr. Eutych. i. 

ris eorum destructionem nulli conde- p. 494. 
rentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod 



CHAP, III. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as 
uriscriptural. 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 conies 
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. 

1. IF then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture CHAP. 
changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into - IIL 
blessing, 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 and the l p- 130, 
Prophets like Manichees", 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, and to seduce the simple. 
Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus 
he has persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking 
against those former ones, that he may introduce his own 
without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft 
hath not escaped. For being irreligious towards the Word 
of God, he lost his all at once 2 , and betrayed to all men his 2 p. 2, 
ignorance of other heresies too b ; and having not a particle of m 

a Faustus, in August, contr. Faust, them. They rejected many of the facts, 

ii. 1. admits the Gospels, (vid. Beau- e. g. our Lord s nativity, circumcision, 

snbre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.) but baptism, temptation, &c. ibid, xxxii. 6. 
denies that they were written by the re- b All heresies seem connected to- 

puted authors, ibid, xxxii. 2. but nescio gether and to run into each other, 

quibus Semi-judpis. ibid, xxxiii. 3. "When the mind has embraced one, it 

Accordingly they thought themselves is almost certain to run into others, 

at liberty to reject or correct parts of apparently the most opposite, it is 



190 Arianism involved misbelief as regards all doctrines. 

Disc, 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 con 
cerning 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 say 
ing, We have no king but Ccesar, 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. 
P- 12 > For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine 2 ? or whence 
or from whom did the abettors and hirelings of the heresy 



KOV Trap 
ovarias 



2 

note y 



quite uncertain which. Thus Arians 
were a reaction from Sabellians, yet 
did not the less consider than they that 
God was but one Person, and that 
Christ was a creature, supr. p. 41, note 
e. Apollinaris was betrayed into his 
heresy by opposing the Arians, yet his 
heresy started with the tenet in which 
the Arians ended, that Christ had no 
human soul. His disciples became, and 
even naturally, some of them Sabellians, 
some Arians. Again, beginning with 
denying our Lord a soul, he came to 
deny Him a body, like the Mani- 
chees and Docetse. The same pas 
sages from Athanasius will be found 
to refute both Eutychians and Nesto- 
rians, though diametrically opposed to 
each other : and these agreed together, 
not only in considering nature and person 
identical, but, strange to say, in holding, 
and the Apollinarians too, that our 
Lord s manhood existed before its union 
with Him, which is the special heresy of 
Nestorius. Again, the Nestorians were 
closely connected with the Sabellians 
and Samosatenes, and the latter with the 
Photinians and modern Socinians. And 
the Nestorians were connected with the 
Pelagians ; and Aerius, who denied 
Episcopacy and prayers for the dead 
with the Arians ; and his opponent the 
Scmi-arian Eustathius with theEncra- 
tites. One reason of course of this pecu 
liarity of heresy is, that when the 
mind is once unsettled, it may fall into 
any error. Another is that it is heresy ; 



all heresies being secretly connected, as 
in temper, so in certain primary princi 
ples. And, lastly, the Truth only is a 
r<?/doctrine, and therefore stable; every 
thing false is of a transitory nature and 
has no stay, like reflections in a 
stream, one opinion continually pass 
ing into another, and creations being but 
the first stages of dissolution. Hence 
so much is said in the Fathers of ortho 
doxy being a narrow way. Thus S.Gre 
gory speaks of the middle and u royal 1 
way. Orat. 32 6. also Pamasc. contr. 
Jacob, t. 1. p. 398. vid. also Leon. Ep. 
85. 1 p. 1051. Ep. 129. p. 1254. "levis- 
sima adjectione corrumpitur." also 
Serm. 25. 1. p. 83. also Vigil, in Eutych. 
i. init. Quasi inter duos latrones cru- 
cifigitur Dominus,&c. Novat. Trin.UO. 
vid. the promise, Their ears shall hear 
a word behind thee, saying, This is 
the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn 
to the right hand, and when ye turn to 
the left: 1 Is. 30, 21. 

c 5(ap68oKoi. and so Kepdos rrjs <pi\o- 
Xp n^arias, infr. . 53. He mentions 
irpoffraffias fyi^uv, .10. And so S. 
Hilary speaks of the exemptions from 
taxes which Constantius granted the 
Clergy as a bribe to Arianize ; " You 
concede taxes as Caesar, thereby to 
invite Christians to a denial ; you 
remit what is your own, that we may 
lose what is "God s." contr. Const. 
10. And again, of resisting Constan 
tius as hostem blandientem, qui non 
dorsa caedit, sed ventrem palpat, non 



What comes not from the Father is of the predicted Apostasy. 191 

gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at CHAP. 
school 1 ? who told them, " Abandon the worship of the crea- 1 IIL 



tion, and then draw near and worship a creature and a note i. 
work d ?" But if they themselves own that they have heard it^ e 9 Syn< 
now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is p. 84. 
foreign, and not from our fathers 2 ? But what is not from 2 p. 78, 
our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it hej -^^ 
but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that in the, 1. 2. 
latter times some shall depart from the sound 3 faith, giving 3 vyiai- 
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hy- 
pocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, 



turning from the truth*? ]4. 

2. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence dis-. 9. 
course 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 substance, 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 sub 
stance. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in substance 4 * 6^006- 
with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, fflos 
I said ye are Gods, had this grace from the Father, only by 

proscribitarl vitam,sedditat in mortem, the Fathers to refer to the Oriental 

non caput gladio desecat, sed animum sects of the early centuries, who ful- 

auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Constant, in filled one or other of those conditions 

loc. Liberius says the same, Theod. which it specifies. It is quoted against 

Hist. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. the Marcionists by Clement. Strom, iii. 

speaks of <$>i\oxpvffovs /j.a\\ov T) $i\oxpi- 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, 

ffrovs. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Iren. Haer. i. 25. Epiph. Haer. 27- 5. 

Ep. /dig 22 Athan. contrasts the Arians Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Haer. 31. 

with the Meletians, as not influenced hy 34. Of the Montanists and others, 

secular views. But it is obvious that ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (ac- 

there were, as was natural, two classes cording to Huet. 1 ) Origen in Matt. xiv. 

of men in the heretical party ; the 16. Of apostolic heretics, Cyril. Cat. 

fanatical class who began the heresy iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, 

and were its real life, such as Arius, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. 

and afterwards the Anomoeans, in whom Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. 

misbelief was a " mania;" and the Eu- Hser. ii. prsef. Of Encratites, ibid v. 

sebians, who cared little for a theory of fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190.(apud 

doctrine or consistency of profession, Garner. Diss.v. Theod. p. 901.) Pseudo- 

compared with their own aggrandize- Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in 

ment. With these must be counted the Catholics of the fifth century, as 

numbers, who conformed to Arianism being Anti-pelagians. Quaest. 22. vid. 

lest they should suffer temporal loss. Bened.noteinloc. Besides Athanasius, 

d vid. p. 3, note f. fin. This consider no early author occurs to the writer of 

ation, as might be expected, is insisted this, by whom it is referred to the 

on by the Fathers, vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. Arians, except S. Alexander s Letter 

p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40. ap. Socr. i. 6. and, if he may hazard the 

42. Hil. Trin. viii. 28. Arnbros. de conjecture, there is much in that letter 

fid. i. n. 69 and 104. like Athan. s own writing. 

e This passage is commonly taken by 



9 

note c. 



192 Contrast between Scripture doctrine and Arian. 

Disc, participation 1 of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is 
j-r - the expression of the Father s Person, and Light from Light, 
Deer, and Power, and very Image of the Father s substance. For 
V l c fin this too the Lord has said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen 

ue oyn. 

.51. the Father. And He ever was and is, and never was not. 
For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom 
p. 25, must be everlasting 2 . 

3. On the other hand, what have these persons to shew us 
from the infamous Thalia ? Or, first of all, let them study 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 genera 
tion; 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 substance, for He is a creature and work* 1 ?* 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 perfect 
knowledge of the Father for comprehension." Wonderful this 
heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against 
Him that is, that He be not, and every where putting forward 
blasphemy for blessing! 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 abetters of irreligion, what, if 
a man be asked concerning God, (for the Word was God,) it 
were fit to answer f . 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; 

f That is, " Let them tell us, is it such is the Word, viz. that He was 
right to predicate this or to predicate from eternity or was created," &c. &c. 
that of God, (of One who is God,) for 



The Arians dared not avow their tenets. 193 

eternal, or from this and from then ; true, or by adoption, and CHAP. 
from participation and in idea 1 ; to call Him one of things f-, 
generated, or to unite Him to the Father ; to consider Him MVOIW, 
unlike the Father in substance, or like and proper to Him ; Q r at. ii 
a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were gene- 38 
rated ; that He is the Father s Word, or that there is another 
Word beside Him, and that by this other He was generated, 
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 ? 

4. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus 10. 
Christ as God and Son of the Father, this with which ye have 
burst 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 Bom - 9 > 
blessed for ever, 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 Prov - 9 > 
not that the dead are there, and that her guests are in the 
depths of hell. This they know themselves, and in their 
craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, 
but uttering something else 2 . For should they speak, a con- 2 P- 10 > 
damnation would follow ; and should they be suspected, p. 127, 
proofs from Scripture will be cast 3 at them from every side. ?p fe 6 | 
Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after note f. 
feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing 
lest it should soon be quenched, (for it is said, the light o/J b I8 > 



the wicked shall be put out,) they hide it under the bushel 4 
their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of 18t 
patronage of friends and authority of Constantius 5 , that what 5 ?- 5 > 
with their hypocrisy and their boasts, those who come top. 190, 
them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. nc 
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 6 these f^ 
words ? or from whom have they received what they venture infra, 
to say 7 ? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied 7 p> ^ 
it. For who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, notey. 



194 Arianism not in Scripture, but from Satan. 

Disc, who ventures to rank among creatures One who 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 

Matt. 3, put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, This is My 

Beloved Son, 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 

1 P- 5 mania, (for of such opinions he alone is sower 1 ,) 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, 

2 P-^ 9 as being Arians, they are not Christians 2 . 



CHAP. IV. 

THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCRKATE. 

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." 

1. AT his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, CHAP. 
that "there was once when the Son was not;" this is the first 



11 

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 a ? 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 un 
meaning. 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. 

2. Whence then this your discovery ? Why do ye, as the Ps.2, i 
heathen rage, and imagine vain words against the Lord and 

Athan. observes that this formula ever, that it was the Father who " was 

of the Arians is a mere evasion to before the Son? This was true, if 

escape using the word "time." vid. "before" was taken, not to imply 

also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. time, but origination or beginning. 

Else let them explain, "There was," And in this sense the first verse of St. 

what "when the Son was not?" or John s Gospel may be interpreted " In 

what was before the Son ? since He the Beginning," or Origin, i. e. in 

Himself was before all times and ages, the Father "was the Word." Thus 

which He created (supr. p. 30, note n.) Athan. himself understands that text, 

Thus, if " when" be a word of time, Orat. iv. . 1. vid. also Orat. iii. . 9. 

He it is who was " wben" ~He was not, Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106. 

which is absurd. Did they mean, how- Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312. 



196 Texts for the eternity of the Son. 

Disc, against His Christ ? for no holy Scripture has used such 
language of the Saviour, but rather " always" and " eternal" 



John 1, an d " co-existent always with the Father." For, In the be 
ginning iv as the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God. And in the Apocalypse he b thus speaks; 

Apoc. 1 , 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 

Rom. 9, the Romans, Of wham as concerning the flesh Christ, who is 
over all, God jbjesjed for ever; while silencing the Greeks, 

Rom. i,he has said, The^isibie things of Him from the creation of 
the ivorld are clearly seen, being understood by the things that 
are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead ; and what 

l Cor. 1, the Power of God is c , he teaches us elsewhere himself, Christ 

24 

the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. Surely in these 
words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper 
one to another, affirming that the Father is His eternal 
poiver. 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. 

2Cor.3, 3. Study too the context and turn to the Lord; now the 
Lord is that Spirit^; and ye will see that it is the Son who 

b rciSe Xfjei. Our translation of the plied to it, vid.supr.p. 101, and Orat.ii. 

New Testament renders such phrases . 37. 

similarly, " he. " SibXeyei "wherefore he d S. Athanasius observe?, Serap. i. 
saith," but in the margin " it." Eph. v. 4 7. that the Holy Ghost is never in 
14. efyrj/ce irepl rf/y ejSS^ur/s OVTW. u he Scripture called simply u Spirit" with- 
spake." Heb. iv.4. And we may take in out the addition " ol God" or " of the 
explanation " As the Holy Ghost saith, Father" or "from Me" or of the ar- 
To-day,"<fec. Heb. iii.7. Or understand tide, or of " Holy," or " Comforter," 
with Athan. SieXey^ei Xtywv 6 Tlav\os. or "of truth," or unless He has been 
infr.. 57. ds e?7T6i/ 6 laapj/Tjs. Orat. iii. spoken of just before. Accordingly this 
. 30. vid. also iv. . 31. On the other text is understood of the third Person 
hand, "as the Scripture hath said, "John in the Holy Trinity by Origen, conrr. 
vii. 42. "what saith the Scripture?" Cess. vi. 70. Basil deSp S. n. .^.Pseudo- 
Rom, iv. 3.- "that the Scripture saith is Athan. de comm. ess. 6. On the 
vain," James iv. 5. And so Athan. other hand, the word rri/evfj.a, Spirit," 
olScj/ ?; Oeia ypafyfy Aeyoutra. infr. . 56. is used more or less distinctly for 
edos rfj 9eifj ypa<j>rj . .^ai. Orat.iv..27- our Lord s Divine Nature, whether in 
Airyet ^ 7pa^. tie deer. . 22. fy-t]a\v f] itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4. 
7pa</>7j. de Syn. . 52. i Cor. xv. 45. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Hebr. ix. 

c Athan. has so interpreted this text, 14. I Pet. iii. 18. John vi. 63, &c. 

supr. p. 149. vio. Justinian s Comment Indeed the early Fathers speak as if 

for its various interpretations. It was the Holy Spirit" which came down 

either a received interpretation, or had upon S. Mary might be considered the 

been adduced at Nicaea, for Asterius had Word. E. g Tertullian against the 

some years before these Discourses re- Valentinians, "If the Spirit of God 



The Son is the Father s Eternal Power and Godhead. 1 97 

is signified. For after making mention of the creation, he CHAP. 
naturally speaks of the Framer s Power as seen in it, which 
Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things " 
were made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself 
alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you 
fall not into the further opinion that without the Son it 
came to be. But if through the Son it came to be, and 
in Him all things consist, it must follow that he who con- Col. 1, 
templates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the 
Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend 
the Father 1 . And if, as the Saviour also says, No one 1 vid - 
knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son Gent. 
shall reveal Him, and if on Philip s asking, Shew us ^MaTn 
Father, He said not, "Behold the creation," but, He that 27. 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, reasonably doth Paul, 9 
while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and 
order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word 
wi thin it ; (for the creatures witness to their own Framer ;) 
and wishing that through the creation they might apprehend 
the true God, and abandon their worship of it, reasonably 
hath He said, His eternal Power and Godhead, thereby ^ om - l 
signifying the Son. 

4. And where the sacred writers say, " Who exists before 
the ages," and By whom He made the ages, they thereby as Heb. > 
clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, 
even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if 
Esaias says, The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends^-40, 
of the earth,- and Susanna said, O Everlasting God; and s u * s . 42. 

did not descend into the womb to par- Spiritus Sanctus est. Past. iii. 5. n. 5. 

take in flesh from the womb, why did The same use of "Spirit" for the Word 

He descend at all ?" de earn. Chr. 19. or Godhead of the Word, is also found 

vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. in Tatian. adv. Grsec. 7- Athenag. Leg. 

26. Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren. Hser. v. 1. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Jren. User. 

Cypr. Idol. Van. 6. (p. J9. Oxf. Tr.) iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. 

Lactant. Instit. iv. J2. vid. also Hilar. iv. 6. 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3. and 14. 

Trin.ii,27.Athan.AjyoseVT<7rj eiVaTi Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. 

e7rAaTT rb (rw/aa. Scrap, i. 31 fin. eV rep A than, de lncarn.22. (if it be Athan. s) 

\6ycf) 1\v rb Trvev/jia. ibid. iii. 6. Arid contr. Apol. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. 

more distinctly even as late as S. Max- Eran. i p. 71. and the Apollinarists 

imus, avrbv&vn criropas ffv\\a^ovffa rbv passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. 

\6yov, KfKvrjKe. t. 2. p. 309. The ear- p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severian. ap. 

liest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot, ad 

Ignatius ad Smyrn.init. and S. Hermas Marc. ii. 8. Bull. Def. F. N. i. 2. . 5. 

(even though his date were A. D. 150.) Coustant. Prsef. in Hilar. 57, &c. 

who also says plainly, Filius autem Montfaucon in Athari. Serap. iv. 19. 



198 Further texts for the eternity of the Son. 

Disc. Baruch wrote, / will cry unto the Everlasting in my days, 

BaTT~ anc ^ s h rt ty after, My hope is in the Everlasting, that He 

20. 22. will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One ; 

yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, 

Hebr. 1 , }YJio being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of 

Ps 90, His Person; and David Loo in the eighty-ninth Psalm, And 

Ps" 36 ^ ie brightness of the Lord be upon us, and, In Thy Light 

9. shall we see Light, who has so little sense as to doubt of the 

1 supr. eternity of the Son 1 ? for when did man see light without 

JjJ" 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." 

5. And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred 
Ps. 145, and forty -fourth 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 2 the Word is King and Maker, 
therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him c , it 
were madness to say, " There was once when the Everlasting 3 
was not," and " From nothing is the Son." 

JohnH, 6. And whereas the Lord Himself says, I am the Truth, 

Johnio not " ^ Became the Truth ;" but always, / am, / am the 

14. Shepherd, J am the Light, and again, Call ye Me not, Lord 

12 n 8 and Master? and ye call Me well, for so I am, who, hearing 

Johni3, SU ch language from God, and Wisdom, and Word of the 

Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about 

its truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase / am, 

is signified that the Son is eternal and unoriginate ? 

. 13. 7. 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, 

Gen. 2, says, And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, 
6. 

e Vid. p. 30, note n. The subject is Angels. This had been a philosophical 

treated at length in Greg. Nyss. oontr. distinction, Timeeus says et/cco;/ ecm 

Eunom. i. t. 2. Append, p. 93 101. XP^ VOS T< ? o-y^vvaru xp6v(a, %>v alwva 

vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8 11. As Trorayopvo/j.s. vid. also Philon. Quod 

time measures the material creation, Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C.p.501. 

so ages" were considered to measure Naz. Or. 38, 8. 
the immaterial, as the duration of 



Scripture uses "was not before" of creatures. 199 

and every herb of the field before it grew ; for the Lord God CHAP. 
had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not 



a man to till the ground. And in Deuteronomy, When the Deut. 
Most High divided to the nations. And the Lord said in His 
own Person 1 , If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, 1 ^ "/- 
/ go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. j h ui4, 
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it 28 * 
is come to pass, ye might believe. And concerning the crea 
tion He says by Solomon, Or ever the earth was, when Prov. 8, 
there were no depths, I was brought forth ; when there 
were no fountains abounding with water. Before the moun 
tains ivere settled, before the hills, was I brought forth. 
And, Before Abraham was, / am. And concerning Jeremias John 8, 
He says, Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee. j e ^ \ 5. 
And David in the Psalm says, Before the mountains werePs.90,1. 
brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, 
Thou art God from everlasting and world ivithout end. 
And in Daniel, Susanna cried out with a loud voice and Bus. 42. 
said, everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest 
all things before they be. Thus it appears that the phrases 
"once was not," and "before it came to be," and "when," 
and the like, belong to things generate and creatures, which 
come out of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such 
terms are used in Scripture of things generate, but, " ever" of 
the Word, it follows, O ye God s enemies, that the Son did not 
come out of nothing, nor is in the number of generated things 
at all, but is the Father s Image and Word eternal, never having 
not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance 2 of a Light 2 P- 39, 
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 3 ? for how did time or age at all 3 P- 108 > 
subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, through John i, 
whom all things were made and without whom not one thing 3 
was made? Or why, when you mean time, do you not plainly 
say, " a time was when the Word was not ?" but you drop 
the word " time" to deceive the simple, why 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." 



CHAP. V. 

SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

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 introduced in a secondary, hut is to he under 
stood 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 he wholly participated is to beget. 

Disc. i. WHEN these points are thus proved, their profaneness 
- ;rr goes further. " If there never was, when the Son was not," say 
they, (t but He is eternal, and co-exists with the Father, call 
Him no more the Father s Son, but brother 8 ." 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 
Prov. is, words, through desire separate themselves from the truth. 
For the Father and the Son were not generated from some 
1 vid. de pre-existing origin 1 , that we mav account Them brothers, but 

Syn. . 

51. p. 

152. a That this was an objection urged Anomoaan arguments as he heard them 
by Eunomius, has already been men- reported, vid. de Syn. 1. c. where he 
tioned from S. Cyril, supr. p. 151, note says, " they say, as you have written. " 
z. Tt is implied also in the Apology of . 51. y Ai>6/j.oios /car ovffiav is mentioned 
the former, . 24. and in Basil, contr. infr.. 17- As the Arians here object that 
Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alex- the First and Second Persons of the 
andiia with George of Cappadocia, Ho!y Trinity are a8eA(oi, so did they 
A.D. 356 8. and Athan. wrote these say the same in the course of the con- 
Discourses in the latter year, as the troversy of the Second and Third, vid. 
de Syn. at the end of the next. It is Athan. Scrap, i. 16. iv. 2. 
provable then that he is alluding to the 



Our Lord eternal, because the Son. 



201 



the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him ; and the CHAP. 
Father is Father, and not the Son of any ; and the Son is 
Son, and not brother. 

2. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring b of the Father, 
He is rightly so called. For never was the substance of the 
Father imperfect 1 , that what is proper to it should be added 
afterwards 2 ; nor, as man from man, has the Son been be- 
gotten, 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 37 > note 
ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men 
to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature 3 , God s 3 infr. 
offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect . If then g^ r> n * 
He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they haveP- 19 
but to prove it; and then they are at liberty, as if speculating 
about a creature, to cry out, t( There was once when He was 



b In other words, by the Divine 
yfvv-r)<ns is not meant an act but an eter 
nal and unchangeable fact, in the Di vine 
Essence. Arius, not admitting this, 
objected at the outset of the contro 
versy to the phrase " always Father, 
always Son," Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. 
and Eunomius argues that, " if the Son 
is co-eternal with the Father, the Father 
was never such in act, tvepybs, but was 
apy6s." Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 4 1 . S. Cyril 
answers that works, epya, are made 
QwOtv.from without; but that our Lord, 
as St. 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 Siu/a^ei re /cat evepyetq 
TraTTjp. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. 
note m.) Victorinus in like manner says, 
that God is potentia et actione Deus 
sed in seterna; Adv. Ar. i. p. 202. and 
he quotes S. Alexander, speaking ap 
parently in answer to Arius, of a sem 
per generans generatio. And Arius 
scoffs at aiyevvT]s and a.ysvvfiroyVT}s. 
Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen 
had said, 6 (TOJTTJP ael yevvarai. ap. Routh. 
Reliq. t. 4. p. 304. and S. Dionysius 
calls Him the Radiance, &vapxov Kal 
aeiyeves. Athan. S. D. 15. S.Augustine 
too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper 
nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 24. Petav. de 
Trin. ii 5. n. 7. quotes the follow 
ing passage from Theodorus Abucara, 
" Since the Son s generation does but 
signify His having His existence from 
the Father, which He has ever, there 



fore He is ever begotten. For it be 
came Him, who is properly (/cuptcos) 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, reAoy, 
and is perfect, TeAetoi/." Opusc. 26. 

c vid. foregoing note. A similar pas 
sage 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. Tbesaur. x. p. 78. As to the 
Son s perfection, Aetius objects ap. 
Epiph. Hser. 76. p. 925, 6, that growth 
and consequent accession from without 
were essentially involved in the idea of 
Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks 
of the Son as not are\ri irpdrepov, eira 
reAeioi/, wcTTrep i/6/J.os TT)S -rj/j-erepas yevf- 
fffcas. Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, 
S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that 
the Son is reAeios, because He is the 
Image, not as if copied, which is a 
gradual work, but as a x a P aKr ^Pj or 
impression of a seal, or as the know 
ledge 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. 



202 If our Lord is not from the Father s substance ,Ife is not a Son. 

Disc, not;" for things which are generate were not, and came 
- 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 

1 &yovos Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without 

p< 25 radiance, and the Fountain was once barren 1 and dry 2 ? For 

note e. though they pretend alarm at the name of time, because of 



, those who reproach them with it, and say, that He was before 
P- 38 times, yet whereas they assign certain periods, in which they 
4 0X071- imagine He was not, they are most irreligious still, as equally 
Twres" suggesting times, and imputing to God s nature 3 an absence 
P . 208^ of His rational Word 4 . 

15 3. 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 substance, on the ground that 

.5 ( ] e this must imply parts and divisions 5 ; what is this but to deny 

Deer.! that He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at 

p. 16 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 

6 &pa Father? It does but remain 6 , that they should deny Him 
note c! a l so > because they understand not how God is 7 , and what the 

7 infr. 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. 

4. 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 

8 deSyn. He is partaker 8 . All other things partake the Spirit, but He, 

p| 148 according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, 

51. rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself 



To be begotten is to participate wholly. 203 

says ; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sane- CHAP. 
tified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He par- - 
takes ; for this only remains to say. But this, which is par 
ticipated, what is it or whence 1 ? If it be something external p. 15, 
provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the no 
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 extravagant and irreligious, when the Father 
says, This is My Beloved Son, and when the Son says that Matt. 3, 
God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is 17t 
not external, but from the substance of the Father. And as 
to this again, if it be other than the substance of the Son, an 
equal extravagance will meet us ; there being in that case 
something between this that is from the Father and the 
substance of the Son, whatever that be d . 

5. Such thoughts then being evidently extravagant and. 16 . 
untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the substance 
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 2 ; and this shews that 2 deDecr. 
the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken ^ ^ 

d Here is taught us the strict unity of by Aetius, Epiph. Hser. 76. 10. Thus 

the Divine Substance. When it is said Athan. says, de Deer. . 30. " He has 

that the First Person of the Holy Trinity given the authority of all things to the 

communicates divinity to the Second, it Son, and, having given it, is once more, 

is meant that that one Essence which is ird\iv, the Lord of all things through 

the Father, also is the Son. Hence the the Word. supr. p. 55. Again, "the 

force of the word 6/xooucrtoj , which was in Father having given all things to the 

consequence accused of !;abellianism, Son, has all things once again iraXiv.. . 

but was distinguished from it by the for the Son s Godhead is the Godhead 

particle 6/j.ov, "together," which implied of the Father." Orat. iii..36 fin. Hence 

a difference as well as unity ; whereas y e/c TOV Trarpbs eisTbv v ibv QCOT^S 



ravrooixriov or ffvvovaiov implied, with arcos ical aSiaipercas rvy^dvei. Expos. 

the Sabellians, an identity or a confusion. F. 2. vid. supr. p. 145, note r. " Vera 

The Arians, on the other hand, as in the et aeterna substantia, in se tota per- 

instance of Eusebius, &c* supr. p. 63, manens, totam se coaeternse veritati 

note g. p. 116, note h. considered the nativitatis indulsit." Fulgent. Resp. 7. 

Father and the Son two ovaiai. The Ca- And S. Hilary, u Filius in Patre est et 

tholic doctrine is that, though the Divine in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, 

Substance is both the Father Ingenerate refusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis 

and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not naturae perfectam nativitatem." Trin. 

itself o.y4vvi\Tos or yevi/rjTT] ; which was vii. 31. 
the objection urged against the Catholics 



204 Generation does not imply division or affection of substance. 

Disc, from the Father, is the Son ; for, as partaking of the Son 
Himself, we are said to partake of God ; and this is what 
2Pet.i, Peter said, that ye may be partakers 1 in a divine nature ; as 
,- says too the Apostle, Know ye not, that ye are a temple of 



KOIVW- 



vo> " God? and, We are ijie temple of the Living God. And beholding 

16. the Son, we see the Father; for the thought 2 and comprehen- 

viT d e s * on ^ ^ e Son, is knowledge concerning the Father, because 

Syn. . He is His proper offspring from His substance. And since to 

be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division 

of God s substance, (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 substance. Hence it is 

not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of 

His own substance ; nor do we imply affection or division of 

God s substance, when we speak of " Son" and "Offspring;" 

but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and 

Only -begotten of God, so we believe. 

6. If then, as we have stated and are shewing, what is the 

Offspring of the Father s substance be the Son, we cannot 

3 SU p r . hesitate, rather, we must be certain, that the same 3 is the 

P- t 27 > Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and through whom He 

p. 41, creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in 

note e. w ] lom jj e enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He 

will ; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is 

Johnio, contemplated and known, wherefore He and His Father are 

one, 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 substance, already 

4 p-3, blasphemes the Father Himself 4 ; since he really thinks of 

Him what He falsely imagines of His offspring. 



CHAP. VI. 

SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

Third proof of the Son s eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His 
consubstantiality; as the Creator; as One of the Blessed Trinity; as 
Wisdom; as Word; as Image, If the Son 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. 

1. THIS thought is of itself a sufficient refutation of the CHAP. 
Arian heresy; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from T r^r 
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 1 , and is alien from ! P- 43 > 

TT . ,.T . note b. 

Him, and unlike 2 in substance. 2 ^_ 



2. Next, let them tell us this, or rather learn from i 
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 Trinity 3 3 T />"k- 
is not everlasting; but a One 4 was first, and afterwards by V0"<h 
addition it became a Three 5 ; and so as time went on, it seems, 5 



what we know concerning God grew and took shape 6 . And 6 y id- 
further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father s . i .>,* 
substance, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the 
Trinity consists, and once there was not a Three, but a One; 
and a Three once with deficiency, and then complete ; deficient, 
before the Son was generated, complete when He had come 



206 If the Son not eternal, the Holy Trinity not eternal. 

Disc, to be ; and henceforth a thing generated is reckoned with 
- the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and 
1 p. I9i, glory with Him who was ever 1 . Nay, what is more serious 
still, the Three is discovered to be unlike Itself, consisting 
of strange and alien natures and substances. And this, in 
other words, is saying, that the Trinity has a generated 
consistence. What sort of a worship 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 con 
trary, for what is added plainly admits of being subtracted. 
. 18. 3. But this is not so: perish the thought; the Three is not 
generated ; but there is an eternal and one Godhead in a 
Three, and there is one Glory of the Holy Three. And ye 
presume to divide it into different natures; the Father being 
eternal, yet ye say of the Word which is seated by Him, "Once 
He was not ;" and, whereas the Son is seated by the Father, yet 
ye think to .place Him far from Him. The Three is Creator 
and Framer, and ye fear not to degrade It to things which are 
from nothing ; ye scruple not to equal servile beings to the 
nobility of the Three, and to rank the King, the Lord of 
2 deDecr. Sabaoth, with subjects 2 . Cease this confusion of things unas- 
p. 56*. sociable, 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 theological doctrine is now perfect in 
a Trinity, and this is the true and only worship of Him, 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 theological doctrine 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 Trinity now. But 
such heretics no Christian would bear; it belongs to 
Greeks, to introduce a general Trinity, and to level It with 
things generate ; for these do admit of deficiencies and 
additions ; but the faith of Christians acknowledges the 
blessed Trinity as unalterable and perfect and ever what It 



Names " Wisdom," "Fountain," "Word" imply eternity. 207 

was, neither adding to It what is more, nor imputing to It CHAP. 
any loss, (for both ideas are irreligious,) and therefore it dis- 



sociates 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 acknow 
ledges 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. 

4. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and 19. 
life, as He says by Jeremiah, They have forsaken Me theFoun- Jer. 2, 
tain of living waters,- and again, A glorious high throne from Je r ^ 
the beginning., is the place of our sanctuary ; O Lord, the 12. 
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 ; and in the book of Baruch it is written, Thou hast Bar. 3, 
forsaken the Fountain of ivisdom, this implies that life and * 
wisdom are not foreign to the Substance of the Fountain, but 

are proper to It, nor were at any time without existence 1 , but i o. v {>- 
were always. Now the Son is all this, who says, lam the Life, T a u /CT 1 4 
and, / Wisdom dwell with prudence. Is it not then irreligious 6. 
to say, " Once the Son was not?" for it is all one with saying, uJJ** 1 
" 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 2 . What a load of extra- 2 p. 202, 
vagance ! for God promises that those who do His will shall 2 * 
be as a fountain which the water fails not, saying by Isaiah 
the prophet, And the Lord shall satisfy thy soul in drought, Isa. 58, 
and make thy bones fat ; and thou shalt be like a watered 
garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And 
yet these, whereas God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom, 
dare to insult Him as barren 3 and void of His proper Wisdom. 3 Ayovov 
But their doctrine is false ; truth witnessing that God is the 
eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom ; and, if the Foun 
tain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For 
in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, In Ps - 104 > 
Wisdom hast Thou made them all; and Solomon says, Theprov.3 
Lord by Wisdom hath formed the earth, by understanding I9 
hath He established the heavens. 

5. And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says, 



208 



Our Lord not one of "all" things. 



Disc. 
I. 

John 1, 

3. 

I Cor. 8, 

6. 



i vid. 
Petav. 
de Trin. 
ii. 12. 
.4. 



2 deDecr 
.30. 
supr. 
p. 54. 



3deDecr, 
.17. 
p. 28. 



ira.pK.Tov 



all things were made, and without Him was made not one 
thing*. And this Word is Christ; for there is One God, the 
Father, from whom are all things 9 and we for Him ; and 
One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and 
we through Him. And if all things are through Him, He 
Himself is not to be reckoned with that "all." For he who 
dares 1 to call Him, through whom are all things, one of that 
"all," surely will have like speculations concerning God, from 
whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as extravagant, 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 substance. And, if He be not one of 
the all 2 , 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 substance He is proper Offspring, Word, 
and Wisdom 3 . 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 His Rational 
Word b , nor that the Son was non-existing 4 . For wherefore a 



a The words "that was made which 
ends this verse were omitted by the 
ancient citers of it, as Irenseus, Cle 
ment, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian. 
nay, Augu*t.ine ; but because it was 
abused by the Eunomians, Macedoni 
ans, &c. as if derogatory to the divinity 
of the Holy Spirit, it was quoted in full, 
as by Epiphanius, Ancor. 75. who 
goes so far as to speak severely of 
the ancient mode of citation, vid. Fa 
bric, and Routh, ad Hippol. contr. 
Noet- 12. 

b &\oyov. vid. supr. p. 25, note c, 
where other instances are given from 
Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; also 
p. 2, note e. vid. also Orat. iv. 2. 4. 
Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. 
Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Grsec. 
6. Theoph. ad Autol.ii. 10. Hipp, contr. 
Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. 
p. 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat. Catt-ch. 
1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 tin. 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. supr. p. 95, note c,) they said that 
such titles marked, not only a typical 
resemblance to the attribute, but so full 
a correspondence and (as it werej coin 
cidence in nature with it, that whatever 
relation that attribute had to God, such 
in kind had the Son; that the attri 
bute was His symbol, and not His mere 
archetype ; that our Lord was eternal 
and proper to God, because that attri 
bute was, which was His title, vid. 
Athan. Ep. ^Eg. 14. that our Lord was 
that Essential Reason and Wisdom, 
not by which the Father is wise, but 
without wh\ch 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 Rea 
son and Wisdom, so that, to say that 
there was no W 7 ord, would imply there 
was no Divine Reason; just as a ra 
diance implies a light; or, as Petavius 
remarks, 1. c. quoting the words which 
follow shortly after in the text, the 
eternity of the Original implies the 



If our Lord the Image of the Father, He is from His substance. 209 

Son, if not from Him ? or wherefore Word and Wisdom, if not CHAP. 

vj 
ever proper to Him ? When then was God without Him who 

is proper to Him ? or how can a man consider that which is 
proper, as foreign and alien 1 in substance ? for other things, l a\\o- 
according to the nature of things generate, are without likeness ^ 
in substance with the Maker ; but are external to Him, made su P r _ o 
by the Word at His grace and will, and thus admit of ceasing re f. 1. 
to be, if it so pleases Him who made them ; for such is the 
nature of things generate 2 . But as to what is proper to the 2 infr. 
Father s substance, (for this we have already found to be theJJite i. 
Son,) what daring is it and irreligion to say that " This comes 
from nothing," and that " It was not before generation," but 
was adventitious 3 , and can at some time cease to be again ? 



6. Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he willj, .37"* 
discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father s note y- 
substance is impaired by this heresy ; however, he will see its 
extravagance 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 4 ; let them consider what depths 4 "the 
of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure omkted 
of the Image and Countenance of the Godhead. For if the jj? 
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, 
lam the Truth. And the Subsistence existing, of course there JohnU, 
was forthwith its Expression and Image ; for God s Image is 6 
not delineated from without d , but God Himself hath begotten 

eternity of the Image ; TTJS uiroo Too ecos is in, and one with, the Father, who 

inrapxoixT rj^, travrws evOvs elvat 8e? rbis has neither beginning nor end. On 

XctpaKrrjpa Kal T}]V et /c<W Tavrys, . 20. the question of the " will of God" as it 

vid. also infr. . 31. de Deer. .13. p. affects the doctrine, vid. Orat. iii. 

21. . 20. 23. pp. 35. 40. Theod. Hist. . 59, &c. 

j. 3. p. 737. d A than, argues from the very name 

c This was but the opposite aspect Image for our Lord s eternity. An 

of the tenet of our Lord s consubstanti- Image, to be really such, must be an 

ality or eternal generation. For if He expression from the Original, not an 

came into being at the will of God, by external and detached imitation, vid. 

the same will He might cease to be; supr. note b. infr.. 26. p. 217- HenceS. 

but if His existence is unconditional Basil, " He is an Image not made with 

and necessary, as God s attributes the hand, or a work of art, but a living 

might be, then as He had no begin- Image," &c. supr p. 106, note d. via. 

ning, so can He have no end; for He alsocnntr. Eunom.ii. K>,l7.Epiph.H*er. 



210 The title "Image" implies eternity. 

Disc, it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself 
says, / was His delight. When then did the Father not see 



30. Himself in His own Image ? or when had He not delight, 
that a man should dare to say, " The Image is out of no 
thing," and " The Father had not delight before the Image 
was generated ?" and how should the Maker and Creator see 
Himself in a created and generated substance ? for such as is 

.21. tne Father, such must be the Image. Proceed we then to 
consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to 
know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal, 
immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, 
Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image, 

JohnH to make it true that he that hath seen the Son hath seen the 

9 * Father. If the Son be not all this, but, as the Arians con 
sider, a thing generate, 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 

id e not a token of a similar substance 6 , but His name 1 only. 



Deer. . jj u t this, on the other hand, O ye Christ s enemies, is not an 
25. 26. 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 generate ? 

7. However, such the Arians wishing Him to be, have con- 
trived arguments such as this ; " If the Son is the Father s 
offspring and image, and is like in all things 2 to the Father, 
p. 115, then it necessarily holds that as He is begotten, so He 
?nfr 6 begets, an ^ He too becomes father of a son. And again, he 
40. who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on 

p. 23/ 

76,3.Hilar.Trin.vii.41 fin. Origenob- Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15. 

serves that man, on the contrary, is an biotas ovaias. And so . 20. i*. 

example of an external or improper 8/j.oiov KO.T overlay, and 8/iotosr^y OIKTU s, 

imageofGod. Periarch.i.2..6. Itmight . 26. fytoios /car ovviav, iii. 26. and 

have been more direct to have argued 6fj.oios Kara T}\V ovaiav TOV Trarp6s. Ep. 

from the name of Image to our Lord s #}g. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. 

consubstantiality rather than eternity, Considering what he says in the de 

as, e. g. S. Gregory Naz-^ " He is Syn. . 38, &c. supr. p. 136, note g, 

Image as one in substance, 6/j.oovffiov, in controversy with the Semi-arians 

...for this is the nature of an a year or two later, this use of their for- 

image, to be a copy of the archetype." mula, in preference to the fifAoova-iov, 

Orat. 36. vid. also de Deer. . 20, 23. (vid. foregoing note,) deserves our at- 

supra, pp. 35, 40.but for whatever reason tention. 
Athan.avoids the word d^ooixriov in these 



Why the Father only a Father and the Son only a Son. 211 

without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that CHAP. 
begat Him." Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of 
God 1 ! who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father s 1 
Image f , conceive material and earthly ideas concerning 
Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings 2 and effluences 32 To/*a 
and influences. If then God be as man, let Him be also a^f. 2. 
parent as man, so that His Son should be father of another, 
and so in succession one from another, till the series 
imagine grows into a multitude of gods 4 . But if God 
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 



f 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 pevffr)], 
transitive and without stay, ever shift 
ing 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 
a termination in itself. The Son has not 
VJ Son, because the Father has not a 
Father. Thus the Father is the only 
true Father, and the Son only true Sen ; 
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. 
supr. p. 18, note o. And since the Father 
is unchangeable as Father, in nothing 
does the Son more fulfil the idea of a 
perfect Image than in being unchange 
able too. Thus S. Cyril, also Thesaur. 
10. p. 124. And this perhaps may 



illustrate a strong and almost startling 
statement of some of the Greek Fathers, 
that the First Person in the Holy Trinity, 
considered as Father, is not God. E.g. 
e< 5c 0eby 6 vlbs, OVK eTrel vt6s 6fj.oi<as 
Kal 6 irarfyp, OVK eVel irarfyp, SeJy aAA* 
7rel ovffia roidfie, els earl irarfyp Kal 
6 vlbs 0*6s. 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. 1 
Men differ from each other as being in 
dividuals, but the characteristic differ 
ence 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, 
a* such; there being no real separation 
between His Person and His Substance. 
It may be added, that, though theo 
logians 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 Gcd the 
Father, because they are both the same 
God ; vid. p. 149, note x. also next note. 



212 Because the Father the only Father and the Son the only Son. 

Disc, the Godhead ; for not as man is God ; for the Father is not 
from father ; therefore doth He not beget one who shall 

1 airofi- beget; nor is the Son from effluence 1 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 6 father, 
and the Son properly son, and in Them, and Them only, 

2 fffrri- does it hold 2 that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever 
/ 22 Son. Therefore he who asks why the Son has not a son, 

must inquire why the Father had not a father. But both 
suppositions are indecent and irreligious exceedingly. For 
as the Father is ever Father and never could be Son, so the 
Son is ever Son and never could be Father. For in this 
rather is He 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 con 
tinues, 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 substance. 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 generated. 



8 Kvptcas, vid. p. 18, note o. Else- son, yet is he called father of another ; 

where A than, says, " The Father being so that in the case of men the names 

one and only is Father of a Son one and father and son do not properly, Kvpiws, 

only; and in the instance of Godhead hold." ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 

only have the names Father and Son 4 fin. and 6. vid. also Kvpiws, Greg, 

stay, and are ever ; for of men if any Naz. Orat. 29. 5. aA?j0<ys, Orat. 25, 

one be called father, yet he has been 16. OVTWS, Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 6. 

son of another; and if he be called p. 215. 






CHAP. VII. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF. 

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



I. RANKING Him among these, according to the teaching of CHAP. 
Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come - 
into being through Him, the Arians revolted from the truth, 
and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with 
dishonest phrases which they had got together 1 ; nay, up to this l p. 193, 
time some of them a , 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; " He who is, Mat. 12, 
did He make him who was not, from Him who is, or him 
who was? therefore did He make the Son, whereas He was, or 



34. 



* 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 Anomosans. Eusebius s 
testimony to the profaneness which 
attended Arianism upon its rise, has 
been given above, p. 75, note h. The 
Thalia is another instance of it. S. 
Alexander speaks of the interference, 
even judicial, in its behalf againsr him 
self, of disobedient women, 8t eVrux"*? 
yvvaiicapicav ardKrcav & rjird.TTjffai , and of 
the busy and indecent gadding about of 
the younger, e/c rov 7repiTgoxC etl/ TS^nw 
ayviav cwre/mos. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. 
p. 730. also p. 747. also of the men s 
buffoon conversation, p. 731. Socrates 
says that " in the Imperial Court, the 
officers of the bedchamber held disputes 
with the women, and in the city in every 
house there was a war of dialectics." 
Hist. ii. "2. This mania raged espe 
cially in Constantinople, and S. Gre 
gory Naz. speaks of " Jezebels in as 
thick a crop as hemlock in a field." 
Orat. 35. 3. vid. supr. p. 91 , note q. 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 con 
cerning 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 incompre 
hensible .... With such the whole city 
is full; its smaller gates, forums, 
squares, thoroughfares; the clothes-ven 
ders, 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, arid 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. 



214 As God exists without place, and creates without materials. 

Disc, whereas He was not b ? And again, " Is the Ingenerate 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 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 
Rom. i,be Christians, but changing God s glory into an image made 

1 p. 179, like to corruptible man 1 . 

OQ ^ Words so senseless and dull deserve no answer at all ; 
however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it 
may be right, though we go outof the way for it, to refute them 
even here, especially on account of the women who are so 
readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they 
should inquire of an architect, whether he can build without 
materials ; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God 

2 upr. could not make the universe without materials 2 . Or they 
not^o snou ]d as k every man, whether he can be without place; and 

3 te if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place ; that so 
.n." they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why 
p. 17, is. j s j t 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 herding 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 

b This objection is found in Alex, but this, that the very fact of His 

Ep. Encycl. 2. 6 &v 0ebs rbi/ ^ fora IK being begotten or a Son, implies a 

TOV /J.^ OVTOS, Again, OVTO. yeyevvriKf % beginning, that is, a time when He 

OVK uvra. Greir. Or at. 29 9. who answers was not; it being by the very force 

it. Pseurlo- Basil, eoritr. Eunom. iv. p. of the words absurd to say that" God 

281. 2. Basil calls the question iroXv- begat Him that was" or to deny that 

6pv\\TiTov, coutr. Eunom. ii. 14. It " God begat Him_ that was not." For 

will be seen to be but the Arian the symbol, OVK 3\v irplv yevvnOfi, vid. 

formula of " He was not before His note at the end of this Discourse, 
generation," in, another shape ; being 



so He begets without time. 2 1 5 

pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and CHAP. 
alone truly 1 , Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our j -? 
own children; for of Him is every fatherhood in heaven and note k. 
earth named. And their positions, while unscrutinized, 15 P 3 * 
have a shew of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by 
reason, they will but bring on them derision and mockery. 

3. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as 24. 
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 ab 
stractedly, "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 generation, 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 rational Word 2 ? and, whereas He 2 &\oyos 
is Light, was He ray-less ? or was He always Father of the ^f^ 
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 
rational Word ? 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 



216 If the Son not eternal, neither is the Father. 

Disc, proofs already adduced against them ; while John besides 
lohn * j says, The Word was, and Paul again writes, Who being 

i. the brightness of His glory, and, Who is over all, God blessed 

Heb. 1, /. ./ 

3> /or ever. Amen. 

Rom. 9, 4. They had best have been silent ; but since it is otherwise, 

05 it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold 

vid. retort 1 . Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which 

contr. beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. 

Eunom. After many prayers then that God would be gracious to us, 

thus we might ask them in turn ; God who is, has He so 

*yeyovtv become 2 , whereas He was not? or is He also before Hisgene- 

3 yVTjTai ration 3 ? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of 

nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear 

Himself? Indecent is such an enquiry, yea, indecent 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. 

5. 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 

4 e Trtye- the Word been added 4 , whereas Ele was not before, nor was 

the Father once without a Word. 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 

5 p. 43, without 5 ; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote 

3 the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that 

this their objection does not hold ; and naturally ; for denying 

the Word they in consequence ask questions which are ir- 

* p. 2, rational 6 . As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired 

note o. concerning its radiance, and said, " Did that which is make 

c This cautious and reverent way Preef.ad Monach. The unwearied habit 

of speaking is a characteristic of S. of the religious man is to worship the All 

Athanasius. " I had come to there- (T& Trap) in silence, and to hymn God his 

solution to be silent at this time, but Penefactor with thankful cries, ... .but 

on the exhortation of your holiness, &c. since," <fec. contr. Apoll. i. init. "I 

1 ha*e in few words written this Epistle, must ask another question, bolder, yet 

and even this hardly, of which do you with a religious intention; be propitious, 

supply the defects," &c. ad Serap. i. 1. O Lord, &c." Orat. iii. 63. vid. p. 20, 

vid. ii. init. ad Epicf. 13 fin. ad Max. init. ref. 1. p. 25, note c. p. 153, note d. 



Did the Father need an instrument to create, He not perfect. 2 1 7 

that which was, or that which was not," he would be held not CHAP. 
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 image 
the natural offspring as a work, with the avowal, " He was 
not before His generation." 

6. 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; and, whereas He was Son of John i, 
God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of 
Man, unless forsooth, after Samosatene, they affirm that He 
did not even exist at all, till He became man. 

7. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first ques- . 26. 
tion; and now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own 
words, tell us whether He who was needed Him. who was 

not } for the framing of the universe, or Him who was? Ye 
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 ? Ye 
rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power 
of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an 
instrument fromwithout d , as carpenter might do or shipwright, 
unable to work any thing, without axe and saw ? Can any 
thing 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 ? 

d fyyavov, vid. p. 12, note g. p. 118, Eccles. Theol. i. 8. supr. p. 62, note f. 
note n. p. 62, note f. This was alleged and by the Anomoeans, supr. p. 12, 
by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, note x. 



CHAP. VIII. 

OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 

Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are 
horn later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the 
idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is 
adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without 
parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of 
Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, 
in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the substance 
of God, as generation does. 

Disc. 1. NOR is answer needful to their other very simple and 
- foolish inquiry, which they put to 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 them 
selves, 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 substance and his 
unvarying 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*, instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth 
only what turns to poison ? Those who ask of parents, and 

a supr. p. 13, note u. The question other hard said, that to suppose a true 
was, What was that sense of Sou which Son, was to think of God irreverently, 
would apply to the Divine Nature? The as implying division, change, &c. The 
Catholics said that its essential mean- Catholics replied that the notion of 
ing could apply, viz. consuhstantiality, materiality was quite as foreign from 
whereas the point of posteriority to the the Divine Essence as time, and as the 
Father depended on a condition, time, Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it 
which could not exist in the instance of also clear both of imperfection or ex- 
God, p. 16, note k. The Arian? on the tension. 



God s Son like man s, in connaturality , not in point of time. 219 

say, " Hadst thou a Son before thou didst beget him ?" CHAP. 
should add, " And if thou hadst a son, didst thou purchase 
him from without as a house or any other possession 1 ?" And l p. 21. 
then thou wouldest 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 substance 2 , not become 2 p21o, 
mine from another, but begotten of me ; wherefore I too am 
wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am V 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 
generation, and his grandfather begot him. 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. Therefore, if on asking parents about . 27. 
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 



h It is from expressions such as this Emperor s countenance and form are in 

that the Greek Fathers have been ac- His Image, and the countenance of 

cusedof tritheism. The truth is, every His Image is in the Emperor. For 

illustration, as being incomplete on one the Emperor s likeness in His Image is 

or other side of it, taken by itself, tends an unvarying likeness, o7rapdAAa/cTos,so 

to heresy. The title Son by itself sug- that he who looks upon the Image, in 

gests a second God, as the title Word a it sees the Emperor, and again he who 

mere atiribute, and the title Instrument sees the Emperor, recognises that He 

a creature. All heresies are partial is in the Image. The Image then might 

views of the truth, and are wrong, not say, I and the Emperor are one. " 

so much in what they say, as in what Orat. iii. . 5. And thus the Auctor 

they deny. The truth, on the other de Trin. refers to " Peter, Paul, and 

hand, is a positive and comprehensive Timothy having three subsistencies and 

doctrine, and in consequence necessarily one humanity." i. p. 918. S. Cyril even 

mysterious a,nd open to misconception, seems to deny that each individual man 

vid. p. 43, note d. p. 140, note n. may be considered a separate substance 

When A than, implies that the Eternal except as the Three Persons are such. 

Father is in the Son, though remaining Dial. i. p. 409. and S. Gregory Nyssen 

what He is, as a man in his child, he is led to say that, strictly speaking, the 

is intent only upon the point of the abstract man, which is predicated of 

Son s connaturality and equality, which separate individuals, is still one, and 

the Arians denied In like manner he this with a view of illustrating the 

says in a later Discourse, " In the Son Divine Unity, ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449. 

the Father s godhead is beheld, The vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9. 



220 As Son images connaturality , so Radiance co-existence, 

Disc, necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground on 
- which their scoff is made), let them tell us, what is there to 
hinder God from being always Father of the Son ; for that 
what is begotten must be from its father is undeniable. 

2. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves as to 
all such speculations concerning God, if, as they questioned 
women on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun con- 
1 p. 20. cerning 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 c . 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 d , do they not openly say out their own irreligion? 
But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the Son is con 
fessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from 
the Father, and that there is nothing which is a hindrance 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 co-exists with 
the Father both as from Him and as ever, through whom 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 per- 
verseness ; for they confess the point of nature, and now have 
been put to shame on the point of time. 

. 28. 3. 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 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 

c The question is not, whether in d S. Athauasius s doctrine is, that, 
matter of fact, in the particular case, the God containing in Himself all perfection, 
rays would issue after, and not with the whatever is excellent in one created 
first existence of the luminous body; for thing above another, is found in its 
the illustration is not used to shew how perfection in Him. If then such gene- 
such a thing may be, or to give an ration as radiance from light is more 
instance of it, but to convey to the mind perfect than that of children from 
a correct idea of what it is proposed to parents, that belongs, and transcend- 
teach in the Catholic doctrine. ently, to the All-perfect God. 



and " Word" immateriality. 2*21 

indivisibly Father of the Son 1 . This again is strongly CHAP. 
evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word Yl!!i_ 
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 2 , Scripture speaks of 2 p. 140, 
"Son," in order to herald the offspring of His substance nc 
natural arid true ; and, on the other hand, that none may 
think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His sub 
stance, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance ; to 
teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and 
worthy of God e . 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 3 let them*p rat 
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 f they 
may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? 



"This is a view familiar to the Christum per naturaliamulieris descen- 

Fathers, viz. that in this consists our disse confitear ; ipse enim testimonium 

Lord s Sonship, that He is the Word dat, quia de sinibus Patris descendit. 

or as S. Augustine says, Christum ideo Archel. Disp. p. 185. We, as saying 1 

Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 120. 11. that the Woid of God is incapable of 

" If Godisthe Father of a Word, why is defilement, even by the assumption of 

not He which is begotten a Son ?" de mortal and vulnerable flesh, fear not to 

Deer. . 17. supr. p. 27. " If I speak of believe that He is born of a Virgin; ye" 

Wisdom, I speak of His offspring." Manichees, "because with impious per- 

Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. (t The Word, verseness ye believe the Son of God to 

the genuine Son of Mind." C!em. Pro- be capable of it, dread to commit Him to 

trept.p.58. Petavius discusses this sub- the flesh." August, contr. Secund. 9. 

ject accurately with reference to the dis- Faustus " is neither willing to receive 

tinction between Divine generation and Jesus of the seed of David, nor made of 

Divine Procession, de Trin. vii. 14. a woman .. . .nor the death of Christ 

f Heretics have frequently assigned itself, and burial, and resurrection, &c." 

reverence as the cause of their oppo- August, contr. Fanst. xi. 3. As the 

sition to the Church; and if, even Manichees denied our Lord a body, so 

Arius affected it, the plea may be ex- the Apollinarians denied Him a rational 

pected in any other. " O stultos et soul, still under pretence of reverence, 

impios metus," says S. Hilary, " et because, as they said, the soul was 

irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem." de necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this 

Trin. iv. 6. It was still more commonly their main argument, 6 vovs a/j.aprr.Ti- 

professed in regard to the Catholic doc- xds iffri. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also 

trine of the Incarnation. Thus Manes, Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89. 

Absit ut Dominum nostrum Jesum Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 



222 The Eternal Son is not of will, but of nature. 

4. Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from 
God is not an affection ; and now it has been shewn in par 
ticular 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 par 
takes is given the name of wise. And this Wisdom 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 1 to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good 
that He be Father, yet He has not ever been Father, then 
good has not ever been in Him. 

. 29. 5. 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 generation ? 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 substance ; 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 pro- 

Orat.sii.P er ^ ^ ne substance 2 . And a man may be and may be 
.59; 

<fec. 

79. 80. Athan.&c.calltheApollinarian tus," &c. Leon. Ep. 21. 1 fin. " For- 

doctrineManicheaninconsequence.vid. bid it," he says at Constantinople, 

in Apol). ii. 8. 9, &c. Again, the Era- " that [ should say that the Christ was 

nistes in Theodoret, who advocates a of two natures, or should discuss the 

similar doctrine, will not call our Lord nature, (}>vffLo\oye?v,of my God." Concil. 

man. " I consider it important to ac- t. 2. p. 157. And so in this day popular 

knowledge an assumed nature, but to Tracts have been published, ridiculing 

call the Saviour of the world man is to St. Luke s account of our Lord s nativity 

impair our Lord s glory." Eranist. ii. under pretence of reverence towards the 

p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, God of all, and interpreting Scripture 

would call our Lord man,~but refused to allegorically on Pantheistic principles, 

admit Hishutnanwatare, and still with A modem argument for Universal Re- 

tht; same profession. "Ego," he says, stitution takes the same form; " Do not 

" sciens sanctos etbeatos patres nostros we shrink from the notion of another s 

refutantes duarum naturarum vocabu- being sentenced to eternal punishment ; 

lum, et non audens de natura tractare and are we more merciful than God? 

Dei Verbi, qui in carnem venit, in vid. Matt. xvi. 22, 23. 
veritate non in phantasmate homo fac- 



Not God cannot make >but creatures cannot be made,eternally. 223 

called Maker, though the works are not as yet ; but father CHA.P. 
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 o/Rom. 
the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor ? or how shall the Ro m> 9 
thing formed say to the potter, why hast thou made me thus? 1 * 
however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed,) they 
must be told, that although God always had the power to 
execute, yet the things generated had not the power of being 
eternal 5 . For they are out of nothing, and therefore were 
not before their generation; but things which were not before 
their generation, how could these co-exist with the ever- 
existing God ? Wherefore God, looking to what was good 
for them, then made them all when He saw that, when pro 
duced, they were able to abide. And as, though He was 
able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noe, 
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 generated 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 substance 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 substance. Wherefore His works were framed, when 
He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper 
offspring of the Father s substance. 

g Athan. s argument is as follows: where he takes, " They shall perish," 

that, as it is of the essence of a son to in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the 

be connatural with the father, so is it definition of the nature of a creature, 

of the essence of a creature to be of Also ii. . 1. where he says, " It is 

nothing, e| ou/c ovruv, therefore, while proper to creatures and works to have 

it was not impossible from the nature said of them, e| ou/c OVTWV and ou/c tfv 

of the case, for Almighty Go.d to be Trplv yevvridf) ." vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. 

always Father, it was impossible for p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question 

the same reason that He should be of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra, 

always a Creator, vid. infr. . 58. p. 65, note m. 



CHAP. IX. 

OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 

Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an 
unscriptural word ; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of 
the word. If it means "without Father," there is but One Ingenerate; 
if " without beginning or creation," there are two. Inconsistency of 
Asterius. " Ingenerate" a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but 
with creatures, as is " Almighty," or u Lord of powers." " Father" is 
the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our 
adoption as sons. 

Disc. 1 . THESE considerations encourage the faithful, and distress 
the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown 
thereby. Moreover, their further question " whether the 
Ingenerate be one or two a ," 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 anyone, not aware of their craft, answer, 
" the Ingenerate is one," forthwith they spirt out their own 
venom, saying, " Therefore the Son is among things generate, 
and well have we said, He was not before His generation." 
Thus they make any kind of disturbance and confusion, pro- 

a The word ayeuvr^roy was in the Epiph. Haer. 76. S. Athanasius does 

philosophical schools synonymous with not go into this question, hut rather 

u God; hence by asking whether there confines himself to the more popular 

were two Ingenerates, the Anomceans form of it, viz. the Son is by His very 

implied that there were two Gods, if name not ayewr)Tos, but yevfrjrbs, but 

Christ was God in the sense in which all yevvyTa are creatures ; which he 

the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, answers, as de Deer. . 28. supr. p. 53. 

(pdffKovTfs, ov \eyop.fv 8vo ayevrjTa, by saying that Christianity had brought 

\eyovan 8vo Qeovs. Orat. iii. 16. also in a new idea into theology, viz. the 

ii. 38. Plato used ayevvnrov of the sacred doctrine of a true Son, e/c Trjs 

Supreme God, (supr. p. 51, note b.) the ovaias. This was what the Arians had 

Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7 originally denied, e> rb ayevvrirov fv 

and Basilides, Epiph. Hser. 31. 10. 5e rb UTT avrov a\r)0>s, Kal OVK &c rrjs 

S.Clement uses it, supr. p. 147 note t. ovffias avrov. Eugeb. Nic. ap. Theod. 

and S. Ignatius applies it to the Son, Hist. i. 5. When they were urged 

p. 147. S. Diony.ius Alex, puts as an what according to them was the 

hypothesis in controversy the very posi- middle idea to which the SOD an- 

tion of the Anomceans, on which their swered, if they would not accept the 

whole argument turned, ap. Euseb. Catholic, they would not define but 

Prcep. vii. 19. viz. that ^ ayevviqcria is merely said, yevrn(j.a, a\\ OVK us 

the very owrla of God, not an attribute, ev ruv yevv^fjLdrwi , vid. p. 10, note 

Their view is drawn out at length in u. 



Different senses of the word " Ingenerate" 225 

vided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and CHAP. 
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 1 , and those in contumely of the ! P- 31 
Lord, knowing neither what they say nor whereof they \ Tim*. 
affirm. For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have 1 7 
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 2 that 2 P; 5 , 2 > 

* note d. 

by " ingenerate" 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 neither has nor ever can a triangle 
become quadrangular; nor has ever, nor can ever, even be 
come odd. Moreover, by " ingenerate" is meant, what exists, 3 
but not generated from any, nor having a father at alL 
Further, Asterius, that unprincipled sophist, the patron too 
of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not 
made, but is ever, is " ingenerate V They ought then, when 
they ask the question, to add in what sense they take the 
word " ingenerate," and then the parties questioned would 
be able to answer to the point. 

2. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, " Is . 31. 
the Ingenerate 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 generation, and nothing is not 

6 The two first senses here given occur, how Athan. used his former 

answer to the two first mentioned, de writings and worked over again his 

Deer. . 28. and, as he there says, are former ground, and simplified or cleared 

plainly irrelevant. The third in the de what he had said. In the de Deer. 

JDecr. which, as he there observes, is A.D. 350, we have three senses of 

ambiguous and used for a sophistical ayevvyTov, two irrelevant and the third 

purpose, is here divided into third and ambiguous; here in Orat. 1. (358,) he 

fourth, answering to the two senses divides the third into two; in the de 

which alone are assigned in the de Syn. Syn. (359,) he rejects and omits the 

. 46. and on them the question turns, two first, leaving the two last, whic)i 

This is an instance, of which many are the critical senses. 

Q 



226 Its different senses distinguished. 

Disc, capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as 

i: Asterius ruled it, as if " what is not a work but was always" 

were ingenerate, then they must constantly be told that the 
Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called 
ingenerate. For He is neither in the number of things 
generated, 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 testifying 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 
Ingenerate in this sense is only one, namely the Father; and 
they will take nothing by their question . For to say that 
God is in this sense Ingenerate, does not shew that the Son 
is a thing generate, it being evident from the above proofs 
that the Word is such as He is who begat Him. Therefore 
if God be ingenerate, His Image is not generate, but an 

1 p. 209, Offspring 1 , which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what 

likeness has the generate to the Ingenerate ? (one must not 
weary to use 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 Ingenerate is the 
image of creatures ; the end of which is a confusion of the 
whole subject, an equalling of things generated with the 
Ingenerate, and a denial of the Ingenerate by measuring Him 
with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number. 
. 32. 3. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to pro 
ceed 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 Ingenerate is one, runs counter to them 
in saying, that the Wisdom of God is ingenerate and un- 

2 deSyn. originate also; the following is a passage out of his work 2 : 
ibhinfr . " The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the 
ii. 37. power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, 
i Cor. i, God s power and God s wisdom, thus preaching that the 

proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and 

c These two senses of ayevvrtrov un- ayevj/r)Tov and ayfvrjrov. vid. Damasc. 
begotten and unmade were afterwards F. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien s 
expressed by the distinction of vv and v, not. 



Admission of Asterius unfavourable to the Arians. 2*27 

co-existent with Him ingenerately, is something besides." CHAP. 

And again, soon after : " However, His eternal power and 

wisdom, which truth argues to be unoriginate and ingenerate; 
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 co-existent with Him, he 
declares that the Ingenerate is not simply one, but that there 
is another ingenerate with Him, For what is co-existent, co 
exists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree 
with Asterius, let them never ask again, " Is the Ingenerate 
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 
take up their defence upon his treatise, lest, biting oneG&l.Sj 
another, they be consumed one of another. 

4. So much on the point of their ignorance; but who can 
say enough on their want of principle ? 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 (t ingene 
rate," that, by saying among the simple that the Son was 
generate, they might imply the very same phrases " out of 
nothing," and " He once was not ;" for in such phrases 
things generate and creatures are implied. If they have 33, 
confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them, 
and not change about so variously 1 ; but this they will not, 1 84 > 
from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their 
heresy under colour of the word "ingenerate." Yet after all, 
this term is not used in contrast with the Son, clamour as 
they may, but with things generate ; and the like may be 
found in the words " Almighty" and "Lord of the Powers d ." 
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 pow r er of all, as His Word, and as the Image of 
the Father, it is quite plain that neither here is the Son 

d The passage which follows is Athan. shews us the care with which 

written with his de Deer, before him. At hemadehis doctrinal statements, though 

first he but uses the same topics, but they seem at first sight written off. It 

presently he incorporates into this Dis- also accounts for the diffuseness and 

course an actual portion of his former repetition which might be imputed to 

work, with only such alterations as an his composition, what seems superfluous 

author commonly makes in transcribing, being often only the insertion of an ex- 

This, which is not unfrequent with tract from a former work. 

Q2 



228 God Ingener ate relatively to works, Father relatively to Son. 

Disc, 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 trie Word. And therefore the Ingenerate 
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 generate, but is their Creator and Framer through 
the Son. And as the word "Ingenerate" is specified relatively 
to things generate, so the word "Father" is indicative of the 
Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and In 
generate, regards and apprehends things created and gene 
rated ; 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 "ingenerate" has the aforesaid good sense, and admits 
J deS.va. of being used religiously 1 , they, in their own heresy, bring it 
p. U7. forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he 
vid. _ w ho honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who 
23 . in dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father. If they had 
any concern at all 6 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 ingenerate, they are, as 
I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker 
only and Framer, supposing that hence they may imply 
that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But 
that He who calls God Father, names Him from the Son, 
being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through 
that Son all things generate were created. And they, when 
they call Him Ingenerate, 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 were made. 
. o4. 5. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to denote 
God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him 
from His works only and call Him Ingenerate f . For the 

6 Here he begins a close transcript f The arguments against the word 

of the cle Deer. . 30. supr. p. 55. the Ingenerate here brought together are 

la,t sentence, how ever, cf the paragraph also found in Basil, coutr. Eunom. i. 5. 

.being an addition. p. 215. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 23. Epiph. 



Ingenerate not a word of Scripture. 2*29 

latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than refer to all CHAP. 
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 1 only from the Son. 
And, wherea^ the Word surpasses things generate, by so 
much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling 
Him Ingenerate. For the latter is unscriptural and sus 
picious, 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 "Ingenerate" 
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, 
/ am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; and, He that John! 4, 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and / and the Father IQ, 30. 
are One s ; but no where is He found to call the Father Inge 
nerate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, 
"When ye pray, say, O God Ingenerate," but rather, 



ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven. And it was 
His will that the Summary 2 of our faith should have the same 2 p. 123, 
bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of 
Ingenerate and generate, 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 of the works, are 
made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge 
from that name the Word in the Father Himself also 11 . A 
vain thing then is their argument about the term " Ingene 
rate," as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy. 

Hser. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. 26. ad Afr. 7. 8. 9. vid. also Epiph. 

Eunom. vi. p. 192. &c. Cyril. Dial ii. Hser. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin. 

Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 283. Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111. Potam. Ep. 

e These three texts are found to- ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 

gether frequently in Athan. parti- 41. et supr. Vid. also Animadv. in 

cularly in Orat. iii. where he con- Eustath. Ep. ad A poll. Rom. 1/96. 

eiders the doctrines of the " Image p. 58. 

and the TreptxwpTjcrts. vid. de Deer. . h Here ends the extract from the de 

21. . 31.de syn. . 45. Orat. iii. 3. 5. Decretis. The sentence following is 

6. 10. 16 fin. 17. Ep. Mg. 13. Sent. D. added as a close. 



CHAP. 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. 

Disc. 1. As to their question whether the Word is alterable a , 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 

1 OUT- free will 1 , or has He not? is He good from choice 2 according 

to f ree w ^ anc ^ can ^- e *f ^ e w *^ a ^ ter > being f an alter- 
able 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 
are suitable to a creature. However, when in their contro 
versies 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 \vhat 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 progress ? how shall the alter 
able possibly be like the Unalterable ? How should he who 
has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Un 
alterable ? in which of His states shall we be able to behold 
in Him the Father ? for it is plain that not at all times shall 

a rpeirrls, i.e. not, changeable, but of whether the Word of God is capable of 

a moral nature capable of improvement, altering as the devil altered, they scru- 

Arius maintained this in the strongest pled not to say, u Yea, He is capable." 

terms at starting. u On being asked Alex.ap. Sccr. i. 6. p. 11. 



The Son unalterable, because the Father s Image. 231 

we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever CHAP. 
altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is un- - 
alterable 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 ever of a changing nature, how can 
such a one be the Father s Image, not having the likeness of 
His unalterableness 1 ? how can He be really in the Father, if l supr. 
His moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being j^ tt 
alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. ButP- 212 - 
away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth 
shine out, and shew that they are beside themselves. 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 substance ? and the Father s substance 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 2 ; 2 p. 2, 
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 know 
ledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father. 

2. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be . 36. 
unchangeable ; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, Heb. 13, 
and for ever. And David in the Psalm says of Him, Thou, 8 
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, 
and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They shall tteb> 1, 
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. And the Lord Himself says of Himself 
through the Prophet, See noiv that I, even I am He, and 1 ^ eut - 
change not. It may be said indeed that what is here expressed Mai. 3, 
relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to speak it, spe- 6 
cially 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 sacred writers, 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 generate 
and created is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the 



232 The Son unalterable because from the Fathers substance. 

Disc. Son from these, shews us thereby that He is in no wise a 

thing generate ; nay teaches that He changes every thing 

else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, Thou art the 

same, and Thy years shall not fail. And with reason; for 

1 P. 223, things generate, being from nothing 1 , and not being before 

their generation, 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 substance, is unchangeable 
and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say 
that from that substance 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 

2 p- 37, substance 2 , so they would have it, viz. as in any particular sub 

stance, 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 the true Wisdom. For what alters 
and changes, and has no stay in one and the same con 
dition, how can that be true ? whereas the Lord says, / am 
JohnH, u ie Truth. If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning 
Himself, and declares His unalterableness, and the sacred 
writers 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 

8 deSyn. of corruption did they vomit it forth 3 . 

.16fin. 

p. 98. 



CHAP. XL 

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

Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil ii. 
9, 10. Whether the words " Wherefore God hath highly exalted" prove 
moral probation arid 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 "exalt 
ation" 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. 

1. BUT since they allege the divine oracles and farce on CHAP. 
them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense*, it - 
becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to lay claim to^* 
these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense., 
and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that 
the Apostle writes, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Ph\\. 2, 
Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name ; 
that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth : Ps.45,9. 
and David, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed 
Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. Then they 

a vid. supr. p. 78, note n. " We must from their private opinion, but by the 

not make an appeal to theScriptures,nor writings and authority of the Fathers, 

take up a position for the fight, in which &c." Hist.ii.9. "Seeing the Canon of 

victory is not, or is doubtful, or next to Scripture is perfect &c. what need we 

doubtful. For though this conflict of join unto it the authority of the Church s 

Scripture with Scripture did not end in understanding and interpretation? be- 

a drawn battle, yet the true order of the cause the Scripture being of itself so 

subject required that that should be laid deep and profound, all men do not un- 

down first, which now becomes but a derstanJ it in one and the same sense, 

point of debate, viz. ivho have a claim but so many men, so many opinions 

to the faith itself, whose are the Scrip- almost may be gathered out of it; for 

tures. Tertull. de Frasscr. 19. Ruf- Novatian expounds it one way, Photi- 

finus says of S. Basil arid S. Gregory, nus another, Sabellius, &c. Vincent. 

" Putting aside all Greek literature, Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage 

they are said to have passed thirteen very much to the same purpose, contr. 

years together in studying the Scriptures Noet. 9 fin. 
alone, and followed out their sense not 



234 If our Lord really Son, not really "exalted" and rewarded. 

Disc, urge, as something acute : " If He was exalted and received 

grace, on a wherefore, and on a wherefore He was anointed, 

He received the reward of His good choice ; but having 

acted from choice, He is altogether of an alterable nature." 

iofNi-This is what Eusebius 1 and Arius have dared to say, 

dia^v id. nay to write ; while their partizans do not shrink from 

Theod;. conversing about it in full market-place 2 , not seeing how 

2 p. 213, mad an argument they use. For if He received what 

note a. jj e k a( j ag a rewar( j o f jjj s g OO d choice, 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 pro- 

3 )8eA.Tt- motion 3 , 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 

4 p. 237, nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides 4 
re the gift itself ; as the men who have received the Spirit by 
Is. 1, 2. participation, concerning whom Scripture saith, / have 

e P begotten and exalted children, and they have rebelled against 

5 vid. Me*. And of course, since they were not sons by nature, 
N ^T therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away 
8 "P r - and they were disinherited ; and again on their repent 
ance that God who thus at the beginning gave them 
grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them 

. 38. sons again. 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 substance, but of the mere grace 
given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to 
substance, 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 a servant ; but 

Phil. 2, then, when, after becoming obedient unto death, He was, 
as the text says, highly exalted, and received that Name as 
a grace, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow. 

2. What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and 
then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when 



The text brought by the Arians tells against themselves. 235 
He became man ? For He seems Himself not to have CHAP. 

"V T 

promoted 1 the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself, "^ 
promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He o-as 
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 b . 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 fall 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 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 2 ? And He, on the other hand, 2 vid. 
if now promoted, how did He before rejoice in the presence 30 rov 
of the Father? And, if He received His worship after dying, 
how is Abraham seen to worship Him in the tent 3 , and Moses 3 p. 120, 
in the bush? and, as Daniel saw, myriads of myriads, and n 
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, with3o}\ni7, 
the glory which 1 had with Thee before the world was. If, as 
they say, He was then exalted, how did He before that bow Vs. 18, 
the heavens and come down; and again, the Highest gave His 
thunder? Therefore, if, even before the world was made, the 



b The Arians perhaps more than be interpreted if it is to serve as an 

other heretics were remarkable for objection, was an objection also to the 

bringing objections against the received received doctrine of the Arians. They 

view, rather than forming a consistent considered that our Lord was above 

theory of their own. Indeed the very and before all creatures from the first, 

vigour and success of their assault and their Creator; how then could He 

upon the truth lay in its being a mere be exalted above all ? They surely, as 

assault, not a positive and substantive much as Catholics, were obliged to 

teaching. They therefore, even more explain it of our Lord s manhood, 

than other?, might fairly be urged on They could not then use it as a weapon 

to the consequences of their positions, against the Church, until they took the 

Now the text in question, as it must ground of Paul of Samosata, 



236 OUT Lord not exalted, but a cause and standard for us. 



Disc. Son had that glory, and was Lord of glory and the Highest, 

_ L_ and descended from heaven, and is ever to be worshipped, it 
follows that He had no promotion from His descent, but 
rather Himself promoted the things which needed pro 
motion; 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 made men gods, by becoming Himself man. 

. 39. 3. Therefore He was not man, and then become God, but 

1 flee- He was God, and then became man, and that to make us gods 1 . 

4*$ 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 

P?. 81, sa ys of many, God standeth in the congregation of gods,) it is 

Sept. plain that He is called Son and God later than they. How 
then are all things through Him, and He before all ? or how 

Col. 1, is ^Q first-born of the whole creation*, if He has others before 
Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those 
rs partakers do not partake of the Word? This opinion 
is not true ; it is an evasion of our present Judaizers. For 
how in that case can any at all know God as their Father ? 
for adoption there cannot be apart from the real Son, who 

Mat.il,says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to 
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. And how can there be 
deifying apart from the Word and before Him ? yet, saith 

John 10, He to their brethren the Jews, If He called them gods, unto 
whom the Word of God came. 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 
IB, Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son 3 , 
and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving 
these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being 



2 via. 
infr. 11 



27. 



35 



note o. 



e 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 v< 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. 



The text itself entered into. 237 

something else beside ! them, but being all these by nature and CHAP. 
according to substance. For He is Offspring of the Father s - -J 
substance, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance re f. 4. 
of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable. 

4. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the . 40. 
true conceptions 1 implied in the Word " Son," as the Lord 
Himself has given us. But it will be well next to expound 
the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and 
His unchangeable nature, which is the Father s 2 , as well as 2 "7n- 
their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The * * 
Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Let /7s phil - 2 > 
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus ; who, 
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and 
took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made 
in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as 
a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient to 
death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also 
hatli highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is 
above every name; that at 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. 
Can any thing be plainer. and more express than this? He 
was not from a lower state promoted; but rather, existing as 
God, He took the form o f a servant, and in taking it, did not 
promote but humbled Himself. Where then is there here 
any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion 
in such 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 3 ? 3 fyoios 

5. Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition; nor i 
such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word didP- 
descend in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet p . 210, 
what need was there that He should humble Himself, ref - 3 



TCUS svvoiais xP^ ei/OJ > "^P^s ras irapdvoia Se imXXov, <fec. Basil, ccntr. 
airr)vr^(To.fji.ev. cf. ov%l eirivoia, Eunom. i. 6. init. 



238 The true ecclesiastical sense of the text. 

as if to seek that which He had already ? And what grace 
did He receive who is the Giver of grace 1 ? or how did He 
note q. receive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by 
His Name ? Nay, certainly before He became man, the 
Ps. 54,1. sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, God, for Thy Names 
Ps.20,7- sake ; and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some 
in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our 
God. And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, con- 
Heb. 1, cerning the Angels it is written, Let all the Angels of God 
^j worship Him. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His 
Ps. 71, Name remainelh before the sun, and before the moon from 
/ one ff ertera ^ on t another, 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 ? 

John i, 6. It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery 6 . 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. And the term in question, highly exalted, 
does not signify that the substance of the Word was exalted, 
Phil. 2, f or jj e was ever an( j j s e q ua l IQ God, 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 
2 <5 &v- said because of it. For of this was man s 2 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 a 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 

e Scripture is full of mysteries, but manner S. Ambrose says, Mare est 

they are mysteries of fact, not of words, sciiptura divina, habens in se sensus 

Its dark sayings or eenigmata are such, profundos, et altitudinem propheticorum 

because in the nature of things they cenigmatum, &c. Ep. ii. 3 "What is 

cannot be expressed clearly. Hence commonly called " explaining away" 

contrariwise, Orat. ii. . 77 fin. he Scripture, is this transference of the 

calls Prov. 8, 22. an enigma, with an obscurity from the subject to the words 

allusion to Prov. 1, 6. Sept. In like used. 



He is exalted, that is, in respect of His manhood. 239 

we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we Disc, 
might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and l 
ascending into heaven, whither the forerunner is for wsHeb. 6, 
entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven^ 9 
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. 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 also 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 Him 
self 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 f ; 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 Ps.24,7. 
heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and 
the King of Glory shall come in. For here also not on Him 
were shut the gates, who is Lord and Maker of all, but be 
cause 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, O ye gates y 
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, p s . 88, 
for Thou art the glory of their strength. And if the Son be [f 
Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in 
need, but it is we who are exalted in that Righteousness, L 

1 1 TT r * * 

which is He. 30. 

7. And so too the words gave Him, are not written for the 42. 
Word Himself; for even before He became man, He was 

f When Scripture says that our Lord God ; it is unmeaning, and therefore is 

was exalted, it means in that sense in not applied to Him in the text in ques- 

which He could be exalted; just as, in tion. Thus, e. g. S. Ambrose: " Ubi 

saying that a man walks or eats, we humiliatus, ibi obediens. Ex eo enim 

speak of him not as a spirit, but as in nascitnr obedientia, ex quo humilitas, 

that system of things to which the ideas et in eo desinit, &C-" ap. Dav. alt. 

of walking and eating belong. Exalt- n. 39. 
ation is not a word which can belong to 



240 Mali s nature is exalted in the Word and worshipped. 

Disc, worshipped, as we have said, by the Angels and the whole 
17^7^ ; creation in what is proper 1 to the Father; but because of us 
rpiK^v and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died 
T7?Ta and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, 
as God, He ever had, that even this so high a grant of grace 
might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in re 
ceiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but 

2 <f0eo- rather He deified 2 that which He put on, nay, gave it graciously 
ro^<nv to ^ race ^ maru -p or as jj e wa eyer wors hipped as being 

the Word and existing in the form of God, so being what He 
ever was, though become man and called Jesus, He still has, as 
before, 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, hath 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 the 
prey of death, 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 are not startled at seeing all of us, who are 

3 infr. of one body with Him 3 , introduced into their realms. And 
p. 24^1 . ^is na( ^ not been, unless He who existed in the form of God 

had taken on Him a servant s form, and had humbled Him 
self, permitting His body to reach unto death. 

. 43. 8. 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 
foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the 
Father of the Christ. And the delusion of demons is come 
to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped 
in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For in that the 
Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, 
was worshipped and believed to be God s Son, and that 

*j\6yos through Him the Father was known, it is plain, as has 

. 4*4 ,47, been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word 4 , 

48. 



The Person of the Word humbled and mans nature exalted. 241 



received this so great grace, but* we. For because of our CHAP. 

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 g . As also John 
saith in the Gospel, As many as received Him, to them gave John i, 
He power to become children of God; and in his Epistle 
he writes, By this we knoiv that He abideth in us by His i Johns, 

,-* - 

Spirit which He hath given us. 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 behalf 
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, 
and took a servant s form, putting on that flesh which was 
enslaved to sin h . And He indeed gained nothing from us for 



24. 



^ OVTUS ev v/jui/ 6 6e6s. 1 Cor. 14, 25. 
A than, interprets eV in not among ; as 
also in 1 John 3, 24. just afterwards. Vid. 
tV 6>>t. Gal. 1, 24. eVrbs v^Ssv. Luke 17, 
2 l.fffK fjvwa-evevrifjLiv. John l,14.on which 
text Hocker 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 pas 
sage to the text, " Man in common is 
crowned withglory and honour, and glory 
and honour and peace is reserved in the 
promises for every one that doeth good. 
And there is a certain glory of Israel 
peculiar, and the Psalmist speaks of a 
glory of his own, Awake up my glory; 
and there is a glory of the sun, and 
according to the Apostle even a minis 
tration of condemnation with glory. So 
many then being glorified, choose you 
that the Spirit alone of all should be 
without glory ?" de Sp. S. c. 24. 

b 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 else 
where," Had not sinlessness appeared in 
the nature which had sinned, how was 
sin condemned in the flesh? in A poll. 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 cor 
ruption, c For by this means, 

might sin in oar flesh become dead." 
Ep ad Success, i. p. 138. And S. Leo, 
" Non alterius naturae erat ejus caro 
quam nostra, nee alio illi quam cceteris 
hominibus anima est inspirata princi- 
pio, quse excelleret, non diversitate 
generis, sed sublimitate virtutis." Ep. 
35 fin. vid. also Ep. 28. 3. Ep. 31.2. 
Ep. 165. 9. Serin. 22. 2. and 25. 6. 
It may be asked whether this doctrine 
does not interfere with that of the imma 
culate conception ; 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 V irgin, 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 tak<. n our nature without 



U 



24*2 God the Word exalted in such sense as He was humbled; 

Disc. His own promotion 1 : for the Word of God is without want 
and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He 



. 

, ex- is the Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the 



9. And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunc 
tion wherefore, because Paul has said, Wherefore hath God 
highly exalted Him. For in saying this he did not imply 
- all y prize of virtue, nor the promotion from advance 2 , but 
tern al " the cause why the exaltation was bestowed upon us. And 
advance wnat j s t hj s j, ut t ] iat f[e who existed in form of God, the Son 

T UKG 2 

52. of a divine 8 Father, humbled Himself and became a servant 

3 6 T y ~ instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not 

vovs 

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. 10. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, 

4 fKK\Tj- a very ecclesiastical sense 4 . However, there is another way 
(r ao " rt ." in which one might remark upon it, giving the same sense 
Serap. in a parallel way; viz. that, though it does not speak of the 
contf." exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word 5 , (for 
Gent. 6. He is, as was just now said, most high and like His Father,) 
5 6rat.ii. yet by reason of His incarnation it alludes to His resurrection 
8t from the dead. For after saying, He hath humbled Himself 

even unto death, He immediately added, Wherefore He 

partaking our sinfulness ; but if sin he, Anton. 20.) " not as if," he says, " the 

as it is, a fault of the will, then the devil wrought in man a nature, (God 

Divine Power of the Wod could for hid!) for of a nature the devil cannot 

sanctify the human will, and keep it be maker (8r)fj.iovpybs) as is the impiety 

from swerving in the direction of evil, of the JVJanichees, but he wrought a 

Hence S. Austin says, ** We say not bias of nature by transgression, and so 

that Christ by the felicity of a flesh death reigned overall men. Where- 

separated from sense could not feel the lore, saith He, l the Son of God came 

desire of sin, but that by perfection of to destroy the works of the devil ; 

virtue, arid by a flesh not begotten what works ? that nature, which God 

through concupiscence of the flesh, He made sinless, and the devil biassed to 

had not the desire of sin." Op Imperf. the transgression of God s command and 

iv.48. On the other hand, S Athanasius the finding out of sin which is death, 

expressly calls it Manicbean doctrine did God the Word raise again, so as to 

to consider, ryv (pvaiv of the flesh a/j.ap- be secure from the devil s bias and the 

new, Kal OVT^V irpa^iv. contr. Apoll.i. 12 finding out of sin. And therefore the 

fin. or fyvffiKty efi/cu r^ivap-apTiav. ibid. i. Lord said, The prince of this world 

14 fin. His argument in the next ch. is cometh and findeth nothing in Me. 

on the ground that ail natures are from vid. al*o . 19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of 

God, but God made man upright, nor the devil having introduced the (aw of 

is the author of e\il; ^vid. also Vit. sin." vid also . 9. 



viz. in the body, on the Resurrection, because He was God. 243 

hath highly exalted Him; wishing to shew, that, although CHAP. 
as man He is said to have died, yet, as being Life, He was - XI> 
exalted on the resurrection ; for He who descended., is the Eph. 4, 
same also who rose again. He descended in body, and He ^ a 
rose again because He was God Himself in the body. And this <"& ; 
again is the reason why according to this meaning He brought pk s a " 
in the conjunction Wherefore ; not as a reward of virtue nor of rec - * 
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 Johu l, 
Word was made fleshy and this Man is said to be from 14 
heaven and heavenly 1 , because the Word descended from in 
heaven; wherefore He was not held under death. 
though He humbled Himself, suffering His own Body to reach 
unto death, in that it was capable 2 of death 1 , yet it 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 St. Peter s words in the Acts, Whom Acts 2, 
God raised up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it 
was not possible that He should be holden of it. 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 

1 It was a point in controversy with placed Himself under those laws, and 
the extreme Monophysites, that is, the died naturally, vid. Athan. contr. Apoll. 
Eutychians, whether our Lord s body i. 17. and that after the resurrection 
was naturally subject to death, the Ca- His body became incorruptible, not 
tbolics mafhTaining the affirmative, as according to nature, but by grace, vid. 
Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. 
that our Lord had not a human nature, Flodeg c. 23. To express their doc- 
by which he meant among other things trine of the vrreptyves of our Lord s man- 
that His manhood was not subject to hood the Eutychians made use of the 
the laws of a body, but so far as He Catholic expression " ut voluit." vid. 
submitted to them, did so by an act of Athan. 1. c. Eutyches ap. Leon, 
will in each particular case ; and this, Ep. 21. " quomodo voluit et scit," 
lest it should seem that He was moved by twice, vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. jj. 
the Trde-n against His will aKovffiws; and p. 105. Leont. contr. Nest. i. p. 967. 
consequently that His manhood was not Pseudo- Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Hser. 
subject to death. But the Catholics . 8. (t. 2. p. 570.) 
maintained that He had voluntarily 

R 2 



244 What belongs to the manhood, belongs to thePerson of the Word. 

Disc. 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 prosper in this matter ; 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. 11. But since He Himself is said to be exalted, and God gave 
1 e Aar- Him, and the heretics think this a defect 1 or affection in the 
Adelph. substance k 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, on the other hand, death 
is ascribed to Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it 
was His Body 1 , 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 sins of 

k At first sight it would seem as if not to confess the Word s body, (or 
St. Athacasius here used ovaia substance the body of God in the Person of the 
for subsistence, or person ; but this is Word,) the Word s death, (as Athan. 
not true except with an explanation, in the text,) the Word s exaltation, and 
Its direct meaning is here, as usual, sub- the Word s, or God s Mother, who was 
stance, though indirectly to come to in consequence called Of6roKos, which 
imply subsistence. He is speaking of was the expression on which the con- 
that Divine Essence which, though also troversy mainly turned. "The God- 
the Almighty Father s, is as simply head," says Athan. elsewhere, " dwelt 
and entirely the Word s as if it were in the flesh bodily; which is all one 
only His. Nay, even when the Sub- with saying, that, being God, He had 
stance of the Father is spoken of in a a proper body, ISioj/, and using this as an 
sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in instrument, opydvcp, He became man, 
the phrase ovaia f^ovffias, harsh as such for our sake?; and because of this 
expressions are, it is not accurate to things proper to the flesh are said to be 
say that ovarta is used for subsistence or His, since He was in it, as hunger, 
person, or that two ovaiai are spoken of. thirst, suffering, fatigue, and the like, 
(vid. supr. p. 155, note f.) except, that of which the flesh is capable, S^KTIK^ ; 
is, by Arians, as Eusebius, supr. p. 63, while the works proper to the Word 
note g. Just below we find (pvais rov Himself, as raising the dead, and restor- 
\6yov, . 51 init. ing sight to the blind, and curing the 
1 This was the question which came issue of blood, He did Hims \^ through 
into discussion in the Nestorian contro- his body, &c. " Orat. iii. 31. vid. the 
versy, when, as it was then expressed, whole passage, which is as precise as if 
all that took place in respect to the it had been written after the Nesto- 
Eternu.1 Word as man, belonged to His nan and Eutychian controversies, 
Person, and therefore might be predi- though without the technical words 
cated of Him ; so that it was heretical then adopted. 



The Word yices as God what He receives as man. 245 

men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and CHAP. 

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 shew that it is not the Father that hath become 
flesh, but it is His Word, who has become man, and has 
received 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, that the grace which the Son gives from the Father, 
that the Son Himself is said to receive; and the exaltation, 
which the Son effects from the Father, with that, the Son is 
Himself exalted. For He who is the Son of God, He Himself 
became 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^ybr- 
His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. ^^ c 
For He received it as far as man s nature 1 was exalted; 
which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exalt 
ation the Word Himself always had according to the Father s vid. p. 
Godhead 2 and perfection, which was His. I45,m>te 



CHAP. XII. 

TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY, PSALM xlv. 7, 8. 

Whether the words " therefore," "anointed," &e. imply that the Word has 
been rewarded. Argued against first from the word " fellows" or " par 
takers." He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify 
human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when 
in the flesh. And 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. 

Disc. 1. SUCH an explanation of the Apostle s words, confutes the 
-,. \ft irreligious men; and what the Psalmist 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 righteous 
ness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Thy God, hath 
anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. 
Behold, O ye Arians, and acknowledge even hence the 
1 p.er6 truth. The Psalmist speaks of all us as fellows or partakers* 
of the Lord; but were He one of things which come out of 
nothing and of things generate, 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 
generated things, and He only the Father s veritable Word, 
p. 15, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all things generate partake 2 , 
note e. b e i n g sanctified by Him in the Spirit a ? And therefore He is 
here "anointed," not that He may become God, for He was 

a Tt is here said that all things gene- Principle of reason, as by Origen, 

rate partake the Son and are sanctified vid. ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. vid. him- 

by the Spirit. How a yevi Tjtm or adop- self, de Incarn. 11. These offices of 

tion through the Son is necessary for the Son and the Spirit are contrasted 

every creature in order to its? consist- by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. rbi/ irpocr- 

ence, life, or preservation, has been ex- TtirrovTa \6yov, rbv Sij/juovpyovvTa 

plained, supr. p. 32, note q. Sometimes \6yov, rb arepeovv Tr^ev/ua, &c. c. 16. 

the Son was considered as the special n. 38. 



Our Lord was anointed, as He was exalted, for us. 247 

so even before ; nor that He may become King, for He had CHAP. 
the Kingdom eternally, existing as God s Image, as the - : 
sacred Oracle shews ; but in our behalf is this written, as 
before. For the Israeli tish kings, upon their being anointed, 
then became kings, not being so before, as David, as Ezekias, 
as Josias, and the rest ; but the Saviour on the contrary, 
being God, and ever ruling in the Father s Kingdom, and 
being Himself the Dispenser of 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 1 of the Spirit. And signifying this the Lord ol K ^6 
Himself hath said by His own mouth in the Gospel accord 
ing to John, / have sent them into the world, and for their 3d\1i 
sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in 
the truth 2 . In saying this He has shewn that He is not the 2 vi( |- 
sanctified, but the Sanctifier ; for He is not sanctified b 



other, but Himself sanctifies Himself, that we may be 20 * 
sanctified in the truth. He who sanctifies Himself is Lord 
of sanctifi cation. How then does this take place ? What 
does He mean but this? "I, being the Father s Word, I 
give to Myself, when become man, the Spirit; and Myself, 
become man, do I sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me, 
who am Truth, (ftp- Thy Word is Truth,) all may be 
sanctified." 

2. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does . 47. 
this when He becomes 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 pro 
motion 3 to the Word, but again for our sanctification, that 3 eVl 
we might share His anointing, and of us it might be said, ff t 
Know ye not that ye are God s Temple, and the Spirit q/ iCor. 3, 
God dwelleth in you? For when the Lord, as man, was 
washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and 
by Him 4 . And when He received the Spirit, we it was who 4p " se > r 

J on Bap- 

by Him were made recipients of It. And moreover for this tism, 2d 

reason, not as Aaron or David or the rest, was He anointed ^Jj p * 
with oil, but in another way above all His fellows, with the 293. 
oil of gladness ; which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, 
saying by the Prophet, The. Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, lai. 61, 



248 The Christ is the man anointed by the Word. 

Disc, because the Lord hath anointed Me; as also the Apostle 
has said, Hoiv God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost. 



38. t8> 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 

JohniG, said, The Spirit shall take of Mine; and I will send Him; 

2 ) 22 anc ^ to His disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 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 

1 John the unction and the seal, John saying, And ye have an 

Fph i , unction from the Holy One ; and the Apostle, And ye were 

]3 - sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Therefore because 

of us and for us are these words. 

3. 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 ever 
lasting, 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 
i p. 240, as the Word 1 and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit 
ref 4 which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him 
which is anointed in Him and by Him b ; that the sanctifi- 

b Elsewhere Athan. says that our sanctifying by an energy as the other 
Lord s Godhead was the immediate Christs [anointed] but by a presence 
anointing or chrism of the manhood He of Him whole who anointed, 6\ov rov 
assumed. " God needed not the anoint- -^p .ovros ; whence it came to pass that 
ing, nor was the anointing made without what anointed was called man and what 
God ; but God b lth applied it, and also was anointed was made God." Orat. 30. 
received it in that body which was 20. " He Himself anointed Himself; 
capable of it." in Apollin. ii. 3. and rb anointing as God the body with His God- 
Xp"ifffj.a e-yw 6 \6yos, rb 5e xpicrQ\v vit head, and anointed as man." Damasc. 
f/j.ov 6 &v9f><i)iros. Orat. iv. . 36. vid. F. O. iii. 3. Dei Filius, sicut pluvia in 
Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. vellus,totodivinitatisunguentonostram 
Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and sefudit in carnem. Chrysolog. Serm.60. 
from the same text as Athan. "The It is more common, however, to con- 
Father anointed Him with the oil of siderthat the anointing was the descent 
gladness above His fellows, anointing of the Spirit, as Athan. says at the 
the manhood with the Godhead." Orat. beginning of this section, according to 
x. tin. Again, " This [the Godhead] Luke iv. 18. Acts x. 38. 
is the anointing of the manhood, not 



The Word 9 before His incarnation, dispensed the Spirit. 249 

cation coming to the Lord as man, may come to all men CHAP. 
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 
robbery to be equal with God, but humbled 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 c smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia /p s . 45 
and it is represented by Nicodemus and by Mary s company, 9 
when he came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about J hni9, 
an hundred pounds weight ; and they the spices which they ^ 9 - 
had prepared for the burial of the Lord s body. 1. 

4. What advancement 1 then was it to the Immortal to * 4^ 
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 tem 
poral, 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 pro 
moted, as rescued from sin; but He is the same 2 : nor didap. 23, 
He alter, when He became man, (to repeat what I have ? f te a * 
said,) but, as has been written, The Word of God abidethfor^. 51. 
ever. Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the Word, 
dispensed to the saints the Spirit as His own 3 , so also when but 
made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit and says to His 3 p. ^ 
Disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And He gave to note c - 
Moses and the other seventy; and through Him David 
prayed to the Father, saying, Take not Thy Holy Spirit from p s 5I 
me. On the other hand, when made man, He said, I will ]} - 
send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth ; and He sent 26. 
Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful. 



c Our Lord s manhood is spoken of the high priest s garment, but remain- 
as a garment; more distinctly after- ing the same, was but clothed cfec. Orat 
wards, " As Aaron was himself, and ii. 8. On the Apollinarian abuse of 
did not change on putting round him the idea, vid. note in loc. 



250 Man s nature changed in the Unchangeable Word. 

isc, ^ Therefore Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, 
_TT an d f or ever, remaining unalterable, and at once gives and 
8. 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 d 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 bap 
tized, we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all these 
things the Saviour throws much light, when He says to the 
John 17, Father, And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given 
to them, that they may be one, even as We are one. 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 
Cyril, might be given, and we might be exalted, in Him; as also for 
us He sanctifies Himself, that we might be sanctified in Him 1 . 



Thesaur. 
20. p. 
197. 



d The word origin, apx^l, implies the 
doctrine, more fully brought out in other 
passages of the Fathers, that our Lord 
has deigned to become an instrumental 
cause, asitmaybecalled,of the life ofeach 
individual Christian. For at first sight it 
may be objected to the whole course of 
Athan. s argument thus; What con 
nection is there between the sanctifica- 
tion of Christ s manhood and ours ? how 
does it prove that human nature is sancti 
fied because a particular specimen of it 
was sanctified in Him? S. Chrysostom 
explains; "He is born of our substance: 
you will say, This does not pertain to 
all; yea, to all. He mingles (avafj.iy- 
vvffiv) Himself with the faithful indivi 
dually, through the mysteries, and whom 
He has begotten those He nurses from 
Himself, not puts them out to other 
hands, "&c. Horn. 82. in Matt 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 (oLvatyvpti tavT bv fifuv) nor merely 
by faith, but really, has He made us 
His body. Again, "That we are com 
mingled (avaKepa(r6w/j.fv)into that flesh, 
not merely through love, but really, is 
brought about by means of that food 
which He has bestowed upon us." Horn. 
46. in Joann. 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 accord 
ing to the Law, therefore He has called, 
not H is own flesh the vine, but rather the 
Godhead?" in Joann. lO.ip. 863, 4. And 
Nyssen : " As they who have taken poi- 
son,destroyitsdeadlypowerbysomeother 
preparation .... so when we have tasted 
what destroys our nature, we have need 
of that instead which restores what was 

destroyed Put what is this? nothing 

else than that Pody which has been 
proved to be mightier than death, and 
was the beginning, KaTT?p|aTo, of ourlife. 
For a little leaven," &c. Orat. Catech. 
37. Decocta quasi per ollam carnis nos- 
trse cruditate, sanctificavit in seternum 
nobiscibumcarnemsuam.Paulin.Ep. 23. 
Of course in such statements nothing 
material is implied ; or, as 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 bor 
row 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. Athana- 
sius s in the text seems a mere matter 
of words, vid. infr. . 50 fin. 



The Word not anointed, and so God,- but God, and so anointed. 251 

6. But if they take advantage of the word wherefore, as CHAP. 
connected with the passage in the Psalm, Wherefore God, XI1 
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, " Where 
fore 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 1 we were made in the beginning; * p. 254, 
for Thine is even the Spirit." For the nature of things nc 
generate could give no warranty for this, Angels having 
transgressed, and men disobeyed 6 . 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 2 . ^ ^ 
But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is ever 
lasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression of the Heb - ] > 
Father, wherefore 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 f . And this is the cause of 

e ayyeXow fjikv ira.pa$6.vT<av, avQp&Trwv should become the Son of man. His 

Se TrapaKovffdvTcav. vid. infr. .51 init. Throne, as God, is for ever; He has 

And so ad Afr. 7. dyyeAajp /j.ev ira- loved righteousness; therefore He is 

pafidi Twi , rov Se ASi/i irapaKova-avTos, equal to the anointing of the Spirit, as 

where the inference is added more man. And so S. Cyril on the same 

distinctly, " ard all creatures need- text, as in 1. c. in the foregoing note, 

ing the grace of the Word," who is " In this ineffable unity of the Trinity, 

&TpeiTTos, whereas rpeTrra fk yev-nrd. whose words and judgments are common 

vid. supr. p. 32, note q. vid. infr. in all, the Person of the Son has fitly 

Orat. ii. iii. Cyril, in Joann. lib. v. 2. undertaken to repair the race of man, 

On the subject of the sins of Angels, that, since He it is by whom all things 

vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. . 16. Petav. were made, and without whom nothing 

Dogm. t. 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in is made, and who breathed the truth of 

Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist, rational life into men fashioned of the 

vEt. i. Diss. 7. dust of the earth, so He too should re- 

f The word wherefore is here declared store to its lost dignity our nature thus 

to denote l\ie fitness why the Son of God fallen from the citadel of eternity, and 



252 The Word gave His flesh the Spirit, and it did miracles. 

Disc, the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate 
- presence of the Words; which the Psalmist foreseeing, cele 
brates, first His Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father s, 

Ps. 45,5. in these tones, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a 
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom; then, 

v. 8. announces His descent to us thus, Wherefore God, even Thy 
God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy 
fellows. 

. 50. 7. 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 

Mat. 1 2, of their blasphemy, But if I through the Spirit of God cast 
out devils. Behold, the Giver of the Spirit here says that 
He cast out devils 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 devils, but only in power of the Spirit, 
therefore as man He said, But if I tltrough the Spirit of 
God cast out devils. Of course too He signified that the blas 
phemy offered to the Holy Ghost is greater than that against 

ib. v. 32. His humanity, when He said, Whosoever shall speak a word 
against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; such as 

Mai. is, were those who said, Is not this the carpenter s son ? but 
they who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe 
the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have inevitable 
punishment 11 . This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews, as 



55. 



should be the reformer of that of which 
He had been the maker." Leon. Ep. 64. 
2. vid. Athan. de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. 
In Illud omn. 2. Cyril, in Gen. i. p. 13. 

s tvffapKos Trapovffia. This phrase 
which has occurred above, .8. p. 190, 
is very frequent with Athan. vid. infr. 
. 53/59, 62 fin. ii. 6. 10, 55, 66 twice, 
72 fin. iii. 28, 35. Incarn. 20. Sent. D. 
9. Ep. ^Eg. 4. Serap. i. 3, 9. vid. also 
Cyril. Catech. iii. 11. xii. 15. xiv. 27, 
30. Epiph. User. 77. 17. The Euty- 
chians avail themselves of it at the 
Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard. 
Cone. t. 2. pp. 164, 236. 

h He enters into the explanation of 
this text at some length in Serap. iv. 



8. &c. Origen, he says, and Theo- 
gnostus understand the sin against the 
Holy Ghost to be apostasy from the grace 
of Baptism, referring to Heb. vi. 4. So 
far the two agree ; but Origen went on 
to say, that the proper power or virtue 
of the Son extends over rational natures 
alone, e. g. heathens, but that of the 
Spirit only over Christians ; those then 
who sin against the Son or their rea 
son, have a remedy in Christianity and 
its baptism,butnothing remains for those 
who sin against the Spirit. But Theo- 
gnostus, referring to the text, " I have 
many things to say but ye cannot bear 
them now ; howbeit when He, the 
Spirit of Truth," &c, argued that to sin 



Men receive the Spirit through His flesh. 253 

man ; but to the disciples shewing His Godhead and His CHAP. 
majesty, and intimating that He was not inferior hut equal 
to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, Receive ye the John 20, 
Holy Ghost, and / send Him, and He shall glorify Me, and 16 13 
Whatsoever He heareth, that He shall speak. As then in this 14 
place the Lord Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, does not 
refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts out devils, 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 Is.6i, 1. 
He hath anointed Me, 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 sanctifi cation, and again who are unable to cast out devils 
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, had 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 1 , and He being said, as man, to have 1 p. 260, 
received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit s grace, nc 
receiving out of His fulness. J ^ n * > 

8. Nor do the words, Thou hast loved righteousness and& 51. 
hated iniquity, which are added in the Psalm, shew, 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 generate 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, 

against the Son was to sin against in- And then he goes on to give the same 
ferior light, but against the Spirit was interpretation as here in the text, as a 
to reject the full truth of the Gospel, passage of great force and beauty. 



254 The flesh made superior to the Serpent in the Word. 

Disc, soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there was here also 
need of one unalterable, that men might have the im 
mutability of the righteousness of the Word as an image 
and type for virtue 1 . 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 assaults 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 
2 Cor. extend through all men, so that each of us may say, For we 
are not ignorant of his devices. Good reason then that the 
Lord, who ever is in nature unalterable, loving righteousness 
and hating iniquity, should be anointed and Himself sent on 
1 P. 249, mission, that, He, being and remaining the same 1 , by taking 
Rom 8 ^is alterable flesh, might condemn sin in it, and might secure 
3 - its freedom, and its ability k henceforth to fulfil the righteous- 
v. 9. ness 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. 

. 52. 9. 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 ! , but as the Father is ; since how is He like 

1 Vid. Athan. de Incarn. 13. 14. vid. tothebody .Then, had he been again 

also Gent. 41 fin. and supr. p. 29, note k. seduced by the serpent, a second need 

Cum justitia nulla esset in terra, doc- had arisen of God s commanding and 

torem misit, quasi vivam legem. Lac- undoing the curse; and this had gone 

tant. Instit. iv. 25. " The Only-begotten on without limit, and men had remained 

was made man like us,. .. .as if lending under guilt just as before, being in 

us His own stedfastness." Cyril, in slavery to sin ; and ever sinning, they 

Joann. lib. v. 2. p. 473. vid. also The- had ever needed pardon, and never 

saur. 20. p. 198. August, de Corr. et been made free, being in themselves 

Grat. 10 12. Damasc. F.O. iv. 4. But carnal, and ever defeated by the Law 

the words of Athan. embrace too many by reason of the infirmity of the flesh." 

subjects to illustrate distinctly in a Orat. ii. 68. And so in Incarn. 7. he 

note. says that repentance might have beeft 

k " Without His sojourning here at pertinent, had man merely offended, 

all, God was able to speak the Word without corruption following ; but that 

only and undo the curse but then the that corruption involved the necessity 

power indeed of Him who gave command of the Word s vicarious sufferings and 

had been shewn, but man had been but intercessory office, 
such as Adam before the fall, receiving a.Tr\S>s. OVK air\cos wpiffdi/i, oAA 

grace from without, not having it united aKpiftus e|7jTc<r(hj. Socr. i. 9. p. 31. 



Loving right and hating wrong implies not choice or trial. 255 

the Father, unless He be thus ? or how is all that is the CHAP. 
Father s, the Son s also, if He has not the unalterableness ^-j^j 
and unchangeableness of the Father 1 ? Not as being subject 17, 10. 
to laws" 1 , and as influenced this way and that, does He love J. e p f ^ 31 
this and hate that, lest, if from fear of forfeiture He chooses 
the opposite, we admit in another way that He is alterable ; 
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 acconut He is said to love 
righteousness and to hate iniquity ; as much as to say, that 
He loves and takes to Him the virtuous, and rejects and 
hates the unrighteous. And divine Scripture says the same 
of the Father; The Righteous Lord loveth righteousness : P* .11,8. 
Thou hatest all them that work iniquity; and, The Lord loveth 37, i. 
the gates of Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob; and, 
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated; and in Esaias, Mai. i, 
there is the voice of God again saying, / the Lord ^ Ove i s 3 6 \ 8 
righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness. Let 
them then expound those former words as these latter ; for 
the former also are written of the Image of God: else, misin 
terpreting 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 influenced this way and that, and capable of the contrary, 
selecting one thing and not choosing another, for this belongs 
to things generated, 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" of their 
own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, 
and here too from want of understanding, according to their 

m Euuomius said that our Lord was were in bondage under the decrees of 

utterly separate from the Father, " by necessity." contr. Eunom. ii. 30. 

natural law," vApy (pixrews ; S.Basil n tvvoi&v iw.\\ov $e irapavaiiav. vid.p. 

observes, " as if the God of all had not 237, note d. And so /car e-nivoiav, a\- 

power over Himself, eauToG Ktipios, but Aa fj.u\\6v effnv air6voia. Orat. ii. . 38. 



250 The Arians rested, not on Scripture, but on a priori notions. 

Disc, wont, they discern not their meaning ; but laying down their 

own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation , they wrest 

the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it. And 

so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing 



Mat.22, k u t the reply, Ye do err t not knowing the Scriptures nor the 
power of God; and if they persist in it, they must be put to 

v. 21. silence, by the words, Render to man the things that are 
man s, and to God the things that are God s. 

iSiav. vid. p. 233, note a. p. 257, they make the whole controversy turn. 

ref. 4. iStcav KO.KOVOIUV, Orat. ii. . 18. Vid. Socrates s account of Arius s 

Instead of professing to examine Scrip- commencement, " If God has a Son, 

ture or to acquiesce in what they he must have a beginning of ex- 

had been taught, the Arians were re- istence," &c. &*c. and so the word 

markable for insisting on certain ab- aytvr}T6v. 
stract positions oj inferences on which 



CHAP. 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 
JEterual Father. 

1. BUT it is written, say they, in the Proverbs, The Lord CHAP. 
created Me the beginning of His ways, for His works ! 




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. Orat. if. 
And soon after, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of thei 2 L9 ~~ 
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest o/Heb. 1, 
our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that ^^ 3 
appointed Him*. And in the Acts, Therefore .let all the*- 
house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that Orat. ii. 
same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ 3 . f ^"j" 1 ! * 
These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking Orat. ii. 
their sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of \ $ m 
God was a creature and work and one of things generate ; ^ cts ? 
and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language 
of Scripture their pretence, but instead of the true sense 
sowing 4 upon it the poison of their own 5 heresy. For had 4 p. 5, 
they known, .they would .not have been irreligious against the 



Lord of glory, nor have wrested the good words of Scripture. ] Cor - 2 
If then henceforward openly adopting Caiaphas s way, they 



258 Each Scripture given under circumstances 

Disc, have determined on judaizing, and are ignorant of the text, 
that verily God shall dwell upon the earth, let them not 



i Kings inquire into the Apostolical sayings ; for they were out of place 
z*ech.*2 w ^h Jews. Or, if mixing themselves up with the godless 
10 .Bar. Manichees a , they deny that the Word was made flesh, and 

1 p. 252, His incarnate presence 1 , then let them not bring forward the 
note g. p rover h Sj for this is out of place with the Manichees. But if 

2 P- 19 ifor preferment-sake, and the lucre of avarice which follows 2 , 
note c. r 

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 

3 eVo-w- embodied 3 presence of the Saviour, or, if they deny their 

sense, let them deny too that the Lord became man. 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. 2. Thus, 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 

4 p. 22, of which the Apostle wrote, and the person 4 , and the point; lest 

e z the reader, from ignorance missing either these or any similar 

particular, may be wide of the true sense. This understood that 

Acts 8, inquiring eunuch, when he thus besought Philip, I pray thee, 

of whom doth the Prophet speak this? of himself, or of some 

other man? for he feared lest, expounding the lesson unsuit 

ably to the person, he should wander from the right sense. And 

the disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was foretold, 

Matt, besought the Lord, Tell us, said they, when shall these things 

be ? and what is the sign of Thy coming ? And again, hear 

ing from the Saviour the events of the end, they desired to 

learn the time of it, that they might be kept from error them 

selves, and might be able to teach others; as, for instance, 

vid. when they have learned, they set right the Thessalonians, who 

ilhess. were going wrong. When then one knows properly these 

2 Thess. points, his understanding of the faith is right and healthy ; 

but if he mistakes any such points, forthwith he falls into 

2 Tim. heresy. Thus the party of Hymenaeus and Alexander were 

i Tim. beside the time, when they said that the resurrection had 

1, 20. 

a Vid. the same contrast, de Syn. . 33. p. 130. supr. $. 8. p. 189. Orat. iv. $. 23. 



which the Arians neglect. 259 

already been ; and the Galatians were after the time, in CHAP. 

"5C TTT 

making much of circumcision now. And to miss the per 

son was the lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of 

one of themselves is said, Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, * * 4 * 



and bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, 23. 
which is being interpreted, God with us ; and that, A prophet Deut. 
shall the Lord your God raise up to you, is spoken of one of 
the Prophets ; and who, as to the words, He was led as a sheep Is. 53, 7 
to the slaughter, instead of learning from Philip, conjecture 
them spoken of Esaias or some other of the Prophets which 
have been b . 

3. Such has been the state of mind under which Christ s . 55. 
- enemies has fallen into their execrable heresy 1 . For had they 1 HV<TH- 
known the person, and the subject, and the season of the pa " 
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 passage. 
For the Apostle says, God who at sundry times and diverse Heb - > 
manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son; 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" 2 so much belter than the Angels, as He 
by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they. 
appears then that the Apostle s words make mention of 
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 Pro 
phets 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 



b The more common evasion on the tilment in Jeremiah, vid. Justin Tryph. 
part of the Jews was to interpret the 72. et al. Iren. Hser. iv. 33. Tertull. in 
prophecy of their own sufferings in Jud. 9. Cyptian. Testim. in Jud. ii. 13. 
captivity. It was an idea of Grotius Euseb. Dem. iii. 2. &c. 
that the prophecy received a first ful- 

S 2 



260 The Son is better than the Angels, that is, above them. 

Disc, 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 
kind 1 , but better is his word, by way of marking the 
6Q difference of the Son s nature from things generated. And 
- of this we have proof from divine Scripture ; David, for 
instance, saying in the Psalm, One day in Thy courts is 



above, belter than a thousand: and Solomon crying out, Receive 

loY my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than 

| r v. j 8 choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the 

things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. Are 

3 erepo- n t wisdom and stones of the earth different in substance 3 

ovffia anc ]_ separate 4 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 

j s 56 this is what Esaias says, Thus saifh the Lord unto the 

4 - 5 - eunuchs tliat keep My sabbaths, and choose the things that 

please Me, and take hold of My Covenant ; even unto them 

will 1 give in Mine house, and icithin My walls, a place and 

a name better than of sons and of daughters : 1 will give 

them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. In like 

manner there is nought akin between the Son and the 

Angels; so that the word better is not used to compare but 

5 ri aA- to contrast, because of the difference 5 of His nature from 

ACTT< v ^ nem> And therefore the Apostle also himself, when he 

interprets the word better, places its force in nothing short 

*8ia<pop5, of the Son s excellence 6 over things generated, 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 generate, but rather other than things generate, and 

proper to the Father, being in His bosom. 



Hv became better, that is, came to be through generation, 2(jl 

4. Nor c does even the expression become, which here CHAP, 
occurs, shew that the Son is generate, as ye suppose. If-?-LLL 
indeed it were simply becow-e 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 generate, so again not even 
the word become occurs absolutely d , but better is imme 
diately subjoined. For the writer thought the expression 
immaterial, knowing that in the case of one \vlio was con 
fessedly a genuine Son, to say become is the same with saying 
that He was generated, and that He is better. For it matters 
not though we speak of what is generate, as " become" or 
" made ;" but on the contrary, things generate cannot be 
Called generate, God s handiwork as they are, except so far 
as after their making they partake of the Son who is the true 
Generate, and are therefore said to have been generated also, 
not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation 
of the Son in the Spirit 6 . And this again divine Scripture 



c There is apparently much confu 
sion in the arrangement of the para 
graphs that follow; though the appear 
ance may perhaps ari.se from Athan. s 
incorporating some passage from a for 
mer work into his text. vid. p. -227, note 
d. It is easy to suggest alterations, but 
not any thing satisfactory. The same 
ideas are scattered about. Thus ffvyKpi- 
TiKcas occurs in n. 3. and n. 5. The 
Son s seat on the right, and Angels in 
ministry, n. 3. fin. n. 10. n. 11. " Pe- 
come" interpreted as "is generated and 
is." n. 4. and n. 11. The explanation 
of "become," n. 4. n. 9. n. II. n. 
14. The Word s eTriSTj^ii a is introduced 
in n. 7. and 8- Trapovcria being the more 
common word ; e-mSri/jiia occurs Orat. ii. 
. 67 init. Scrap, i. 9. Vid. however 
p. 268, notes n and o. If a change must 
be suggested, it would be to transfer 
n. 4. after n. 8. and n. 10. after n. 3. 

d ctTroAeAu/ieWs. vid. also Orat.ii. 54. 
62. iii. 22. Fasil. contr. Eunom. i. p. 
244. Cyril. Thesaur 25. p. 236. 5iAe- 
Au/ueVcoy. Orat. iv. 1. 

e In this translation, yevijThv and 
yevvrirbi/ have been considered as sy 
nonymous, in spite of such distinction 
in the reading, as Montfaucon adopts; 
and this under the impression that that 
distinction is of a later date, Athan. as 
Basil after him, apparently not recog 
nising it. The Platonists certainly 



spoke of the Almighty as a.y4vvr}Tos t and 
the world as yewrjrbs, and the Arians 
took advantage of this phraseology. If 
then Athan. did not admit it, he would 
naturally have said so; whereas his 
argument is, " True, the world or cre 
ation is yevvr)T})s, but only by /jieTovcria, 
as partaking of Him who is the one and 
only real yev^rbs, or Son." vid. p. 32, 
note q. That is, he does not dis 
criminate between two distinct ideas, 
" Son" and u creature 1 confused by a 
common name, but he admits their 
connection, only explains it ; or, to 
speak logically, instead of considering 
yfvvrjTbv and y^vr^r^v as equivocal words, 
he uses them as synonymous and one, 
with a primary and secondary meaning. 
Afterwards they were distinguished, p. 
226, note c. In like manner, our Lord 
is called fj.ovoywi)S Athan. speaks of the 
ytvfffis of human sons, and of the Divine, 
de Deer. .11. ane! in de tyn. . 47. he 
observes that S. Ignatius calls the Son 
yevrjrbs Kal o/yeVTjros, without a hint 
about the distinction of roots. Again, 
one of the original Arian positions was 
that our Lord was a y4vvt]fj.a dAA OVK &s 
ev r&v yvvri^a.T(tiv, which Athan. fre 
quently notices and combats, vid. Orat. 
ii. 19. But instead of answering it by 
substitutiog yevTjTaij , as if TrotTj^uctTajj/, for 
yWT]iJ.aT<av, he allows that yevi/r)fj.a tnay 
be taken as synonymous with /cT/a^a, 



262 The Son not compared to, but contrasted with, Angels. 

Disc recognises; for it not only says in the case of things generate, 

: All th m js came to be through Him, and, without Him there 

3. was not any thing made, and, In wisdom hast Thou made them 

Ps. 104, a n. kuj. j n {. ne case o f sons a] so which are generate, To. Job 

Job 1,3. there came seven sons and three daughters, and, Abraham was 

5> en<21> an hundred years old when there came to him Isaac his son ; 

and Moses said, If to any one there come sons. Therefore 

since the Son is other than things generate, alone the proper 

offspring of the Father s substance, this plea of the Arians 

about the word become is worth nothing. 

5. If moreover, bafnad so far, they should still violently insist 

that the language is that of comparison, and that comparison 

1 (5,uo- in consequence implies oneness of kind l , so that the Son is of 

f 2^ the nature of Angels, they will in the first place incur the 

ref. i. 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 f . Perchance 

it is under the instruction of these masters that they compare 

. 57. the Word of God with the Angels ; though surely amid 

such speculations, they will be moved by the Psalmist, 

Ps.89,7. saying, Who is he among the gods that shall be like unto 

Ps. 86,8. the Lord ? and, Among the gods there is none like unto 

Thee, O Lord. 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 com- 

and only argues that there is a special sage, that though Athan. does not dis- 

sense of it in which it applies to the tinguish between yevrjT^v and yewrjTbv, 

Word, not as one of a number, as the yet he considers yeyevvriaQai or yew-tipa 

Arians said, bui solely, incoramuni- as especially appropriate to the Son, 

cably, as being the p,oi>oyevf)s. In the ytyovevai and yev6fj.evos to the creation, 

passage before U*, which at first seems f These tenets and similar ones were 

to require the distinction, he does but common to many branches of the 

say, 1. that the Si.n is not yevrjrbs or Gno-tics, who paid worship to the An- 

yvvTf]rbs, * generate," i. e. in the gene- gels, or ascribed to them the creation ; 

ral sense; 2. that H is generated, ye- the doctrine of their consubstantiality 

yefr)ff8a.Loryyei V7J<rOai, asthe/xoj/o-yej/jjs; with our Lord arose from their belief 

3. that the yevTjra or yevvr]Ta. (creatures) in emanation. S. Athanasius here uses 

are csilled yevt]"ro. y or said yeyewri(rdai, the word ofj-oytv^s, not 6/j.ooixnos which 

as partakii g of the yei/prj-rbs vl6s. 4. that was usual with them, vid. Bull D. F. 

(in themselves) thc-v are properly said N. ii. 1. . 2. as with the Manichees 

yeyoveitai or irenoiriffOai. It may be after them, Beausobre, Manich iii. 8. 
admitted, as evidtnt even from this pas- 



The Son not greater, but better than the Angels. 263 
pared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now CHAP. 

-IT" -I T T 

in such cases we should not speak of belter, but of " rather" - 
and " more ;" thus Joseph was comely rather than his 
brethren, and Rachel than Leah; star 1 is not better than Orat. 
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 /^Heb. i, 
foundation of all things, he shews that He is other than " 
all things generate. But if He be other and different in 
substance 2 from their nature, what comparison of His sub- 2 * 7 ^ - 
stance 3 can there be, or what likeness to them? though, 3^144, 
even if they have any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, note k - 
who speaks to the very point, For unto which of the Angels Heb - > 
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 aflame of fire. Observe . 58. 
here, the word made belongs to things generate, 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, isv. 8. lo. 
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 generate, 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 generate by the issue to which they tend 4 . 4 p- 223, 
For things which admit of perishing, though through the 
grace 5 of their Maker they perish not, yet have come out of s p- 32 > 
nothing, and themselves witness that they once were not. 
And on this account, since their nature is such, it is said of 



264 The Father not better, but greater, than the Son. 

Disc, the Son, Thou remainest, to shew His eternity ; for not 
- having the capacity of perishing, as things generate 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 con 
cerning the Word. But since he has here expressly written 
it, and, as has been above shewn, the Son is Offspring of the 
Father s substance, 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 generate stand 
and serve in their place below the Trinity, therefore the Son 
is different in kind and different in substance from things 
generate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father s sub 
stance and one in nature to it g . And hence it is that the 
John 14, Son too says not, My Father is better than I, lest we should 
conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but greater, not 
indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His gene 
ration from the Father Himself h ; nay, in saying greater He 
again shews that He is proper to His substance. 
. 59. 7. And the Apostle s own reason for saying, so much 
better than the Angels, was not any wish in the first instance 
ip. 263, to compare the substance 1 of the Word to things generate, 
e [jo 3 62. (for He cannot be compared, rather they are incommeasur- 
64. ii. able,) but regarding the Word s visitation 2 in the flesh, arid 
the economy which He then sustained, He wished to shew 

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 1 . 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. 

g Here again is a remarkable a\>oid- Incarn. contr. Arian. 4. if it be bis. 

ance of the word o/xooiVtov. He says This text is thus taken by Basil, contr. 

that the Son is krepoyev^s KO\ erepoov- Eun. iv. p. 289. Naz. Orat. 30. 7. &c. 

(Tios T<av ytvvn Tiav, Kal rrjs TOV irarpbs &c. 

ovffias ftios Kal opotyvfis. vid. pp. 209, * He also applies this text to our 

210, notes d. e. Lord s economy and ministry, de Sent. 

h Athanrothei wise explains this text, D. 1 1. in Apoll. ii. 15. 



The Gospel excelled the Law, as the Son excels Angels. 

8. Certainly what the Apostle proceeds to say shews the GHAI. 
excellence of the Son over things generate ; Therefore ]IL 
we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which 13. 
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 salva 
tion ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and 
was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him. But if the 
Son were in the number of things generate, He was not better 
than they, nor did disobedience involve increase of punish 
ment 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 generate 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 generated, and 
alone the very Son in the Father and the Father in Him. 
And the Law k was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one, Heb. 7, 
needing the visitation of the Word, as Paul hath said; but jo nn j7 
that visitation has perfected the work of the Father. 4. 
And then, from Adam unto Moses death reigned; but thei 4 m 
presence of the Word abolished death. And no longer i n 2 Tim.i, 
Adam are we all dying; but in Christ we are all reviving, i Cor. 
And then, from Dan to Bersabe was the Law proclaimed, 22 
and in Judaea only was God known ; but now, unto all the vid - Ps. 
earth has gone forth their voice, and all the earth has been 19^ 
filled with the knowledge of God, and the disciples have 18 - 11 9 - 

made disciples of all the nations, and now is fulfilled what is Mat. 28, 

19. 

k Part of this chapter, as for instance places, as S. Leo, e. g. repeats himself 
n. 7, 8. is much more finished in point in another controversy. Athan. is so 
of style than the general course of his very eloquent and rich a writer when- 
Orations, it may be indeed only the ever he is led into comments upon 
natural consequence of his warming Scripture, that one almost regrets he 
with his subject, but this beautiful pas- had ever to adopt a controversial tone ; 
sage looks vtry much like an insertion, except indeed that Arianisrn has given 
Some words of it are found in Sent, occasion to those comments, and that 
D. Unwritten a few years sooner. He that tone is of course a lesson of doc- 
certainly transcribed himself in other trine to us, and therefore instructive. 



266 The Son became surety, that is, when He became man. 

Disc, written, They shall be all taught of God. And then what 

- was revealed, was but a type ; but now the truth has been 

manifested. And this again the Apostle himself describes 

John 6, afterwards more clearly, saying, By so much was Jesus made 

Is. 54, a surety of a better testament ; and again, But now hath He 

I?*, - obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is 

22. the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established 

H b 8 

6 upon better promises. And, For the Law made nothing 
Heb. 7, perfect^ but the bringing in of a better hope did. And again 
Heb. 9 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. 
Both in the verse before us then, and throughout, does he 
ascribe the word better to the Lord, who is better and other 
than generated 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 generated. 

. 60. 9. Moreover the words He is become surety 1 denotes the 

I y4yov ev pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being 

made, the Word, He became flesh, and become we ascribe to the 

John\ fl esn f r it i s generated and created, so do we here the 

14. 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 

2 p. 114, jjj s substance 2 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 
Rom. 8, better, in that what the Law could not do in that it was 

o 

weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the 

likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the 

Jlesh, ridding it of the trespass, in which, being continually 

held captive, it admitted not the Divine mind. And having 

3 Se/crt- rendered the flesh capable 3 of the Word, He made us walk, 
vi d. no longer according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, 
P260, an( j sa y a g a i n an d again, " But we are not in the flesh 



The Son so on the Father s right, that the Father on the Son s. 267 

but in the Spirit," and, "For the Son of God came in the CHAP. 
world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and y -j^~- 
that the world might be saved through Him." Formerly the 3, 17. 
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 1 . With a view to this, hath John exclaimed, The law John 1, 
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus 
Christ. Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the 
shadow. 

1 0. Better then, as has been said, could not have been brought .61. 
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 1 , and that the Godhead of the Father is the same IT *> 7"^- 
as the Son s 2 ? For in that the Son reigns in His Father s king- *u5 f 
dom, is seated upon the same throne as the Father, and is note r - 
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 hath He 
not His Father on the left 1 "; but, whatever is right 3 and 3 5e !^ 
precious in the Father, that also the Son has, and says, All 15. 
things that the Father hath are Mine. 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 1 shall not fall. 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 Heb - 

1 vid. Incarn. passim. Theod. Eranist. Ep. 28, 5. 

iii. pp. 196 198, c. &e. It was the m Nee ideotamen quasi humana forma 

tendency of all the heresies concerning circumscriptum esse Uemn Patrem ar- 

the Person of Christ to explain away bitranduin est, ut de illo ccgitantibus 

or deny the Atonement. The Arians, dextrum aut sinistrum latus animo oc- 

after the Platonists, insisted on the currat; aut id ipsum quod sedens Pater 

pre-existing Priesthood, as if the incar- dicitur, flexis poplitibus fieri putandum 

nation and crucifixion were not of its est, ne in illud incidamus sacrilegium, 

essence. The Apoliinarians resolved &c. August, de Fid. et Symb. 14. "Does 

the Incarnation into a manifestation, this passage of Athan. s shew that the 

Theod. Eran. i. The Nestorians de- Anthropomorphites were stirring in 

nied the Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. Egypt already? 
p. 615. And the Kutychians, Leont. 



The tvofd "become" marks the incarnation and ministry. 

tJisc. Angels of God worship Him. And when Angels minister, 
: they say, " I am sent unto thee," and, " The Lord has 



manded ;" but the Son, though He say in human fashion, 
vid. " I am sent," and comes to finish the work and to minister, 
4 ! nevertheless says, as being Word and Image, / am in /he 
Mark Father, and the Father in Me; and, He that, hath seen Me, 
John] 4, hath seen the Father 1 , , and, The Father that abideth in Me, 
i 10 ooo He doeth the works ; for what we behold in that linage, are 

P. ,/ZJ. 

note g. the Father s works. 

11. What has been already said ought to prevail with those 
persons who are fighting against the very truth; however, if, 
because it is written, become better, they refuse to explain 
become, as used of the Son, to be " has been generated and 
is n ," or again as referring to the better covenant having 
come to be , as we have said, but consider from this 
expression that the Word is called generate, let them hear 
the same again in a concise form, since they have forgotten 

. 62. w r hat has been said. 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 generate, 
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 

2 p. 69, used the word become of the substance 2 of the Word, but of 
the ministration come through Him ? For as, being the Word, 
He became Jlesh, 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 
generated things; and let them acknowledge that it is indi 
cative of His ministry and the economy which came to pass. 
12. But how He became better in His ministry, being 
* Of His divine nature, n. 4 __ n. 8. Of His human nature, n. 9. and ID. 



The Son became, as God becomes a defence. 269 

better in nature than things generate, appears from what has CHAP. 
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 prevail with 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, Ps.31,3. 
that Thou mayest save me. And again, The Lord became Ps * 9 > 9 - 
a defence for the oppressed, 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 generate, 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. 

13. But if they refer these passages to the Father, will they, 63, 
when it is here also written, " Become" and " He became," 
venture so far as to affirm that God is generate ? 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 
generated, 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 came to be afterwards through 
the Word, when the Father Himself willed it; and God is 
invisible and inaccessible to generated 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 fortli upon them with His beneficence, which He 
exercises through and in His proper Word. And forthwith 



270 God becomes all things to all, without change of nature; 

Disc, 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, 
Is. 58,9. While thou speakest I will say, Here I am. What 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 Abdias 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. As then, should one and the other 
of these benefitted 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 the substance of their 
benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to themselves 
from them, so also when the sacred writers say concerning 
God, He became and become Thou, they do not denote any 
original becoming, for God is unoriginate and not generate, 
but the salvation which is made to be unto men from 
Him. 

. 64. 14. 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 generate; but should understand 
Paul s words of His ministry and economy when He became 
John i, man. For when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us 
and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He 
became to us salvation, and became life, and became pro 
pitiation ; 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 substance of God 
Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as has been said, 



and so the Son. 27 1 

so also here the having become better than the Anqels. and. CHAP. 

XIII 
He became, and, by so much is Jesus become a better surety, 

do not signify that the substance 1 of the Word is generate, p. 268, 
(perish the thought!) but the beneficence which towards us rej 
came to be through His incarnation; unthankful though 
the heretics be, and obstinate in behalf of their irreligion. 



NOTE on page 214. 

On the meaning of the formula TT^JV yewijdijvai oux ijv, ? TZ f&e 
Nicene Anathema. 

NOTE IT was observed p. 6l, note d, that there were two clauses in 
ON the Nicene Anathema which required explanation. One of them, 

I) sc * e crepas vTroo-Tao-ews 77 ovo-ias, has been discussed in the Note, pp. 

- 1 66 72 ; the other, Trpiv yewr^drjvai OVK r/v, shall be considered now. 
Bishop Bull has suggested a very ingenious interpretation of it, 
which is not obvious, but which, when stated, has much plausi 
bility, 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 the 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 main 
tained that the very word " Son" implied a beginning, or that our 
Lord was not Very God; the Catholics said that it implied conn-a- 
turality, 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 genera 
tion 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 \6yos ev&idderos, or Reason, in 
the Father, or .(as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute.; 
next, as the \6yos irpocpopiKos, or Word, terms which have been 
already explained, p. 113, note z. 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. 



Note on "before His generation in the Nicene Anathema. 273 

Thus S. Hippolytus says, NOTE 

Tooi> 8e ytvojJLev&v ap\rjybv Kcii (rvp.flov\ov Kal cpyarrjv eyevva \6yov, ov ON 
\6yov e^cov fv eavrto doparov TC ovra rw Krt^bjueVo) /cocr/ioo, oparov Troiei* T 
Trporcpav cpavrjv (pdfyyofjifvos, KOI (pas (K (parbs yevvcw, TrpoiJKej/ rfj 
Kvpiov. contr. Noet. 10. 

And S. Theophilus : 

*E)((i)v ovv 6 0os rbv favTov \6yov v8id0TOi> V rots 181019 
fytvvr](rev O.VTQV p,era rrjs tavrov aofpias et-epvdp.fvos npo TWV oAo>i> .... 
OTrdre Se r]&e\r)(TV 6 0ebs Tjoir/frat o<ra e /SovXeucraTO, TOVTOV Tov\r>yov eyevvrjO"* 
rrpocpopiKov, TrpcoroTOKov Travis KTio-eoos. ad Autol. ii. 10 22. 

Bishop Bull, Defens. F. N. iii. 5 8. meets this representation 
by maintaining that the yewrjcns 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, (Actsxiii. 33.) nay, 
the Nativity; and that of these His going forth to create the worlds 
was one. And he maintains, ibid. iii. 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,"!, 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 a . 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 irp\v yew^vai OVK fa 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 



* "Waterland expresses the view here inquam, census dicti hujus, Filius non 

taken, and not Bishop Bull s; vol. i. erat, sive non existebat, priusquam 

p. 114. Bull s language, on the other nascereturexPatre anteconditutnmun- 

hand, is very strong; u Seepe olim, ut dum? Ego sane nullus dubito, quin 

verum ingenue fatear, animum meum hocpronunciatumArianorum oppositum 

subiit admiratio, f/uideffaio isto, Filius fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententiee, 

priusquam nasceretur, non erat, sibi qui docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante 

voluerint Ariani. Denativitate Christi conditunimunduminexplicabiliquodam 

ex beati.-sima Virgine dictum non esse modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad 

exponendum constat Itaque de na- constituendum universa,"&c. D. F. N. 

tivitate Filii loquuntur, quae hujus uni- iii. 9. . 2. 
versi creationem antecessit. 



274 Note on "He was not before His generation 1 

NOTE contrary proposition, as self-contradictory, and directly denying, 
p. ^, not it, but " He was from everlasting." Or, in other words, 
j 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 con 
templated 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 A nans, 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 Anus 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, r/v ore OVK rjv; (3) therefore He 
has His subsistence from nothing, e OVK OVTCOV e^ei TTJV vTroo-rao-tv." 
Socr. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the 
OVK rjv irplv yvvr]6f]vai taked enthymematically ; arid it may be added 
that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the 
three first formulae anathematized at Nicaea, two of which are 
indisputably the s?me as two of them ; viz. on TJV nore ore OVK 
rjv. on 7rp\v yevvrjOrjvai OVK rjv on e OVK OVTCOV eyevero. 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, ovra Trporepov, 
yfvi -rjOtvra. els vlov, which has been explained, p. 97, note in. 

2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulae here, as 
elsewhere, mentioned, are enthymematic also, or carry their argu 
ment with them, and that, an argument resolvable often into the 
original argument derived from the word " Son." Such are 6 &v 

TOV p-T) OVTO. K TOV OVTOS T) TOV OVTO. , and V TO ayeVTJTOV T) 8vO. And 1H 

like manner as regards the question of the TpfTrrbv; "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. p. 230. That is, they wished the word 
rpfTTTos 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. supr. p. 227. S. Athanasius observes that the formula 
of the ayeVr/7-oi/ was the later substitute for the original formulae 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 Ingenerate, that, by saying among the simple that the 
Son was generate, they might imply the very same phrases ( out of 
nothing and He once was not. " Here he does not in so many 



in the Nicene Anathema. 275 

words say that the argument from the ay^rov was a substitute for NOTE 
the OVK rjv irplv yewrjtirivat, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand <>N 
him. But it is plain that the dyevrjrov was brought forward merely D sc 
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 OVK rjv irplv yewrjCfjvai. Nay, 
when the Arians asked, " Is the dyevrjrov one or two," they actually 
did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father 
only was dytvrjTos; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they 
had sanctioned at Niceea, as Bull says, that our Lord ?jv irplv ycwr)6fj; 
and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, 
if their own formula OVK rjv irplv yfvvr)6rjvai was directed against this 
statement. 

4. Again, it is plain that the OVK rjv irplv yewrjdrjvai, is used by 
S. Athanasius as the same objection with 6 &v TOV fir) ovra e TOV OVTOS, 
&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, &e. . 25. p. 21 6. Now the 6 &v TOV p) ovra, &c. is evi 
dently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying 
6 o)i/ TOV ovTa. S. Alexander s En -yclical Letter, (vid. Socr. i. ().) 
compared with Arius s original positions and the Nicene Anathemas 
as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three 
documents the formulae 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, OVK rjv irplv yewrjO^vai, but 
in S. Alexander s circular, 6 &>v Qeos TOV fir) ovra e /c TOV fir) OVTOS ireiroirjKev. 
The absence of the OVK r/v irplv, &c. in S. Alexander is certainly 
remarkable. Moreover the two formulae are treated as synony 
mous 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 
(yiWor&u) ; but the Word of God, not having beginning (ap^?)i/) of 
being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was 
always. And the works have a beginning (apxyv) 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 
generate is measured by their becoming (eV rw yiveo-dai}, 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 
generation (irplv ycreVdm ) ; but the Word hath His being in no other 



276 Note on "He was not before His generation" 

NOTK origin than the Father," (vid. supr. p. 1 95, note a.) " whom they 
N themselves allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unorigi- 
j SC< nately 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 " JHis generation," he substi 
tutes "making," a word which Bull would not say that either 
the Nicene Council or S. Hippolytus would use; clearly shewing 
that the Brians were not quoting and denying a Catholic statement 
in the OVK rjv npiv, &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, Trplv TroLrjdfj." Orat. L . 10. 
p. 194. 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, (6pia6fi, Rom. 1, 4.) or founding, (vid. Prov. 8, 23.) He 
was not; for He was not regenerate." 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. . 1?. supr. p. 99. 

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 gene 
ration? 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. p. 209. 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. p. 21 6. 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. 

?. 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 main 
tained 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 



in the Nicene Anathema. 277 

that the Son mas before His generation,, or that He was not ; in NOTE 
other words, that the question is unmeaning and irrelevant, which ON 
is just the interpretation which has been here given to Athanasius. Dlsc - 
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, 1 ! 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 men 
tioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, " more 
ill-instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated 
Jrom the beginning was or was not before generation, irpb T^ ycwr)- 
o-ecos-." Oat 29.^9 

8. S. Hilary, on the other hand, is so full on the subject in his 
de I rin. 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. H e states and argues on the formula 
expressly as an objection; " Adjiciant haec argnla satis atque 
aitditu placenlia ; Si, inquit, natus est, ccepit; et cum ccepit, non 
fuit ; et cum non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idciico pise 
intelligentiae sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quam 
nasceretur, quia lit esset, qui non erat, non qui 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 denu, " He was before His generation " 
Again, as Gregory, " Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; et 
vero ubi auctor aeternus est, ibi et nativitatis aeternitas est " n. 21. 
And he substitutes " being always born" for Ct being before birth; . 
" Numquid ante tempora a-terna 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 aeterna 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 jmsse vet non 
Juisse, 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 8. 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; 



278 Note on "He was not before His generation" 

NOTE and says,, since He has been generated, He was not before His 

ON generation, irpb rr)y yevvrjaecos" contr. Eunom. ii. 14. And he solves 

, sc * 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 TTJ d i&ioTrjTi TOV TraTpbs TOV p.ovoyfvovs crvva.TTTU>v TTJV yevvr](Tiv. . 1 5. 

These then being the explanations which the contemporary and 
next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was 
anathematized at Nicaea, 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 autho 
rity, 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, apx*7 od&v ds ra Zpya in the 
text, " The Lord has created Me the beginning of His ways unto 
the works," S. Athanasius is led to consider the text " firi-t born 
of every creature," npvTOTOKos nacres KTivcas ; arid he says that He 
who was iiovoyevr)s from eternity, became by a a-vyKardpao-is at the 
creation of the world TTPWTOTOKOS. This doctrine Bp. Bull considers 
declaratory of a going forth, Trpoe Xevo-ty, or figurative lirtli 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 o-vywmijSao-is merely, but that according to 
Athanasius there was a yewrjo-ts or proceeding from the Father, 
and that the word TrpcororoKos marks it. Bull s words are, that 
"Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post exortara controversial*! 
Arianam vixerunt, . . . illam TOV \6yov .... ex Patre progressionem 
(quam et a-vy/cara/Sao-tv, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli 
appellarunt,) ad condendum haec universa agnovere; atque ejus 
etiam proaressionis respcctu ipsum TOV \6yov a Deo Patre quasi 
natum fuisse et omnis creaturae primogenitum in Scripturis dici 
confessi sunt." D. F. N. iii p. . 1. Now I consider that S. Atha 
nasius does not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus 
that our Lord was " progression-Is 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 o-vyKaTiifiaa-is of the Word 
a birth, as denoted by the term ITP<OTUTOKOS, is plain from his 
own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. * No where 
in the Scriptures," he says, "is He called TrpeordroKos TOV Qeav, 
first born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, 
Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper 



in the Nicene Anathema. 279 

to Him." ii. 92. Here surely he expressly denies Bull s state- NOTE 
ment that "first born" means "a Deo natus," " born of God." N 
Such additions as napa rov rrarpos, he says, are reserved for povoye- 1Dj sc 
vr/s and \6yos. 

He goes on to say what the terra TrpcordroKo? does mean; viz. 
instead of having any reference to a TrpoeXevats from the Father, it 
refers solely to the creatures ; our Lord is not called TT/KOTOTOKOS-, 
because His TrpoeXevcris is a type of His eternal generation, but 
because by that Trpoe Xeuo-ty 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 yeW^o-i? whatever at the era of creation, 
though figurative ; TrponToroKos does but mean p-ovoyevys Trptoreixov eV 
TTJ KTitrei, or ap^rj Tr<s /crtVecoy, or TTPCOTOTVTTOV yevvrj/j-a, or JJLOVOS yfvvrjrbs 
ev rots yei TjroIs ; and no warrant is given, however indirect, to the 
idea that in the Nicene Anathema, the Fathers implied an allow 
ance 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 St. 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 yewrjo-is. Athenagoras says that the Son is " the first 
offspring, Trpwrov yeW^/ua, of the Father, not as come to be, yevopevov, 
(for God being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself 
the Word, as having Reason eternally, \oyixbs wi/,) but that, while 
as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together," (the 
passage is corrupt here,) te He went forth, 7rpoeA0o>z/, 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 7rpamm>Kos. " 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 im 
mortal 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 irpuroTOKos 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. 



280 Note on "before His generation" in the Nicene Anathema. 

NOTE ^g to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he does not speak 
of a ycwqcris at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the 
Son 7rpo)Tov yfvvrjfjLa, i. e. TrpcororvTrov yvvr)p,a. 

Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a yewrjo-is. 
He says that at the creation the Word epyov TrpuroroKov rov irarpos 
yiverai- TOVTOV ur/zei/ rov Koo-fiov TIJV apxn v - a d Grsec. 5. Here the word 
epyov, which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain 
both himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word 
became, yiverai, not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to 
the parties whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great 
condescension, a-vyKard^aais, 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 dpxr) in the con 
cluding 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, apxv, 
of ways, unto the works, els ra epya." 

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. 



0f % Jfa%rs 



OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, ANTERIOR TO THE DIVISION 
OF THE EAST AND WEST. 

Translated ~by Members of the English Church. 





VOLUMES PUBLISHED. 


Published 


Subscribers 








price. 






price. 




Vol. 







s. 


d. 





s. 


d. 


1. 


St. Augustine s Confessions. Third Edition 





9 








7 





2. 


St. Cyril s Lectures. Third Edition . 





10 


6 





8 





3. 


St. Cyprian s Treatises .... 





10 


6 





8 





4, 


and 5. St. Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians, 2 vols. 





18 








14 





6. 


St. Chrysostom on Galatians and Ephesians 





10 


6 





8 





7. 


St. Chrysostom on Romans 





14 








10 


6 


8. 


St. Athanasius against the Arians 





9 








7 





9. 


St. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Statues . 





12 








9 





10. 


Tertullian. Second Edition, in the press. Vol. I. 





15 








11 





*11 


. St. Chrysostom on St. Matthew. Part I. 





12 








9 





12. 


rTi TMm of ln r T^ifiT^ inH "PViilomrm 





12 








9 







13. 


St. Athanasius Historical Tracts 





10 


6 





8 





14. 


St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians, &c. 





15 








11 





1/5 


TTnrnilir" nn Cj. MoffVip-iv Pirf TT 




1 


n 


n 


Q 


o 


JLv 

16. 


St. Augustine s Sermons. Vol. I. 





1 ^ 

14 


\J 




\J 




\J 

10 


6 


17. 


St. Cyprian s Epistles .... 





12 








9 





18. 


St. Gregory the Great on Job. Vol. I. . 





15 








11 





19. 


St. Athanasius against the Arians. Part II. 





10 


6 





8 





20. 


St. Augustine s Sermons. Vol. II. . 





14 








10 


6 


21. 


St. Gregory the Great, Morals, etc. Vol. II. 





15 








11 





22. 


St. Augustine s short Treatises . 





16 








12 





23. 


St. Gregory, Morals, etc. Vol. III. Part I. 





10 


6 





8 





24. 


St. Augustine on the Psalms. Vol. I. 





10 


6 





8 





25. 


St. Augustine on the Psalms. Vol. II. 





10 


6 





8 





26. 


St. Augustine on St. John. Vol. I. . 





14 








10 


6 


27. 


St. Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians 





10 


6 





8 





28. 


St. Chrysostom on St. John. Vol. I. . 





10 


6 





8 





29. 


St. Augustine on St. John. Vol. II. . 





16 








12 





30. 


St. Augustine on the Psalms. Vol. III. 





14 








10 


6 


31. 


St. Gregory, Morals, etc. Vol. III. Part II. 





15 








11 





32. 


St. Augustine on the Psalms. Vol. IV. 





14 








10 


6 


33. 


St. Chrysostom on the Acts. Part I. 





10 


6 





8 





34. 


St. Chrysostom on St. Matthew. Part III. 





12 








9 





35. 


St. Chrysostom on the Acts. Part II. 





10 


6 





8 





36. 


St. Chrysostom on St. John. Part II. 





14 








10 


6 


37. 


St. Augustine on the Psalms. Vol. Y. 





12 








9 





38. 


St. Athanasius ...... 





6 








4 


6 


39. 


St. Augustine on the Psalms. Vol. VI. 





14 








10 


6 


40. 


St. Justin Martyr ..... 





8 








6 







St. Ephrem s Rhythms (from the Syriac) . 





14 








10 


6 


The complete set, 41 Vols. . . .24 


13 





18 


11 






LIBEAEY OF THE FATHERS (continued}. 



ST. ATHANASIUS Against the Arians. 2 vols. 
(Third Thousand.} (With very full illustra 
tive notes on the history of the times, and the 
faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation. The 
most important work published since Bishop 
Bull.) 

Historical Tracts. (St. 

Athanasius is the historian of the period.) 
(Second Thousand.} ..... 
The Festal Epistles. (The 



work recently recovered in the Syriac trans 
lation.) ....... 

ST. AUGUSTINE SConfessions. (Fourth Thou 
sand], with notes. (Containing his early life 
and conversion. The notes illustrate the Con 
fessions from St. Augustine himself.) 

Sermons on the New Test. 

2 vols. (Clear and thoughtful expositions of 
Holy Scripture to the poor of Hippo, with 
rhetorical skill in fixing their attention.) 
(Second Thousand.) ..... 

Homilies on the Psalms. 6 



vols. (Full of those concise sayings on Chris 
tian doctrine and morals, which contain so 
much truth accurately expressed in few words.) 
on the Gospel and First 



Epistle of St. John. 2 vols. (At all times one 
of the favorite works of St. Augustine.) (Second 
Thousand. ) . 

Practical Treatises (chiefly 



on the doctrines of grace.) (Second Thou 
sand.} . . 

ST. CHRYSOSTOM on St. Matthew. (Third 
Thousand.) 3 vols. . 

> on St. John. 2 vols. 

._, on the Acts. 2 vols. 

on St. Paul s Epistles (ex 
cepting those on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which are completed,) 7 vols. in 6. (Third 
and Second Thousand.} .... 
(These contain the whole of that great father s 
exposition of the N. T. still extant, and occupy 
five vols. folio of the Benedictine Edition. 
St. Chrysostom, besides the eloquence of his 
perorations, is remarkable for his care in de 
veloping the connection of Holy Scripture.) 

to the people of An- 



tioch. (The celebrated homilies, where St. 
Chrysostom employed the fears of the people 
at the Emperor s displeasure to call them to 
, repentance.) (Second Thousand) . _ T *.. 



Published 

price. 
& s. d. 



19 6 

10 
060 

090 

1 8 
3 15 

1 10 

16 

1 16 
1 4 6 
110 

400 



12 



Subscribers 

price. 
& s. d. 



15 
080 
046 

070 

1 

2 16 

1 1 

12 

1 7 
18 6 
16 

300 



090 



LIBRARY OF THE FATHERS (continued}. 



Published Subscribers 






price. 






price. 









s. 


d. 





s. 


<f. 


ST. CYPRIAN S Works. (Third Thousand.} 














(St. Cyprian, besides his great practical 














wisdom, states the doctrines of grace as care 














fully as if he had lived after the Pelagian 














heresy. He was a great favourite of Dean 














Milner. He is a witness of the early inde 














pendence of the several Churches.) 


1 


2 


6 





17 





ST. EPHREM S Rhythms on the Nativity, and 














on Faith. (From the Syriac. A very devout 














writer of the mystical school, and full on the 














doctrine of the Incarnation.) (Second Thou 














sand.} .... 


o 


14 


o 


o 


10 


(5 


ST. GREGORY THE GREAT on Book of 














Job. 4 vols. (Called the Magna Moralia, from 














the depth of the observations on human nature 














of one who lived in close communion with God.) 


2 


15 





2 


2 





TERTULLIAN S Apologetical and Practical 














Treatises. (The treatises, especially the Apolo 














getic, have, over and above, much historical 














information on early Christianity. They are 














full of those frequent sayings of deep practical 














truth, for which his name is almost proverbial.) 
















o 


15 


o 


o 


12 


o 


ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR. Works now 














extant ....... 





8 








6 





OEIGINAL TEXTS. 














ST. AUGUSTINI Confessiones (revised with the 














use of some Oxford MSS. and early editions.) 





9 








7 





ST. CHRYSOSTOMI in Epist. ad Romanos 





12 








9 





^ ^ /^i ,,* 4. V. * rt ,- T 




1 A 






i n 








1^ 

i o 






1 U 









1U 

9 








7 







-\(\ Phil Pnln Thn il 





14 








10 







(just published) ad Tim., Tit., Philem. . 





10 


6 





8 





Or the 7 Volumes 


3 


19 





3 









(The volume on the Epistle to the Hebrews, completing the Homilies 
on St. Paul, will, it is hoped, appear next year. For this edition all 
the good MSS. of St. Chrysostom in public libraries in Europe have 
been collated, and the Rev. F. Field having employed his great critical 
acumen upon them, the English edition of St. Chrysostom will, so far, 
be again the best extant, as Sir H. Savile s was in his day.) 

THEODORETI ad Romanos, Corinth., et Galat. 010 6 | 8 

(The second volume, containing the rest of Theodoret s Commen 
tary on St. Paul, was nearly completed by the Rev. C. Marriott, 
when the Church was suddenly deprived of his unwearied labours. 
The few remaining sheets, and the collations belonging to them, having 
now been found among his papers, the volume will shortly be pub 
lished.) 



WORKS by the Rev. E. B. PTJSEY, D.D. " 

PAROCHIAL SERMONS from ADVENT to WHITSUNTIDE. 

Vol. I. (Fourth Thousand.} 8vo., cloth, 105. 6d. 
PAROCHIAL SERMONS. Vol. II. (Third Thousand.) 8vo., cloth, 

10*. 6d. 
ELEVEN SERMONS preached at the Consecration of St. Saviour s 

Leeds, 1845. Together with Sermons by the Rev. J. KEBLE, Rev. 

I. WILLIAMS, Rev. W. DODSWORTH, Rev. C. MARRIOTT, Rev. W. 

U. RICHARDS. (Second Thousand.) 7s. 6d. 
PLAIN SERMONS. Vol. III. of the Series. 
DO ALL TO THE LORD JESUS. (Fifth Thousand.) 6d. 
The DAY of JUDGMENT. 1839. (Fourth Thousand.) 6d. 
The BLASPHEMY against the HOLY GHOST. 1845. Is. 
CHRIST the SOURCE and RULE of CHRISTIAN LOVE. (Second 

Thousand.) Is. 6d. 
CHASTISEMENTS NEGLECTED, Forerunners of Greater. On 

the General Fast Day, 1847. (Second Thousand.) Is. 
The DANGER of RICHES. SEEK GOD FIRST AND YE 

SHALL HAVE ALL. (Second Thousand.) Is. 6d. 
The CHURCH the CONVERTER of the HEATHEN. Two Sermons, 

1838; with copious Notes. (Third Thousand.) 12mo., 6d. 
SERMON at the Consecration of Grove Church, 1832. New Edition. 
The PREACHING of the GOSPEL a Preparation for our Lord s 

Coming. 1841. (Second Thousand.) Is. 
GOD IS LOVE. WHOSO RECEIVETH ONE SUCH LITTLE 

CHILD IN MY NAME RECEIVETH ME. Two Sermons. 1846. 

(Second Thousand.} Is. 6d. 
The HOLY EUCHARIST, a Comfort for the Penitent. 1843. (Nine- 

teenth Thousand.) Is. 
The PRESENCE of CHRIST in the HOLY EUCHARIST. 1853. 

(Second Thousand.) Is. 
ENTIRE ABSOLUTION of the PENITENT. 1846. Two Sermons. 

(Fifth Thousand, and Second Thousand.) Is. each. 
The RULE of FAITH, as maintained by the Fathers and Church of 

England. 1851. 8vo., Is. (Second Thousand.) 
JUSTIFICATION. 1853. 1*. (Second Thousand.) 
PATIENCE and CONFIDENCE the STRENGTH of THE 

CHURCH. Preached on Nov. 5, 1837. (Third Thousand.) Is. 
ALL FAITH the GIFT of GOD. REAL FAITH ENTIRE. 1855. 

(Second Thousand.) 2s. 

The above together in one Volume, in cloth, 9s. 
SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE on HOLY BAPTISM (on the passages 

of Holy Scripture which speak on that Sacrament). (Fourth Thou 
sand.) 5s. 
THE DOCTRINE of the REAL PRESENCE, as contained in the 

Fathers from the death of St. John the Evangelist to the 4th General 

Council. 1855. 12s. 
THE REAL PRESENCE, the doctrine of the English Church, with 

a vindication of the reception by the wicked and of the Adoration of 

our Lord Jesus Christ truly present. 1857. 9s. 
The COUNCILS of the CHURCH, from the Council of Jerusalem to 

the close of the 2nd General Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381. 

1857. 10 5 . 6d. 



WORKS by the Rev. E. J5. Pusey, D.D. (continued). 5 

TWO TRACTS on FASTING. (Third Thousand.} 

The ROYAL SUPREMACY not an arbitrary Authority, but limited 

by the laws of the Church of which Kings are members. Ancient 

Precedents. 8vo., 7s. 
The CHURCH of ENGLAND leaves her children free to whom to 

open their griefs. A Letter to the Rev. W. U. RICHARDS. 8vo., 

5s. , or with Postscript, 8s. 6d. 
LETTER to the LORD BISHOP of LONDON, in Explanation of 

some Statements contained in a Letter by the Rev. W. DODSWORTH. 

(Fifth Thousand.} ]6mo., Is. 
RENEWED EXPLANATIONS in consequence of MR. DODS- 

WORTH S Comments on the above. 8vo., Is. 

COLLEGIATE and PROFESSORIAL TEACHING and DISCI 
PLINE, in answer to Professor VATJGHAN. 5s. 
MARRIAGE with a DECEASED WIFE S SISTER, together with 

a SPEECH on the same subject by E. BADELEY, Esq. 
GOD S PROHIBITION of the MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED 

WIFE S SISTER (Lev. xviii. 6.) not to be set aside by an inference 

from His limitation of Polygamy among the Jews. (Lev. xviii. 18.) 

8vo., Is. 

Just published. 
The THOUGHT of the LOVE of JESUS for us the remedy for sins 

of the body. A Sermon for young men. 6d. 
A LETTER on the ESSAYS* AND REVIEWS, reprinted, from the 

Guardian. Price Id. 
COMMENTARY on the MINOR PROPHETS. Parts I. and II. 

INTRODUCTION TO JOEL AMOS vn. 4. (Second Thousand.) 5s. 

In the Press. 
PART III. AMOS vn. 4. END ; OBADIAH ; JONAH. 

WOEKS edited by the Eev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 

The SPIRITUAL COMBAT, with the PATH of PARADISE; and 

the SUPPLEMENT ; or, the Peace of the Soul. By SCUPOLI. 

(From the Italian.) (Fourth Thousand, revised.) 3s. 6d. 
The YEAR of AFFECTIONS ; or, Sentiments on the Love of God, 

drawn from the Canticles, for every Day in the Year. By AVRIL- 

LON. (Second Thousand.) 6s. 6d. 
The FOUNDATIONS of the SPIRITUAL LIFE. (A Commentary 

on Thomas a Kempis.) (Second Thousand.) By SURIN. 4s. 6d. 
The LIFE of JESUS CHRIST in GLORY. Daily Meditations from 

Easter Day to the Wednesday after Trinity Sunday. By NOUET. 

8s. (Second Thousand.) Or in Two Parts, at 4s. each. 
PARADISE for the CHRISTIAN SOUL. By HORST. Two Vols. 

Third Thousand. 6s. 6d. Or, in Six Parts, at Is. each. 
DEVOTIONS for HOLY COMMUNION. (Third Thousand.) 

18mo., Is. 

LITANIES. In the words of Holy Scripture. Royal 32mo., 6d. 
MEDITATIONS and select PRAYERS of ST. ANSELM. 5s. 

Uniform with the above. 

LENT READINGS from the FATHERS. 5s. 
ADVENT READINGS from the FATHERS. 5s. 



0f 

At reduced Prices. 

*. d. 

BP. ANDRE WES WORKS (now first collected), 1 1 vols. 360 
or separately : 

Sermons. 5 vols. . . . . . 1 15 

Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, &c. .050 

Tortura Torti 060 

Responsio ad Apol. Card. Bellarmini .060 

Preces Privatse. Gr. et Lat. . .050 

Opuscula Posthuma . . . .040 

. Minor Works and Indices . . .060 

BP. BEVERIDGE S English Works. 10 vols. . .3100 
Codex Canonum. 2 vols. . . . 14 

ABP. BRAMH ALL S Works. 5 vols 1 15 

BP. BULL S Harmony on Justification. 2 vols. . . 10 
Works on the Trinity. 3 vols 15 

BP. COSIN S W T orks. 5 vols 1 10 

CRAKANTHORP S Defensio Eccl. Anglicans . .070 

FRANK S Sermons. 2 vols 10 

BP. FORBES Considerationes Modestae. 2 vols. . . 12 
BP. GUNNING on the Paschal, or Lent Fast . . . 6" 

HAMMOND S Practical Catechism . . . .050 

Minor Theological Works . . . .050 

. Sermons. 2 Parts 10 

HICKES Treatises on the Priesthood. 3 vols. . .0150 

JOHN JOHNSON S Unbloody Sacrifice. 2 vols. . .0100 
English Canons. 2 vols. . . . . 12 

ABP. LAUD S WORKS. Complete (now first collected, 

including his letters not before printed). 7 vols. .330 

L ESTRANGE S Alliance of Divine Offices . . .060 

MARSHALL S Penitential Discipline . . . .040 

BP. NICHOLSON on the Catechism . . . .060 

BP. OVERALL S Convocation-Book. 8vo. . . .050 

BP. PEARSON S Vindicise Ignatianse. 2 vols. .,.;. . .- 10 

HERBERT THORNDIKE S Works. 6 vols. . , . 2 10 

BP. WILSON S Works. Vols. 2 to 6 2140 



BP. WILSON S Works Vol. 1, Life, by the Rev. John Keble, M.A., 
will complete the Series. 



WORKS by the late Eev. CHARLES MARRIOTT, B.D., 

FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD. 

LECTURES ON THE EPISTLE or ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Edited by 
his Brother, the Rev. JOHN MARRIOTT. 12mo., cloth, 65. 

SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND IN 

OTHER PLACES. 12mO., cloth., 65. 

Volume the Second. 12mo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 

FIVE SERMONS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FAITH AND CHURCH 
AUTHORITY. 8vo., 2s. 6d. 

REFLECTIONS IN A LENT READING OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 

HINTS ON PRIVATE DEVOTION. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 2*. 6d. 
Cheap Edition, fcap. 8vo., limp cloth, 1*. 

PRAYERS FOR MORNING AND EVENING, &c., &c. 18mo., limp cloth, 
Is. 6d. 



S. Athanasius contra Gentes et de In- 

carnatione Verbi. 
S. Chrysostomi in Principium Actorura. 

Horn. IV. 
S. Gregorii Nazianzeni Apologeticus. 



WORKS edited by the late Rev. 0. MARRIOTT, B.D. 

ANALECTA CHRISTIANA, in Usum Tiromim. 8vo., 5s. 
Contents : 

Josepbus ile Morte Agrippae. 
Hegesippus de Martyrio S. Jacobi. 
Clemens Alexand. de S. Joanne Apo- 

stolo, etc. 
S. Ignatii Epistolae ad Smyrnaeos et ad 

Polycarpum. 

PRECES PRIVATE in studiosorum gratiam collectse et regia auctoritate 
approbate: anno MDLXVIII. Londini editse: ad vetera exemplaria 
denuo recognitse. I6mo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 

HYMNALE SECUNDUM USUM INSIGNIS AC PR^ECLAR^ ECCLESI^J 
SARISBURIENSIS. Accedunt Hymni quidam Secundum Usus Matris 
Ecclesiae Eboracensis et Insignis EcclesiaB Hereford. I8mo., cloth, 
3s. 6d. 

S. AUGUSTINI OPUSCULA. 12mo., 3s. 6d. 

Contents : 

De Catechizandis Rudibus. I De Fide rerum quse non Videntur. 

De Symbolo ad Catechumenos. j De Utiliiate Credendi. 

OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS UPON SEVERAL SUBJECTS. With a Dis 
course about such kind of Thoughts. By the Hon. ROBERT BOYLE, 
sometime Fellow of the Royal Society. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. 

HINCMAR, Archbishop of Rheims, his Life and Times. By the late 
J. C. PRITCHARB. Fcap. 8vo., 8s. 6d. 

RHYMES AND PICTURES FOR CHILDREN. Translated from the German 
of F, Pocci. Square 18mo. ; boards, Is. 



WOEKS by the Eev. J. KEBLE. 

SERMONS, Academical and Occasional. Second Edition. 8vo., 12*. 

DE POETICJE VI MEDICA. Prselectiones Academic Oxonii 
habitse, annis 1832 1841. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 6d. 

ON EUCHARISTICAL ADORATION. Second Edition. 8vo., 3s. Gd. 

AN ARGUMENT FOR NOT PROCEEDING IMMEDIATELY 
TO REPEAL THE LAWS WHICH TREAT THE NUPTIAL 
BOND AS INDISSOLUBLE. 8vo., Is. 

SEQUEL OF THE ARGUMENT, &c. 8vo., 4s. 6d. 

OF DIVINE SERVICE, THE SACRAMENTS, &c. By RICHARD 
HOOKER. Being Selections from the Fifth Book of the Ecclesiastical 
Polity. 18mo., Is. 6d. 



THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. Thoughts in Verse for the Sundays and 
Holydays throughout the year. 

Octavo Edition, Large type, cloth, 10s. 6d. 

Morocco by Hay day, 21s. ; antique calf, 18*. 
Foolscap Octavo Edition, Cloth, 7s. Qd. ; morocco, 10s. 6d. 

Morocco by Hayday, 15s. antique calf, 12s. 
18mo. Edition., Cloth, 6s.; morocco, 8s. 6d. 
32wo. Edition, Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; morocco, plain, 5*. 

Morocco by Hayday, 7s. 
Cheap Edition, Cloth, Is. 6d. ; bound, 2*. 
LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Thoughts in Verse for Christian Children. 

32mo. Edition, Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; morocco, plain, 5s. 

Morocco by Hayday, 7s. 
Cheap Edition, Cloth, Is. 6d. ; bound, 2*. 

THE PSALTER; OR, THE PSALMS OF DAVID: adapted, for the 
most part, to tunes in common use. 18mo., 1*. 6d. 

WOEKS by the Eev. J. DAVISON. 

DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY ; in which are considered its Struc 
ture, Use, and Inspiration. Sixth Edition. 8vo., 9s. 

REMARKS ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 8vo., cloth, 1*. 
REMAINS AND OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS. 8vo., 15s. 

*_ OXFORD, AND 377, STRAND, LONDON: J. H. AND JAS. PARKER. 



i 



1 




\ 





:C ::: \n^;f);^ "- ^r^ 
ml^ljDHHHB^HMB : 



&Msi^iM