disposition. For they are as variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in their colours3; and when exposed they look confused, and when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, and betake them- selves to evasions. And then, when detected in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which are not, and, according to the Scripture, ‘imagine a vain thing+’; and all that they may be constant to their irreligion. Now such endeavourss are nothing else than an obvious token of their defect of reason ®, and a copying, as I have said, of Jewish malignity. For the Jews too, when convicted by the Truth, and unable to con- front it, used evasions, such as, ‘What sign doest Thou, that we may see and believe Thee? What dost Thou work7? though so many signs were given, that they said them- selves, ‘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 worshipped 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 sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, ‘Why dost Thou, being a man, make 3 Alexander also calls them chameleons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12. Athanasius so calls the Meletians, Wzst. Arian. § 79. Cyril com- pares them to ‘‘ the leopard which cannot change his spots.” Dial. li. init. t. v. i, Aub., Vaz. Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the Arians, vid. infra, § 4. &c. Ovat il. 40. He says, ad HP. Le. 6, that they considered Creeds as yearly covenants; and de Synod. § 3. 4. as State Edicts. vid. also § 14. and assim. ‘* What wonder that they fight against their fathers, when they fight against them- selves?” § 37. APs iateire 5 émexetpyma. and so Orat. i. § 44. init. but infra. § 25. eémuxer- pywara means more definitely reasonings or argumentations.
6 adoyias; an allusion frequent in Athanasius, to. the judicial consequence of their denying the Word of God. Thus, just below, n. 3. ‘‘ Denying the Word” or Reason ‘‘ of God, reason have they none.” Also Ovat. i. § 35. fin. § 40. init. § 62. Ovat. ii. § 7. init. Hence he so often calls the Arians “mad” and “ deranged;” e.g. ‘not aware how ‘mad’ their ‘reason’ is.” Ovadz. i. § 37.
DE DECRETIS, Etc.
ISI Thyself God9? 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 good- ness of the Father, and admire the Son’s Economy for 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, and all manner of disease *,’ but they complained still according to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, pre- ferred the suspicion of Atheism?, to a recanta- tion of their own wickedness. And though in such sundry times and divers 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, according to the divine proverb, that by finding occa- sions, they might separate themselves from the truth 3.
2 Or ungodliness, a@eédryTos. Thus Aetius was called 6 aeos, the ungodly. de Syzod. § 6; and Arius complains that Alexander had expelled him and his from Alexandria, ws av@pwrovs aééous. Theodor. Hist. i. 4. ‘‘Atheism” and ‘‘ 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, however, 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 cont. Gent. § 29. fin. 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 Father’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 Ezmowz. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards he gives a further reason for the title, observing that Arianism was worse than pre- vious heresies, such as Manicheism. inasmuch as the latter denied the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God’s substance His connatural Word, and, as far a5 its words went, infringed upon the per- fections and being of the first Cause. And soad Ef. 4g. § 17. fin. he says, that it alone, beyond other heresies, ‘‘has been bold against the Godhead Itself in a mad way (wavuxwrepor, vid. foregoing note), denying that there is a Word, and tnat the Father was always Father.” Elsewhere he speaks more generally, as if Arianism introduced ‘‘an Atheism or rather Judaism ‘against the Scrip- tures,’ being next door to Heathenism, 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 Ap. yg. § 13. For the same reason he calls the heathen a@@cor, atheistical or ungodly, “‘who are arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scripture.” contr. Gent. § 14. vid. eiddédAwy abedtyTa. § 46. init. Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution worse than the pagan ‘ cruelties,’ and therefore ‘‘a Babylonian Atheism,” 4%. Lmcycl. § 5. as not allowing the Catholics the use of prayer and baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius atheist, for his treatment of Hosius; ovre tov Geov poBnGets o abeos.
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 acreature. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2)a, sub. fr7.]
-3 A reference to Prov. xviii. x. which runs in the LXX. ‘‘a man seeketh occasions, when desirous of separating himself from friends.”
2. 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 cir- cumstances like those of Caiaphas and the con- temporary Pharisees. For, perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they in- vent excuses, ‘‘ Why was this defined, and not that?” Yet wonder not if now they practise thus; for in no long time they will turn to out- rage, and next will threaten ‘the band and the captain +.’ Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has its support, 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 friendliness 5 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 their one busi- ness 1s to frame evasions.
GHARTERSIT, CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL.
Tenorant as well as trreligtous to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council: proceedings at Nicea: Eusebians then signed what they now complain of: on the unanimity of true teachers and the process of tradition: changes of the Arians.
Anp do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so. If, the devil having sowed their hearts with this perverseness®, they feel confi- dence in their bad inventions, let them defend themselves against the proofs of heresy which have been advanced, and then will be the time to find fault, if they can, with the defini- tion framed against them”. For no one, on 4 Apparently an allusion to Joh. xviii. 12. Elsewhere, he speaks of “the chief captain” and ‘‘the governor,” with an allusion to Acts xxiii. 22—24. &c. Hist. Arian. § 66. fin, vid. also § 2. Aol. contr. Arian. $8. also § 10. and 45. Orat. ii. $43. Ep. Encycl. § 5. Against the use of violence in religion, vid. 7st. Arian. § 33. 67. (Hil. ad Const. i. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, that at Niczea, “it was not necessity which drove the judges to” their decision, ‘but all vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose.” ad Ep. Avg. 13. = 5 SudOeors. vid. also Hist. Avian. § 45. Orat. ii. § 4. where Parker maintains without reason that it should be translated, “ external condition.” vid. also Theod. Hist. i. 4. init.
6 émamelpayTos TOU 6iaBoAov, the allusion is to Matt. xiii. 25, and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism. He draws it out at length, Ovaz. ii. § 34. Elsewhere, he uses the image for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon Adam’s fall, contr. Apoll. i. § 15. as does 5. Irenzus, 7@. iv. 40. T. 3. using it of such as lead to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. v. ro. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, of the natural passions and of false reason misleading them, de Ax. et Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Zf. 156. Bee : 7 The Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions (at the end of the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the insertion of the phrases, ‘‘of the substance” and ‘‘one in sub- stance.” Athan. says that the Arians must not criticise the latter DE DECREE TIS, OR Oe a EE 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’. For this does not exculpate the convict, but rather increases his 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 subsequent, and it is just that those who are under a charge should confine themselves to their own defence), or if they have an unclean conscience, and are aware of their own irre- ligion, let them not complain of what they do not understand, or they will bring on themselves a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignor- ance. 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 religion 9.
3. Now it happened to Eusebius and his fellows in the Nicene Council as follows:— while they stood out in their irreligion, and attempted their fight against God’, the terms they used were replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops who were three hun- dred more or less, mildly and charitably re- quired of them to explain and defend them- selves on religious grounds. Scarcely, how- ever, did they begin. to speak, when they were condemned?, 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 heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith; and, as all subscribed it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed it also in those very words, of which they are before they had cleared themselves of the former. Thus he says presently, that they were at once irreligious in their faith and ignorant in their criticism; and speaks of the Council negativing their formula, and substituting those which were “‘sound and ecclesiastical.”’ vid. also n. 4.
8 And so S. Leo assim concerning the Council of Chalcedon, “Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur in that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever concerning any retractation,” Z%.94. He calls such an act a ‘‘mag- num sacrilegium,” %. 157. c. 3. ‘‘To be seeking for what has been disclosed, to retract what has been perfected, to tear up what has been laid down (definita), what is this but to be unthankful for what we gained?” %. 162. vid. the whole of it. He says that the attempt is “no mark of a peace-maker but a rebel.” ZZ, 164. c.1. fin. vid. also Epp. 145, and 156, where he says, none can assail what is once determined, but ‘‘aut antichristus aut diabolus.” ¢. 2.
9 Vid. Ovat. iii. § 28.
I Ocouaxetv, Ocoudxor. vid. Acts v. 39, xxili. 9. are of very frequent use in Athan. as is xproTowdxou, in speaking of the Arians, vid. infra passim. also avtimaxopevor TG owrnpt, Lp. Encycl. § 5. And in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander af. Sacr. i. 6. p. 10. b.c. p.12. p.13. Theod. Hisz. i. 3. p. 729. And so Geopdxos yA@ooa, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. xpioronaxov. Ep. 236. init. vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. 19 e. p. 24 €.). Ocoudxou is used of other heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. § 8.
2 i.e. “‘convicted ¢hevzselves,” infr. § 18. init. éavt@v del Kari- yopo, ad. Ep. Hg. § 6. i.e. by their variations, vid. Tit. iii. x1. avToKaTdaKptTos.
now complaining, I mean, “of the essence” and “one in essence,” and that “the Son of God is neither creature or work, nor in the number of things originated3, but that the Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father.” And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Ceesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, 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 profession that they were before in error, and were rashly contending against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church in his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his Epistle, by his not denying the “‘one in essence,” and “of the essence.” 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 generation,” and as thereby re- jecting 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 the letter of Eusebius, that thou mayest know from it the disrespect towards their own doctors shewn by Christ’s enemies, and sin- gularly by Acacius himself+.
4. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? are they not in trans- gression, 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, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present gain- sayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus sacrifice5 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 in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommend- ing certain statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming? But this, as the 3 yevyntov.
4 The party he is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he does not seem to have had much distinct knowledge. He contrasts them again and again in the passages which follow with the Euse- bians of the Nicene Council, and says that he is sure that the ground they take when examined will be found substantially the same as the Eusebian. vid. § 6 zwzt. e¢ alib. § 7. init. § 9. circ. fin. § 10. circ. fin. § 13. tit. ToTe Kai viv. § 18. circ. fin. § 28. fin. {On Acacius see Prolegg. ch. ii. $ 8 (2) b.]
5 mpomivortes vid. de Sy. § 14.
© Jamesi. 8.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
Shepherd has said, is “the child of the devil7,” and the note of hucksters rather than of doctors. For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the 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 to be called not 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, and do 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 har- moniously®, 5. And thus what Moses taught, that Abra- ham observed; and what Abraham observed, that Noah and Enoch acknowledged, discrimi- nating pure from impure, and becoming ac- ceptable to God. For Abel too in this way witnessed, knowing what he had learned from Adam, who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He came at the end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, “I give no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye have heard from the beginning9.” Wherefore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that deacons, not to say bishops, should be double-tongued*°; and in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration, ‘If anyone 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 we, or 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 anathematise Eusebius and his fellows, at least as changing round and professing what is contrary to their subscriptions; 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 the sport of every wind and surge, and are influenced by opinions, not their own, but of others, and being such, are as little worthy of deference now as before, in what they allege. Rather let them cease to carp at what they understand 7 Hermas, Mand. ix., who is speaking immediately, as S. James, of wavering in prayer. pee 8 Thus S. Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, “‘ We have not the task of refuting their tenets, for they suffice for the over- throw of each other.” Hexaem. i. 2. vid, also Theod. Grec. Affect. i. p. 707, &c. August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and Vincentius’s celebrated Commonitorium fass¢m.: not; lest so be that not knowing to dis- criminate, they simply call evil good and good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet is 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 should there be any reason on our part for any further explanation, or answer to their excuses, neither on theirs for further resistance, but for an acquiescence in what the leaders of their heresy subscribed; for though the subsequent change of Eusebius and his fellows was sus- picious 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 would not have subscribed previously had they not condemned the heresy, nor would they have condemned it, had they not been encompassed with difficulty and shame; so that to change back again is a proof of their contentious zeal for irreligion. These men also ought therefore, as I have said, to keep quiet; but since from an extraordinary want of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able to advocate this diabolical? irreligion better than the others, therefore, though in my former letter written to thee, I have already argued at length against them, notwithstand- ing, 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.
CHAPTERTIIT Two senses of the word Son, 1. adoptive; 2. es- sential, attempts of Arians to find a third meaning between these; e.g. that our Lord only was created immediately by God (As- terius’s view), or that our Lord alone partakes the Father. The second and true sense; God begets as He makes, really, though Hts creation and generation are not like man’s; His generation independent of time; genera- tion implies an internal, and therefore an eternal, act in God; explanation of Prov. viil. 22.
6. THEY say then what the others held and dared to maintain before them; “ Not always 2 This is Athan.’s deliberate judgment. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin., ib. § 24. he speaks of Arius’s ‘‘hatred of the truth.” Again, “though the diabolical men rave” Orat. iii. § 8. “‘friends of the devil, and his spirits,’ Ad £f. 4g. 5. Another reason of his so accounting them, was. their atrocious cruelty to- wards Catholics; this leads him elsewhere to break out: “O new heresy, that has put on the whole devil in irreligious doctrine and conduct!” Hist. Arian. § 66, also Alexander, * diabolical, ap Theod. Hist. i. 3, p, 731. ‘satanical,’ ibid. p. 741. vid. also Socr. i. g. p. 30 fin. Hilar. contr. Const. 17.
DE DECRETIS, OR DE DECRETIS, OR Father, not always Son; for the Son was not be- fore 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 a work, and foreign and unlike the Father in essence; 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 improperly 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+.”
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 significants. In truth, Divine Scripture ac- quaints us with a double sense of this word:— one which Moses sets before us in the Law, ‘When ye shall hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all His commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God, Veare «children, of ithe Lord your God®;” as also in the Gospel, John says, ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God7:’—and the other sense, that in which 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 that they relate such fables as the foregoing? for I feel sure they will issue in the same irreligion with Eusebius and his fellows.
If in the first, which belongs to those who gain the name by grace from moral improve- ment, and receive power to become sons of 3 Kataxpnaotik@s. This word is noticed and protested against by Alexander, Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11 a. by the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Her, 73. n. 5. by Basil. contr. Eunome. il. 23. and by Cyril, Dia. ii. t. v. 1. pp. 432, 3.
“4 Vid. BY: ‘eg. 12. Orat. 1. § 5. 6. de Synod.-15, 16. Athanas. seems to have had in mind Socr. i. 6. p. 10, 11, or the like.
5 Vid. Orat. i. § 38. The controversy turned on the question what was meant by the word ‘Son.’ Though the Arians would not allow with the Catholics that our Lord was Son dy nature, and maintained that the word implied a beginning of existence, they did not dare to say that He was Son merely in the sense in which we are sons, though, as Athan. contends, they neces- sarily tended to this conclusion, directly they receded from the Catholic view. Thus Arius said that He was a creature, ‘but not as one of the creatures.’ Ovat. iis § 19. Valens at Ariminum said the same, Jerom. ady. Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, that not daring directly to deny that He was God, the Arians merely asked ‘ whether He wasa Son.’ de Tyin. viii. 3. Atha- nasius remarks upon this reluctance to speak out, challenging them tq present ‘the heresy naked,’ de Sent. Dionys. 2. init. ‘No one,’ he says elsewhere, ‘puts a light under a bushel; let them shew the world their heresy naked.’ £4. 4@g. 18. vid. ibid. 10. In like manner, Basil says that (though Arius was really like Euno- mius, in faith, coztr. Eunom. i. 4) Aetius his master was the first to teach openly (pavepés), that the Father's substance was unlike, avéjovos, the Son's. ibid, i. 1. Epiphanius Hr. 76. p. 949.
‘seems to say that the elder Arians held the divine generation in a sense in which Aetius did not, that is, they were not so consistent and definite as he. Athan. goes on to meation some of the at- tempts of the Arians to find some theory short of orthodoxy, yet short of that, extreme heresy, on the other hand, which they felt ashamed to avow.
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 fore- known 8, He therefore received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the name, from His very first beginning, still there will be no difference between Him and those who receive the name after 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 some time from his birth on his pleasing God, or from the Apostle, who likewise was caught up to Paradise after his actions; nay, not from him who once was a thief, who on the ground of his confession, received a promise that he should be forthwith in paradise.
7. When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer which has brought them into trouble many times already; ‘‘ We con- sider that the Son has this prerogative over others, and therefore is called Only- begotten, because He alone was brought to be by God alone, and all other things were created by God through the Son*.” 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 an under- worker. If for the toil’s sake God was content with making the Son only, instead of making all things at once, this is an irreligious thought, especially in those who know 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 understanding3,’ Rather it is He who. gives strength to the hungry, and through His Word refreshes the Jabouring+. 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 Abimi This is celebrated as an explanation of the Anomceans. Vid. Basil. contr. Eunonz. ii. 20, 21. though Athan. speaks of it as belonging to the elder Arians. vid. Socr. /is#. i. 6.
2 1.e. what is your authority? is it not a novel, and therefore a wrong doctrine? vid. infr. § 13. ad Serap. i. 3. Also Ovat. i. $8. ‘Who ever heard such doctrine? or whence or from whont did they hear it? who, when they were under catechising, spoke thus to them? If they themselves confess that they now hear it for the first time, they must grant that their heresy is alien, and zof Sront the Fathers.’ vid, ii. § 34. and Socr. i. 6. p. 11 c DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
elek 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 Amalek. However, you are false even in this assertion, for ‘He made us, and not we ourselves5.’ He it is who through His Word made all things small and great, and we may not divide the creation, and says this isthe Father’s, and this the Son’s, but they are of one God, who uses His proper Word as a Hand §, and in Him does all things. This God Himself shews us, when He says, ‘ All these things hath My Hand made7;’ while Paul taught us as he had learned 8, that ‘ There is one God, from whom all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things 9.’ 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 yield her fruits, 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.
8. But let us suppose that the other crea- tures could not endure to be wrought by the absolute Hand of the Unoriginate?, and there- fore the Son alone was brought into being by the Father alone, and other things by the Son as an underworker and assistant, for this is what Asterius the sacrificer? has written, and Arius has transcribed 3 and bequeathed to his own friends, and from that time they use this form of words, broken reed as it is, being ignorant, the bewildered men, how brittle it is. For if it was impossible for things originate 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 Me- diator became necessary that things originate might come to be, and you hold the Son to be originated, 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 Medi- ator 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 bePSaCas.
6 Vid. ne § 17. Orat. ii. §31. 71. Irenzeus calls the Son and Holy Spirit the Hands of God. Hear. iv. pref. vid. also Hilar. de Trin. vii. 22, This image is in contrast to that of zustrument, épyavov, which the Arians would use of the Son, vid Socr. i. 6. p. 11, as implying He was external to God, whereas the word Hand implies His consubstantiality with the Father.
7 Is. Ixvi. 2. a