Not that he was willing to suppress the term and surrender the Nicene cause, far from it; but he sees the relative importance of things and words. This shews the absurdity of the taunt, that the Nicene theologians fought ferociously over a single ‘iota, these Discourses what strikes us in all the writings of Athanasius from the de Jncarnatione to the end, his firm hold of the Soteriological aspect of the question at issue, of its vital importance to the reality of Redemption and Grace, to the reality of the knowledge of God vouchsafed to sinful man in Christ (ii. 69, 70, cf 1. 35, 49, 50, Ul. 67, &c., &c). The Theology and Christology of Athanasius is rooted in the idea of Redemption: our fellowship with God, our adoption as sons of God, would be unaccomplished, had not Christ imparted to us what was His Own to give (i. 12, 16, cf. Harnack, Dogmengesch., 2. 205). Among other points of interest we may observe the anticipatory rejection of the later heresies of Macedonius (i. 48, iii. 24), Nestorius (il. 8 note 3, &c., and the frequent application of @cordkos to the B.M.V. iii. 14, 29, &c.), and Eutyches (ii. 10 note 6, &c.), the emphatic vindication of worship as the exclusive prerogative of Divinity (ii. 23, ili. 32, ‘we zzvoke no creature’) and of the wmzgue sinless conception of Christ (iii. 33), lastly the cautious and reasonable discussion (ili. 42 sgg.) of our Saviour’s human knowledge. ‘ Although apparently composed at different times (see above) the four ‘ Discourses’ form a single work. The fourth alone ends with the usual doxology, thus announcing itself as the conclusion of the four-fold treatise. At the same time, the relation of the fourth Discourse to the others is by no means clear. It is largely occupied with a polemic against a heresy at the opposite extreme from Arianism, Monarchianism in one or other of its forms. Newman, in his introductory excursus, expresses the opinion that it consists of a series of fragmentary notes against several heresies, which for some unknown reason came to be incorporated, possibly by Athanasius himself or by his secretaries, in the great anti-Arian Manifesto. Zahn Jarcell, pp. 198—208 shews convincingly that the system of Marcellus, either in itself or in its supposed logical consequences, is the main object of criticism all along. If we trace throughout the Discourses the purpose of conciliating the ‘ Conservative’ and Semi-Arian party, we can well understand that Athanasius may have appended to them a section directed against Monarchianism, which, in the persons of Marcellus and Photinus (whose names, however, are characteristically absent), must have been felt by him to be a legitimate stumbling-block in their path toward peace. At any rate the fourth oration has always been associated with the others as forming part of one work.
There is, however, some confusion in early citations, in MSS., and in early editions as to the number of ‘ Orations’ against the Arians. The confusion is due to the frequent practice of reckoning the £/. g. as the first (or in one or two cases as the fourth; the Basel MS. counts de /ucar. c. Ar. as the fifth, and our fourth as the sixth). Montfaucon (Monitum Migne xxvi. p. 10) ascribes this to the arrangement in many MSS. by which the Zp. Ze. comes immediately before the ‘ Orations.’ Being itself directed against the Arians it has come to be labelled Adyos mparos.
The title ‘Orations’ is consecrated by long use, and cannot be displaced, but it is unfortunate as implying, to our ears, oratorical delivery, for which the Discourses were never meant. ‘The original Greek term (Adyos) is common to these Discourses with the ¢. Genées, de L[ncarnatione, &c., &.
A full analysis of these Discourses is given by Bishop Kaye (Council of Nicea, in ‘ Works,’ vol. v.); his strictures on Newman’s notes are occasionally very just. The Discourses are more concisely analysed by Ceillier (vol. v., pp. 218, sgg.) See also Dorner, Doctr. of Person of Christ, Part I., Div. 3, i. 3. The headings of Newman, prefixed to the ‘chapters,’ will supply the place of an analysis for readers of this volume.
The translation which follows is that of Cardinal Newman, published in 1844 (the year before his secession), in the Oxford ‘ Library of the Fathers.’ The copious and elaborate notes and discussions which accompany it have always been acknowledged to be a masterpiece of their illustrious author. The modern reader sits down to study Athanasius, and rises from his task filled with Newman. Like all the work of Newman included in this volume, translation and notes alike have been touched by the present editor with a reverent and a sparing hand. ‘The translation, which shews great care and fidelity, coupled with remarkable ingenuity and close study of characteristic phrases and idioms, has been, with two main exceptions, but little altered. These exceptions are (1) the substitution throughout of essence’ for ‘substance,’ (2) an attempt to remedy the most unfortunate, though not unconsidered, confusion of yevyyrés and yevnrés under the single rendering ‘ generate.’ A good rendering for the latter word and its cognates is indeed not easy to find (see above, p. 149); but it was felt impossible, even in deference to so great a name, after the note in Lightfoot’s Lenatius, to leave the matter as it stood.
With regard to the notes, the historical matter and the abundant cross-references have been thoroughly overhauled and in some cases modified without indication of the change. Moreover, some theological notes.of minor importance have been expunged to economise space, while, for the same reason, mere references have in many cases been reluctantly substituted for the extensive patristic quotations. The notes to Orat. iv., which are less important theologically, have been very much curtailed. With these exceptions, all doctrinal notes proper have been left exactly as they first appeared, even where they maintain views which appear untenable: any additions or explanations by the present editor are enclosed in square brackets, which also in a very few cases denote additional or corrected references made under Dr. Pusey’s authority in the reprint of 1877.
It is unnecessary to apologise to the reader for the hesitation which has been felt in touching, even to this slight extent, the work of John Henry Newman. The only apology which the editor of this volume cares to offer is for having done the little that seemed absolutely needed.
It may be added that the Cardinal publisled in 1881 (4th ed., 1888) a ‘ free translation’ of the first three Discourses, based upon the Oxford translation, but of a totally different kind, amounting to a somewhat highly condensed paraphrase of the original in the luminous English of the Cardinal himself, rather than bound, as the older translation is, to the style of Athanasius. The new rendering includes the de Decretis and the de Synodis,; almost all the notes are in a second volume.
The most convenient edition of the Greek text is that of Dr. Bright (Oxford, 1872), with an Introduction on the Life and Writings of Athanasius (rewritten for D.C. B., vol. i., TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE Four DISCOURSES.
The following Table of Contents of Orat. i.—iii. (the contents of Orat. iv. will be tabulated at the end of Axc. C.) must be supplemented by the fuller headings prefixed to Newman’s ‘ chapters.’
Orat. i. I—4. INTRODUCTORY. i.5—7. a. The Arian doctrine as represented in the ‘ Thalia.’ i. 8—ro. 4. Significance of the Controversy.
General Subject of the Discourses: THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. i. 11—13. The Divine Sonship: (1) ETERNAL.
1. 14—16. (2) Though real, not like earthly Sonship. i. 17—2I. (3) ‘The only true Sonship. i, 22—29. Objections to the above discussed. i. 30—34. (4) On the term ayévnros. Tea SOs (5) On the unchangeableness of the Son. Orat. i. 37—iii. 58. (6) Discussion of controverted texts.
i. 37—64. a. Texts bearing on the exaltation of the Son (viz. Phil. ii. 9; Ps. xlv. 7,8; Heb. i. 4).
(Excursus B. On the Arian formula apy yevunOjvat ov Hv.)
ii. 1--82. 8. Texts bearing on the ‘creation’ of the Son ((Vizeuklebyaiin2) ser Actsle30:smeKov-nVvilinn2 oe the latter occupying §§ 18—82).
iii. 125. y. Texts from the Fourth Gospel on the relation of the Son to the Father.
iii. 26—58. 5. Texts bearing more directly on the Incarnation (Matt. xxviii. 18; Joh. ili. 35; Mark xili. 32, Luke ii. 52, human knowledge, &c., of Christ, §§ 42—53; Matt. xxvi. 39, &c.).
iii. 58 —67. (7) The Divine Sonship in relation to the Divine Will.
CHAPTER I.
Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism; Arians not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.
1. OF all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have but devised' a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to allmen. For that? their authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith the Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing of their own mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger3 of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language‘, hike her father t émvongacat. This is almost a technical word, and has occurred again and again already, as descriptive of heretical teaching in opposition to the received traditionary doctrine. It is also found fassim in other writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against Apollinaris; ‘for not originating, émvojoavres, any novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.’ Hist. iii. 7. The sense of the word éxivoca which will come into consideration below, is akin to this, being the view taken by the mind of an object independent of (whether or not correspondent to) the object itself. [But see Bigg. B. L. p. 168, sg.]
3 de Syn. 5.
4 Vid. infr. § 4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Preser. 42, wha warns Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of isolated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church. vid. also Vincentius, who specifies od7tex Sabellius and Novatian. 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, Hey. iii. 1 or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, de Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Ovat. ii. § 18. c. Epiph. Her, 69. 15. Or rather they took some words of Scripture, and made their own deductions from them; viz. ‘Son,’ ‘made,’ ‘exalted,’ &c. ‘ Making their private irreligiousness as if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it.’ Ovat. i.
the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church’s paradise,—that with the pretence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ,—nay, since she has already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip ‘ the folds of its breast-plateS,’ and to shew the ill savour of its folly. So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those® who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.
2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas7 a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still § 52. vid. also Epiph. Her. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their OpvAAnrat dwvat, Adfers, Ex, PyTa, sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text. e.g. infr., § 22, ‘amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about,’ &c. Also avw nai katw mepipépovtes, de Decr. $13. T®@ pytw TeOpvAdARKacr TA Tavtaxod. Orat. 2. § 18. 7a woAvOpvAAnTov codiona, Basil. coxtr. Eunom. ii. 14. THY moAvOpvAAntov Suadextixyny, Nyssen. contr. Eun. ili. p. 125. THY OpvdAdAouLEevny amoppoyny, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. thy moAv@pvAAntov pwvnv, Socr. li. 43. 5 Job xli. 13 (uv. 4. LXX).
6 These Orations and Discourses seem written to shew the vital importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian character of the heresy, without reference to the word opoovc.ov. He has [elsewhere] insisted that the enforcement of the symbol was but the rejection of the heresy, and accordingly he is here content to bring out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, if persons understood and embraced it, they would not scruple at the word. He seems to allude to what may be called the liberal or indifferent feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. §7 fin. § 9. § roinit. § 15 fin. $17. § 2r. § 23. He mentions 72 Agodlin. i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says, it was ‘fearful to mention,’ S. Augustine tells us that this man taught that ‘all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth,’ ‘which,’ he adds. ‘is so absurd as to seem to me incredible.’ Her. 72. vid. also Philastr. Wer. gt.
ee ee eee Bee among the Apostles, and to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymeneus and Alexander as right-minded men, and as if the Apostle slandered them. But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in this understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichzeus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades8, a man whom even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effemi/ nate tone, in writing Thaliz on his model; and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of the ‘image of corruptible man9,’ and for Christians come to be called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians after the names of their teachers", that they themselves may appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian people take their title from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, and have ministered the Saviour’s Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become’.
10 He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians; vid. however next 3. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title as applied to Catholics, and again to heretics, when they are taken by Catholics as a zo¢e against them. S. Augustine says, ‘ Arians call Catholics Athanasians or Homoiisians, xot other heretics too. But ye not only by Catholics dt also by heretics, those who agree with you and those who disagree, are called Pelagians; as even by heresies are Arians called Arians. But ye, and ye only, call us Traducianists, as Arians call us Homoiisians, as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees Pharisees, and as the other heretics use various titles.’ OZ. zm. i. 75. It may be added that the heretical name adheres, the Catholic dies away. S, Chrysostom draws a second distinction, ‘Are we divided from the Church? have we heresiarchs? are we called from man? is there any leader to us, as to one there is Marcion, to another Manichzeus, to another Arius, to another some other author of heresy? for if we too have the name of any, still it is not those who began the heresy, but our superiors and governors of the Church. We have not ‘teachers upon earth,’’ &c. in Act. Ag. Hom. 33 fin.
1 Vid. foregoing note. Also, ‘Let us become His disciples, and learn to live according to Christianity; for whoso is called by other name besides this, is not of God.’ Ignat ad Magn. 10. Hegesippus speaks of ‘Menandrians, and Marcionites, and_ Car; pocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians, xX 3. Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and those who continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichzus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and 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 Meletians2, and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour’s Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were 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, nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because.we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet anyhow bear the name of him who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of his party have succeeded him, yet those who think with him, as being known from Arius, are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable who ‘each in his own way and that a different one brought in his own doctrine.” Euseb. Hzs¢. iv. 22. ‘There are, and there have been, my friends, many who have taught atheistic and blasphemous words and deeds, coming in the name of Jesus; and they are called by us from the appellation of the men, whence each doctrine and opinion began...Some are called Marcians, others Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Saturnilians,’ &c. Justin. Tryph. 35. ren. Her, i. 23. _ ‘When men are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or by any other name, they cease to be Christians; for they have lost Christ’s Name, and clothe themselves in human and foreign titles.’ Lact. Jzst. iv. 30. ‘A. How are you a Christian, to whom it is not even granted to bear the name of Christian? for you are not called Christian but Marcionite. M. And you are called of the Catholic Church; therefore ye are not Christians either. A. Did we profess man’s name, you would have spoken to the point; but if we are called from being all over the world, what is there bad in this?’ Adamant. Dzad. § 1, p. 809. Epiph. Her. 42. p. 366. ibid. 7o. 15. vid. also Her. 75. 6 fin. Cyril Cat. xviii. 26, ‘Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.’ Pacian. Z¢, 1.
‘If you ever hear those who are called Christians, named, not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some one else, say Marcionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers, Campestrians, know that it is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist.’ Jerom. adv. Lucif, fin.
2 Vid. de Syn. 12. [Vrolegg. ch. ii. § 2.)
evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the Church, on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their catechists, but of the Saviour, and begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks; while those of them who go off to the heretics, and again all who from the Church change to this heresy, abandon Christ’s name, and henceforth are called Arians, as no longer holding Christ’s faith, but having inherited Arius’s madness.
4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniacs 3? or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils? who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius’s Thalize a new wisdom? and with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found; nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres? that, while ‘a man,’ as Wisdom says, ‘is known from the utterance of his word 4,’ so from those numbers should be seen the writer’s effeminate soul and corruption of thoughts. In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection; but, for all his many writhings to and fro, like the serpent, he did but fall into the error of the Pharisees. They, that they might transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, and that they might deny the expected and then present Lord, were hypocritical with God’s name, and were convicted 3 de Syn, 13, note 4. Manes also was called mad; ‘ Thou must hate all heretics, but especially him who even in name is a maniac.’ Cyril. Catech. vi. 20, vid. also ibid. 24 fin.—a play upon the name vid. de Syn. 26, ‘ Scotinus.’ 4 4 Vid. Ecclus. iv. 24.
5 It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of Arius. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2.] Epiphanius’s account of Arius is as follows:—‘ From elation of mind the old man swerved from the mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with manners like wily serpent, captivitating to every guileless heart by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited in cloke and vest, he was pleasant of address, ever persuading souls and flattering; wherefore what was his very first work but to withdraw from the Church in one body as many as seven hundred women who professed virginity?’ Her. 69. 3, cf. ib. $9 for a strange description of Arius attributed to Constantine, also printed in the collections of councils; Hard. i. 457, of blaspheming when they said, ‘Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God,’ and sayest, ‘IT and the Father are one ©?’ And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language ’, but is on all sides recognised as godless® Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures.
CHAPTER II.
EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS.
Aiius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God’s attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God’s foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father; does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself.
3. Now the commencement of Arius’s Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:— ‘According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones, Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving, Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom, Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.
Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions, I the very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory; And taught of knowledge.’
And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these *:—‘ God was not always a Father;’ but ‘once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.’ ‘The Son was not always;’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘ made out of nothing,’ and ‘ once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His God, I have acquired wisdom and 8 And so godless or atheist Aectius, de Sym. 6, note 3, cf. note on de Decr. 1, for an explanation of the word. In like manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says ‘that the Son is a creature, who is Word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,’ he falls under ‘the text, ‘Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.’ ‘Such a one,’ he continues, ‘will in no long time say, as the fool, There is no God.’ Yn like manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit as ‘without (¢&w) the Holy Trinity, and atheists’ (Serap. iv. 6), because they really do not believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Sevaf. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as av@pwzous a8éous, who were attempting kparjcar Tov Octov. ap. Theod. Hzsé. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen moAv@cos a0cta. Ovat. 25. 15, and he calls faith and regeneration ‘a denial of atheism, a@etas, and a confession of godhead, @edrynTos,’ Ovat. 23. 12. He calls Lucius the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruedties, “this second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, ris abéov mys.’ Ovrat. 25.12. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is avnp aBeos. ibid. 12. _ 1 de Syn. $15. [where the metre of the Thalia is discussed in a note,] ee a en a origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘ For God,’ he says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’ Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute coexistent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. ‘ For Wisdom,’ saith he, ‘ by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.’ In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God’s own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the socalled powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar *, is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the ‘ great power.’ The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, ‘The Lord of hosts’ or ‘ powers3.’ And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For ‘therefore,’ saith he, ‘ as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known +, did God bring it to pass that He, being such, should come to be.’
6. Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘ the Word is not the very God;’ ‘though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’ And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is ‘the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s essence and propriety,’ but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil’s recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that ‘even to the Son the Father is invisible,’ and ‘the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;’ but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees ‘ in proportion to His own measure,’ as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says,