of ‘Son,’ in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence; and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His essence, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of Gods. 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® let them inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence? they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from God is not an affection; and now it has been shewn in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not asman; nor must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso partake are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, 5 This is a view familiar to the Fathers, viz. that in this consists our Lord’s Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S. Augustine says, Christum ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug. ZZ. 120. 11. fe. de Decr.§17. ‘If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring;’ Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. ‘The Word, the genuine Son of Mind;’ Clem. Protrepft. p. 58. Petavius discusses this subject accurately with reference to the distinction between Divine Generation and Divine Procession. de Trin. vii. 14.
7 Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause of their opposition to the Church; and if even Arius affected it, the plea may be expected in any other. ‘O stultos et impios metus,’ says S. Hilary, ‘et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.’ de Trin. iv. 6. Ut was still more commonly professed in regard to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Acta Archelai {Routh. RedZ. v. 169]. August. contr. Secund. 9, contr. Faust. xi. 3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence of reverence, because, as they said, the soul was necessavily sinful. Leontius makes this their main argument, 0 vols apaptytiKds éom. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. £f. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89; Athan. 7% Afoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80. Athan., &c., call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichean_in consequence. vid. in Afol/. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, will not call our Lord man. Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, would call our Lord man, but refused to admit His human zature, and still with the same profession. ' Leon. £/. 21. 1 fin. ‘Forbid it,’ he says at Constantinople, ‘that I should say that the Christ was of two natures, or should discuss the nature, Pucodoyeiv, of my God.’ Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act.
prima conc. Chalc. t.iv. 100r ed. Col.] A modern argument for Universal Restitution takes a like form; ‘Do not we shrink from the notion of another’s being sentenced to eternal punishment; and are we more merciful than God?’ vid. Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
but has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him.
29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that they were not before origination? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father’s with a maker’s function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence*. And a man may be and may be called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father he cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the power to make, does not always make (though this also be the presumption of madmen, for ‘who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor?’ or how ‘shall the thing formed say to’ the potter, ‘why didst thou make me thus9?’ however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed), they must be told, that although God always had the power to make, yet the things originated had not the power of being eternal’®, For they are out of nothing, and therefore were not before their origination; but things which were not before their origination, how could these coexist with the everexisting God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good for them, then made them all when He saw that, when originated, they were able to abide. And as, though He was able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noah, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until the consummation of the ages (for this He saw to be good for the whole creation), so also things originated did He make when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being 8 Vid. Orat. iii. § 59, &c. 9 Rom. xi. 345 ib. ix. 20.
io Athan.’s argument is as follows: that, as it is of the essence of a son to be ‘connatural’ with the father, so is it of the essence of a creature to be of ‘nothing,’ é& ov« ovrwy; therefore, while it was not impossible ‘ from the nature of the case,’ for Almighty God to be always Father, it was impossible for the same reason that He should be always a Creator. vid. infr. § 58: where he takes, ©They shall perish,’ in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the definition of the zature of a creature. Also ii. § 1, where he says, ‘It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, é& ov« évrmv and ov« iv mpty yevvnby.’ vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. p- 67-Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a Creator 7% posse, vid. supra, £/. Hus, 11 note 3.
SGYs a work, but proper to the Father’s offspring, always is; for, whereas the Father always 1s, so what is proper to His essence must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of His essence. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father’s essence.
CHAPTER IX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If it means ‘ without Father,’ there is but One Unoriginate; if ‘without beginning or creation,’ there are two. Inconsistency of Asterius. ‘ Unoriginate’ a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is ‘Almighty,’ or ‘Lord of powers.’ ‘Father’ is the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our adoption as sons.
30. THESE considerations encourage the faithful, and distress the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown thereby. Moreover, their further question, ‘whether the Unoriginate be one or two',’ shews how false are their views, how treacherous and full of guile. Not for the Father’s honour ask they this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Accordingly, should any one, not aware of their craft, answer, ‘the Unoriginated is one,’ forthwith they spirt out their own venom, saying, ‘ Therefore the Son is among things originated,’ and well have we said, ‘He was not before His generation.’ Thus they make any kind of disturbance and confusion, provided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and reckon the Framer of all among His x The word ayyév[vInrov was in the philosophical schools synonymous with ‘God;’ hence by asking whether there were two Unoriginates, the Arians implied that there were two Gods, if Christ was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, pacKovtes, ov Aéyouer SVO ayévnta, Aéyovar So Deovds. Orat. iii. 16, also ii. 38. Plato used ayévynroy of the Supreme God [not so; he used ayévnrov, see note 2 on de Decr. 28); the Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph. Her. 31. 10. S. Clement uses it, see de Syxz. 47, note 7. [The earlier Arians apparently argued mainly, like Asterius, from ayévnros (cf. Epiph. 64. 8), the later (katvo’, Epiph. Her. 73. 19) Anomeceans rather from ayévyytos]; viz. that 7 ayevynoia is the very ovata of God, not an attribute. So Aetius in Epiph. Her. 76. S. Athanasius does not go into this question, but rather confines himself to the more popular form of it, viz. the Son is by His very name not ayévyros, but yeryros, but all yeynra are creatures; which he answers, as de Decr. § 28, by saying that Christianity had brought in a new idea into theology, viz. the sacred doctrine of a true Son, ex ts ovoias. This was what the Arians had originally denied, éy 7o ayévyntoy ev Sé TO Um adTod GAnBds, Kal OVK EK TIS OVTLaS avyrod yeyovos. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. H.Z.i.6. When they were urged zwAaz according to them was the middle idea to which the Son works. Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not im Scripture, though these not imjurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that 1s, using words not in Scripture?, and those in contumely of the Lord, knowing ‘neither what they say nor whereof they affirm3.’ For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have been their instructors (for it is a word of their invention, not Scripture), and when they have been instructed in its various significations, then they will discover that they cannot even question properly, on the subject which they have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain 4 that by ‘unoriginate’ is meant what has not yet come to be, but is possible to be, as wood which is not yet become, but is capable of becoming, a vessel; and again what neither has nor ever can come to be, as a triangle quadrangular, and an even number odd. For a triangle neither has nor ever can become quadrangular; nor has even ever, nor can ever, become odd. Moreover, by ‘ unoriginate’ is meant, what exists, but has not come into being from any, nor having a father at all. Further, Asterius, the unprincipled sophist, the patron too of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not made, but is ever, is ‘unoriginate 5.’ They ought then, when they ask the question, to add in what sense they take the word ‘ unoriginate,’ and then the parties questioned would be able to answer to the point.
31. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, ‘Is the Unoriginate one or two?’ they must be told first of all, as illeducated men, that many are such and nothing is such, many, which are capable of origination, and nothing, which is not capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as Asterius ruled it, as if ‘what is not a work but was always’ were unoriginate, then they must constantly be told that the Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called unoriginate. For He is neither in the number of things originated, nor a work, but has ever been with the Father, as has already been shewn, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of speaking against the Lord, 2 De Decr. 18. Six imei 7s 4 De Decr. 28, note 4.
5 The two first senses here given answer to the two first mentioned, de Decr. § 28. and, as he there says, are plainly irrelevant. The third in the de Lecy. which, as he there observes, is ambiguous and used for a sophistical purpose, is here divided into third and fourth, answering to the two senses which alone are assigned in the de Sw. § 46 [where see note 5], and on them the question turns. ‘This is an instance, of which many occur, how Athan. used his former writings and worked over again his 'former ground, and simplified or cleared what he had said. In the de Decr. aiter 350, we have three senses of ayévnrov, two irreanswered, if they would not accept the Catholic, they would not | levant and the third ambiguous; here in Ovatz. i. (358), he divides define but merely said, yévvnja, aX ovK ws ev TOY yevvyaTtwr, | the third into two; in the de Syx. (359), he rejects and omits the [See pp. 149, 169, and the reference there to Lightfoot.]
two first, leaving the two last, which are the critical senses.
DISCOURSE a eee ee ee ee ee ee ‘He is of nothing’ and ‘ He was not before His generation.’ When then, after failing at every turn, they betake themselves to the other sense of the question, ‘ existing but not generated of any nor having a father,’ we shall tell them that the unoriginate in this sense is only one, namely the Father; and they will gain nothing by their question®. For to say that God is in this sense Unoriginate, does not shew that the Son is a thing originated, it being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He is who begat Him. Therefore if God be unoriginate, His Image is not originated, but an Offspring 7, which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what likeness has the originated to the unoriginate? (one must not weary of using repetition;) for if they will have it that the one is like the other, so that he who sees the one beholds the other, they are like to say that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an equalling of things originated with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number.
32. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to proceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, runs counter to them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is unoriginate and without beginning also. The following is a passage out of his work’: ‘The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, ‘God’s power and God’s wisdom?;’ thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and co-existent with Him unoriginatedly, is something besides.’ And again, soon after: ‘ However, His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and unoriginate; this must surely be one.’ For though, misunderstanding the Apostle’s words, he considered that there were two wisdoms; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom coexistent with Him, he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate with Him. For what is coexistent, coexists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, ‘Is the Unoriginate one or two,’ or they will have to contest the point with him; if, on the other hand, they differ even from him, 6 These two senses of ayévyntov unbegotten and unmade were afterwards [but see notes on de Decry. 28] expressed by the distinction of vy and v, ayévynrov and ayévyrov. vid. Damasc. L. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien’s note.
let them not rely upon his treatise, lest, ‘biting one another, they be consumed one of another **.’ So much on the point of their ignorance; but who can say enough on their crafty character? who but would justly hate them while possessed by such a madness? for when they were no longer allowed to say ‘ out of nothing’ and ‘He was not before His generation,’ they hit upon this word ‘ unoriginate,’ that, by saying among the simple that the Son was ‘originate,’ they might imply the very same phrases ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘ He once was not;’ for in such phrases things originated and creatures are implied.
33. If they have confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them, and not change about so variously‘; but this they will not, from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their heresy under colour of the word ‘unoriginate.’ Yet after all, this term is not used in contrast with the Son, clamour as they may, but with things originated; and the like may be found in the words ‘ Almighty,’ and ‘ Lord of the Powers?’ For if we say that the Father has power and mastery over all things by the Word, and the Son rules the Father’s kingdom, and has the power of all, as His Word, and as the Image of the Father, it is quite plain that neither here is the Son reckoned among that all, nor is God called Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but to those things which through the Son come to be, and over which He exercises power and mastery through the Word. And therefore the Unoriginate is specified not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which through the Son come to be. And excellently: since God is not as things originated, but is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the word ‘ Unoriginate’ is specified relatively to things originated, so the word ‘Father’ is indicative of the Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and Unoriginate, regards and apprehends things created and made; and he who calls God Father, thereby conceives and contemplates the Son. And hence one might marvel at the obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term ‘unoriginate’ has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of being used religiously 3, they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, 2 The passage which follows is written with his de Decr. before him. At first he but uses the same topics, but presently he incorporates into this Discourse an actual portion of his former work, with only such alterations as an author commonly makes in transcribing. This, which is not unfrequent with Athan., shews us the care with which he made his doctrinal statements, though they seem at first sight written off. It also accounts for the diffuseness and repetition which might be imputed to his composition, what seems superfluous being often only the insertion of an extract from a former work. 3 De Syn. § 47.
and he who dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth| God Unoriginate,’ but rather, ‘ When ye pray, the Father+. If they had any concern at all 5 for reverent speaking and the honour due to the Father, it became them rather, and this were better and higher, to acknowledge and call God Father, than to give Him this name. For, in calling God unoriginate, they are, as I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker only and Framer, supposing that hence they may signify that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But that he who calls God Father, signifies Him from the Son being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through that Son all things originate were created. And they, when they call Him Unoriginate, name Him only from His works, and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and knowing the Word, he acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and understands that through Him all things have been made.
34. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son ‘and call Him Father, than toname Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate® For the latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than signify all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father has its significance and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginate. For the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, because it has various senses; so that, when a man is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and only implies the Son. And ‘Unoriginate’ is a word of the Greeks, who know not the Son; but ‘Father’ has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord. For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me;’ and, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and ‘I and the Father are One7;’ but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, ‘When ye pray, say, O 5 Here he begins a close transcript of the de Decr. § 30, the last sentence, however, of the paragraph being an addition.
6 For analogous arguments against the word ayévvyntov, see Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 23. Epiph. Her. 76. p.94t. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunone. vi. Pp. 192; ce. Cyril. Dial. 11. Pseudo-Basil. cont. Eunomz. iv. p. 283.
7 John xiv. 11 3 XV. 9; x. 30. These three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly in Ovaz. iii. where he considers the doctrines of the ‘Image’ and the meptyopnocs. vid. Index of Texts, also Epiph. Hem. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin. Cyr. Thes. xi, p. 111. [add in S, Joan. 168, 847] Potam. Lp. ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Triz. vii. 4x. et supr.
say, Our Father, which art in heaven %.’ And it was His will that the Summary? of our faith should have the same bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of Unoriginate and originate, nor into the name of Creator and creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For with such an initiation we too, being numbered among works, are made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge from that name the Word also in the Father Himself?*, A vain thing then is their argument about the term ‘ Unoriginate,’ as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.
CHAPTER X.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
How the Word has free will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable because the Image of the Father, proved from texts.
35. As to their question whether the Word is alterable*, it is superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the following questions:—‘ Has He free will, or has He not? is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and incline hither and thither?’ It is but agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think; for, when once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms, as being suitable to a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found? is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His development? how shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Unalterable? At what state must He arrive, for us to be able to behold in Him the Father? for it is plain 8 Luke xi. 2. 9 De Syn. 28, note 5.
10 Here ends the extract from the de Decretis. following is added as a close.
I qTpenros, i.e. not ‘changeable’ but of a moral nature capable of improvement. Arius maintained this in the strongest terms at starting. ‘On being asked whether the Word of God is capable of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, “Yea, He is capable.”’ Alex. af. Socr. i. 6. p. 12.
The sentence DISCOURSE 1.
that not at all times shall we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but of an ever-changing nature, how can such a one be the Father’s Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness?? how can He be really in the Father, if His purpose is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth shine out, and shew that they are foolish, For must not He be perfect who is equal to God? and must not He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son proper to His essence? and the Father’s essence being unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril; for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, and why the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.
36. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable; for ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever3.’ And David in the Psalm says of Him, ‘ Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail4.” And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, ‘See now that I, even I am He,’ and ‘I change nots.’ It may be said indeed that what is here signified relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to say this, specially because, when made man, He manifests His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the flesh He is changéd and become other than He was. More trustworthy are the saints, or rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the name of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things originate and created is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the Son from these, shews us thereby that He is no wise a thing originate; nay teaches that He changes everything else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, ‘Thou 3 Heb. xiii. 8.
5 Deut. xxxii. 39; Mal. ill. 6.
art the same, and Thy years shall not fail®.’ And with reason; for things originate, being from nothing?, and not being before their origination, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that essence which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? or can that be Wisdom which is changeable? unless perhaps, as accident in essence’, so they would have it, viz. as in any particular essence, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how can that be true? whereas the Lord says, ‘T am the Truth9.’ If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares His unalterableness, and the Saints have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion draw this novelty? From their heart as from a seat of corruption did they vomit it forth CHAPTER XI.
Texts EXPLAINED; AND First, Puiu. ui.
Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. ii. 9, 10. Whether the words ‘Wherefore God hath highly exalted’ prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word ‘Son;’ which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of ‘highly exalted,’ and ‘gave,’ and ‘wherefore;’ viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord’s manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word’s ‘ exaltation’ through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word.
37. Bur since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense*, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they 9 John xiv. 6. 10 De Syn. § 16 fin.
1 Vid. de Syn. 4, note 6. and cf. Tertull. de Prescr. 19. Rufinus H. E.ii. 9. Vincent. Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage very much to the same purpose, contr. Noet. 9 fin.