Subsistence *.’ But if, as we have said before, the Father’s Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what 1s proper to the Father’s Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, ‘This is the Son originated at My will,’ nor ‘the Son whom I have by My favour,’ but simply ‘My Son,’ and more than that, ‘in whom I am well pleased;’ meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and ‘in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me.’
66. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He without the pleasure of the Father and not with the Father’s will? No, verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the Father, and, as He says Himself, ‘The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things *.’ For as not ‘from will’ did He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure), so also that the Son should be, though it came not ‘from will,’ yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as His own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His Essence, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the object of the Father’s pleasure and love; and thus let every one religiously account of? the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith the Son is the object of the Father’s pleasure, is the Father the object of the Son’s love, pleasure, and honour; and one is the good pleasure which is from Father in Son, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, introduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of ‘counsel,’ intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word; for it were madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards His Son who is His own by nature. For to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination two ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, ‘He might not have been,’ is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Essence of the Father, as if what is His own might these Orations, except as contained in Heb. i. 3, Vid. also p. 70, note 13. Yet the phrase rpets vroordoes is certainly found in Illud Ommn. fin. and in Jncarn. c. Arian. to. (if genuine) and apparently in Lagos. Hid. 2. Vid. also Orat. iv. 25 init.
not have been. For it is the same as saying, ‘The Father might not have been good.’ And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative 3 by nature; and to say, ‘The Father’s good pleasure is the Son,’ and ‘The Word’s good pleasure is the Father,’ implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety and likeness of Essence. For as in the case of the radiance and light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begat it, not by will and consideration, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father.
67. Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church; but be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has the Father spoken, ‘My heart uttered a good Word;’ and the Son conformably, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me+.’ But if the Word be in the heart, where is will? and if the Son in the Father, where is good pleasure? and if He be Will Himself, how is counsel in Will? it is unseemly; lest the Word come into being in ‘a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been repeatedlys said. For the Son is the Father’s All; and nothing was in the Father before the Word; but in the Word is will also, and through Him the objects of will are carried into effect, as holy Scriptures have shewn. And I could wish that the irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason® as to be considering about will, would now ask their childbearing women no more, whom they used to ask, ‘Hadst thou a son before conceiving him7?’ but the father, ‘Do ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your will?’ or ‘Are your children like your nature and essence °?? that, even from fathers they may learn shame, from whom they assumed this proposition? about birth, and from whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For they will reply to them, ‘What we beget, is like, not our good pleasure, but like ourselves; nor become we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature; since we too are images of our fathers.’ Either SiOz ir 4a erase eens. 4 Ps. xlv. 23 John xiv. ro, i DISCOURSE III. ee then let them condemn themselves™, and cease asking women about the Son of God, or let them learn from them, that the Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. Becoming and suitable to them is a refutation from human instances", since the perverseminded men dispute in a human way concerning the Godhead. Why then are Christ’s enemies still mad? for this, as well as their other pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere fantasy and fable; and on this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of folly down which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee the snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving unto men and cries continually, ‘If because of My clothing of the body ye believe Me not, yet believe the works, that ye may know that “I am in the Father and the Father in Me,” and “I and the Father are one,” and ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father*3.”’ But the Lord according to His wont is loving to man, and would fain ‘help them that are fallen,’ as the praise of David says; but the irreligious men, not desirous to hear the Lord’s voice, nor bearing to see Him acknowledged by all as God and God’s Son, go about, miserable men, as beetles, seeking with their father the devil pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence will they be able next to find? unless they borrow blasphemies of Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism from Gentiles? for the divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are refuted as insensate and Christ’s enemies.
eC Sih is Os INERODUCTORY *TO*THE FOURTH IiDISCOURSE AGAINST sliE VARIANS.
Tue fourth Discourse, as has been already observed (p. 304), stands on a footing of its own. To begin with, it is not quoted in antiquity, as the first three are, as part of the work of Ath. against the Arians (details in Newman, p. 499). Again, the fact that not only the Ep. 4g., but even the dubious de Jncar. c. Arian., are in some MSS. included in the Ovationes, while our present oration appears sometimes as the ‘fifth’ sometimes as the ‘sixth,’ cast a shade of doubt upon its claim to be included in the ‘ Pentabiblus against the Arians’ referred to by Photius. In addition to these external considerations, Newman lays stress on the apparent want of continuity in its argument; on its non-conformity to the structural plan of Orat. i.—iil., on the use of the term dpoovaror (§§ 10, 22, contrast Orat.i.§ 9, p. 311, note 12); on certain peculiarities of style which seem characteristic of disjointed notes rather than of a systematic treatise; on the reference to ‘Eusebius’ (of Czesarea) as apparently still living (§ 8); and on the general absence of personal reference to opponents, while yet a definite and extant system seems to be combated.
Now a comparison with the works of Eusebius against Marcellus leaves little doubt that the system combated by Athan. is that of the latter (described briefly Prolege. ch. ii.
mS ae laying down as a thesis (§ 1) the substantive existence of the divine Word or Wisdom, Athan. proceeds to combat the idea that the Word has no personality distinct from that of the Father. Setting aside the alternative errors of Sabellius (§ 2) and Arius (§ 3), he taxes with the consequence of involving two ’Apyai a view that the Word had a substantive existence and was then united to the Father (cf. Euseb. c. Marcell. 32 a, 108 A, 106, D). This consequence can only be avoided by falling into the Sabellian alternative of a Ocds dipuns (cf.
3 The above Zxcursus is substituted for the longer introduc- | of Marcellus is throughout in view. Earlier discussions pointing tion of Newman (republished in Latin in his Tracts, Thedlogical | the same way are cited: ‘In Eusebii contra Marcellum libros and Ecctesiastica?, 1872), and is in the.main a condensation of | Observationes, auctore K.S.C.,’ Lips. 1787 (cited by Newman); the more recent and fasl discussion of Zahn ae 1863, | Rettberg, Marcelliana, Pref. p.7; Kuhn, Kathol. Dogm. ii. pp- 198 segg.). The result of the latter is to confirm the main con- | p. 344, note 1 (by Zahn), tention of Newman, viz. that the system, rather than the person, 432 EXCURSUSEG Jo Tertullian’s ‘Deum versipellem’), unless the true solution, that of the eternal divine yevyqots, be accepted (§ 3 worked out in 4, 5). The argument, apparently interrupted by an anti-Arian digression §§ 6, 7, is resumed § 8, whence it proceeds without break to § 24. Eusebius, insisting against Marcellus on the eternity of Christ’s Kingdom, inconsistently defends those who deny the eternity of His Person. But if so, how inconsistent are those who deny the Son any pre-existence, while yet repelling the Arian formule: with indignation! In § 9—12, taking Joh. x. 30 as his text, Athan. asks his opponents zz what sense Christ and the F ather ‘are one, distinguishing from his own answer that of Sabellius (9, 10), and that of Marcellus {EI;f 12), whom he presses with the paradoxical character of his explanation of the divine yévynos. In §§ 13, 14, he examines the (Marcellian, ot Saded/ian) doctrine of mharvopds and overoln, charging it with Sabellianism as its consequence. Next (§§ 1524) Ath. turns upon the radically weak point of the system of Marcellus (Prolegg. ubi supra), and asks What do his followers mean by ‘the Son?’ Do they mean merely (a) the man, Christ (§ 20, Photinus), or (4) the union of Word and Man, or (c) the Word regarded as Incarnate? The latter was the answer (§ 22) of Marcellus himself. This last point leads to a discussion (§ 24) of those O. T. passages on which Marcellus notoriously relied. § 25, which Zahn understands as a direct polemic against Sabellius, is far more probably, as Newman maintains in his note, a supplemental argument against Marcellianism, for the view combated is said to /ead inevitably to Sabellianism. The concluding portion, §§ 26—36, turns the argument of § 24, that Scripture declares the identity of Son and Word, against those who (adopting alternative (a) supra) drift from Marcellianism toward the Samosatene rather than toward the Sabellian position (on the connection of the two see Prolege. ch. ii. § 3 (2) aandc). Even here, the name of Photinus, to whose position the section specially applies, is significantly withheld.
Such is the course of the argument in the Fourth Oration; and with the exception of §§ 6, 7, and again possibly § 25, it forms a homogeneous, if not a finished and elaborated piece of argument. Its date and composition may be left an open question; but its purpose as an appendix to Orat. i.—iii., is we think open to little doubt (szpr. p. 304). Of Sabellius, who left no writings, the age of Athanasius knew little, except that he identified Father and Son (viorar@p), and denied the Trinity of Persons. Most that is told us of Sabellius from the fourth century onwards requires careful sifting, in order to eliminate what really belongs to Marcellus, Photinus, or others who were taxed with Sabellianism, and combated as ‘Sabellians.’? But with the simple patri-passianism which is the one undoubted element in the teaching of Sabellius, Marcellus had little or nothing in common. The criticism of Marcellus that Sabellius ‘knew not the Word’ reveals the true difference between them. To Sabellius, creation and redemption were the work of the one God under successive changes of manifestation; to Marcellus, they were the realisation of a process eternally latent in God; but both Marcellus and apparently Sabellius referred to the divine Nature what the theology of the Church has consistently referred to the divine Will.
The following table will make the foregoing scheme clear.
§ 1. Introductory. Thesis: the co-eternal personality of the Son or Word. §§ 2—5. Those who, while rejecting Arianism, would avoid Sabellianism, must accept the eternal divine Generation of the Son.
§§ 6, 7. [Digression: the humiliation of the Word explained against the Arians.]
§ 8. The eternity of Christ’s Kingdom and of His Person implied each in the other.
§§ 9—12. In what sense Christ and the Father are, and are not, one. The divine yévynots.
§§ 13,14. The ae of divine dilatation and contraction denies true personal distinctions in the Godead.
§§ 15—24. The Son and the Word identical. Refutation of the three alternative suppositions, and of the argument alleged from the O. T. in support of them.
§ 25. Final refutation of the doctrine of dilatation. §§ 26—-36. The ee identification of Son and Word refutes the restriction of the former title to the man Jesus.
= Te arian enhe 2 The Articles SasELLianisM and SapEtuius (both szd, fi.) in D.C.B. vol. iv., st A ANISI 5 2. fin. -C.B. vol. iv., state the contrary, but the i the standard discussion of Zahn, of which the learned articles in question do not seem to take gece se Oe ee DISCOU §§1—5. The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. Ifthe One Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from the Father’s Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John x. 30, drawn from Deut. iv. 4.
1. THE Word is God from God; for ‘the Word was God’,’and again, ‘ Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen?’ And since Christ is God from God, and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. And thus too we preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two Beginnings, whence there is strictlya Monarchy. And of this very Beginning the Word is by nature Son, not as if another beginning, subsisting by Himself, nor having come into being externally to that Beginning, lest from that diversity a Dyarchyand Polyarchy should ensue; but of the one Beginning He is own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, existing from It. For, according to John, ‘in’ that ‘ Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’ for the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, therefore also “the Word was God.’ And as there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so one is that Essence and Subsistence which indeed and truly and really is, and which said ‘I am that I am3,’ and not two, that there be not two Beginnings; and from the One, a Son in nature | and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable from It. And as there is not another essence, lest there be two Beginnings, so the Word which is from that One | Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound significative, but is an essential Word and_| essential Wisdom, which is the true Son.
Iai.
For were He not essential, God will be speaking into the air3*, and having a body, in nothing differently from men; but since He }is not man, neither is His Word according to the infirmity of man, For as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and Substantive, and Being from Being.
2. Since were He not essential Wisdom and substantive Word, and Son existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father, then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the forementioned absurdities would follow; and He will be His own Father, and the Son begetting and begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only, and He does not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. Jf then He does not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is Very Wisdom5 and Very Word. But if so, He is His own Father and Son; Father, when Wise, Son, when Wisdom; but these things are not in God as a certain quality; away with the dishonourable® thought; for it will issue in this, that God is compounded of essence and quality7, For whereas all quality is in essence, it will clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must be compound, being severed into essence and accident®. We must ask then these headstrong men; The Son was proclaimed as God’s Wisiom and Word; how then is He such? if as a quality, the absurdity has been shewn; but if God is that Very Wisdom, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius; therefore He is so, as an Offspring in a proper sense from the Father 5 Or. ii. n. 3, and below, § 4. Se ee? Ce aan 8 Cf, Euseb. Eccl.
Theol. p. 121. His opinion was misstated svp7., p. 164 sg., note 9, Fi Himself, according to the illustration of light. For as there is light from fire, so from God is there a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. For in this way the Monad remains undivided and entire, and Its Son, Word not unessential, nor not subsisting, but essential truly. For were it not so, all that is said would be said notionally* and verbally?. But if we must avoid that absurdity, then is a true Word essential. For as there is a Father truly, so Wisdom truly. In this respect then they are two; not because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the Father is Father and the Son Son, and they are one, because He is Son of the Essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. This the Lord said, viz. ‘I and the Father are One3;’ for neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever Wordless; on this account He says, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me4.’
3. And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did He then subsist by Himself, and subsisting, has He become joined to the Father, or did God make Him or call Him His Word? If the former, I mean if He subsisted by Himself and is God, then there are two Beginnings; and moreover, as is plain, He is not the Father’s own, as being not of the Father, but of Himself. But if on the contrary He be made externally, then is He a creature. It remains then to say that He is from God Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one thing, and that from which it is, is a second; according to this then there are two. But if they be not two, but the names belong to the same, cause and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shewn absurd in the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from Him, yet not another, He will be both begetting and not begetting; begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting, because it is nothing other than Himself. But if so, the same is called Father and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say, Father and Son must be two; and they are one, because the Son is not from without, but begotten of God. But if any one shrinks from saying ‘Offspring,’ and only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he fall into absurdity, making God a being of double nature. For not granting that the Word is from the Monad, but simply as if He were joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold essence, and neither of them Father of the other. And the same of Power. And 4 Ib. xiv. ro.
we may see this more clearly, if we consider it with reference to the Father; for there is One Father, and not two, but from that One the Son. As then there are not two Fathers, but One, so not two Beginnings, but One, and from that One the Son essential.
4. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise: (for the Sabellianisers must be confuted from the notion of a Son, and the Arians from that of a Father:) let us say then—Is God wise and not word-less: or on the contrary, is He wisdom-less and word-lesst? if the latter, there is an absurdity at once; if the former, we must ask, how is He wise and not word-less? does He possess the Word and the Wisdom from without, or from Himself? If from without, there must be one who first gave to Him, and before He received He was wisdom-less and word-less. But if from Himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor once was not; for He was ever; since He of whom He is the Image, exists ever. But if they say that He is indeed wise and not wordless, but that He has in Himself His own wisdom and own word, and that, not Christ, but that by which He made Christ, we must answer that, if Christ in that word was brought to be, plainly so were all things; and it must be He of whom John says, ‘ All things were made by Him,’ and the Psalmist, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all?.? And Christ will be found to speak untruly, ‘I in the Father,’ there being another in the Father.
And ‘ the Word became flesh 3’ is not true according to them. For if He in whom ‘all things came to be,’ Himself became flesh, but Christ is not in the Father, as Word ‘by whom all things came to be,’ then Christ has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was named Word. Butif so, first, there will be another besides the name, next, all things were not by Him brought to be, but in that other, in whom Christ also was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a quality or that He is Very Wisdom4, the absurdities will follow already mentioned. For He will be compounds, and will prove His own Son and Father®. Moreover, we must confute and silence them on the ground, that the Word which is in God cannot be a creature nor out of nothing; but if once a Word be in God, then He must be Christ who says, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me?,’ who also is therefore the Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is One Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power; for God is not compounded of these, 7 John xiv. to.
but is generative 8 of them. For as He frames the creatures by the Word, so according to the nature of His own Essence has He the Word as an Offspring, through whom He frames and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word and the Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain according to His ordinance. And the same concerning the word ‘Son;’ if God be without Son?°, then is He without Work; for the Son is His Offspring through whom He works ™; but if not, the same questions and the same absurdities will follow their audacity.
5. From Deuteronomy; ‘But ye that did attach yourselves unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day*.’ From this we may see the difference, and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, ‘I and the Father are One,’ and, ‘I in the Father, and the Father in Me;’ but things originate, when they make advance, are attached unto the Lord. The Word then is in the Father as being His own; but things originate, being external, are attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free choice. For a son which is by nature, is one? with him who begat him; but he whois from without, and is made a son, will be attached to the family. Therefore he immediately adds, ‘What nation is there so great who hath God drawing nigh unto them 3?’ and elsewhere, ‘I a God drawing nigh‘+;’ for to things originate He draws nigh, as being strange to Him, but to the Son, as being His own, He does not draw nigh, but He is in Him. And the Son is not attached to the Father, but co-exists with Him; whence also Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, ‘ Ye shall obey His voice, and apply yourselves unto Him 5;’ but what is applied, is applied from without.
§§ 6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was His.
6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, ‘Is given unto Me,’ and ‘I received, and if Paul says, ‘ Wherefore He highly exalted Him,’ and ‘He set Him at the right hand?*,’ and the like, we must say that our Lord, being Word and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son of Man, that, having become Mediator between God and men, He might minister the things of God to us, and ours to God. When then He Ir Or.
is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, Eloi, which are otir human affections, He receives them from us and offers to the Father 2, interceding for us, that in Him they may be annulled’. And when it is said, * All power is given unto Me,’ and ‘1 received,’ and ‘Wherefore God highly exalted Him,’ these are gifts given from God to us through Him. For the Word was never in want4, nor has come into being5; nor again were men sufficient to minister these things for themselves, but through the Word they are given to us; therefore, as if given to Him, they are imparted to us. For this was the reason of His becoming man, that, as being given to Him, they might pass on to us® For of such gifts mere man had not become worthy; and again the mere Word had not needed them7; the Word then was united to us, and then imparted to us power, and highly exalted us ®. For the Word being in man, highly exalted man himself; and, when the Word was in man, man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of the Word in man were these gifts given. And as ‘the Word became flesh 9,’ so also man himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For all that man himself has received, the Word is said to have received*°; that it might be shewn, that man himself, being unworthy to receive, as far as his own nature is concerned, yet has received because of the Word become flesh. Wherefore if anything be said to be given to the Lord, or the like, we must consider that it is given, not to Him as needing it, but to man himself through the Word. For every one interceding for another, receives the gift in his own person, not as needing, but on his account for whom he intercedes.
7. For as He takes our infirmities, not being infirm *, and hungers not hungering, but sends up what is ours that it may be abolished, so the gifts which come from God instead of our infirmities, doth He too Himself receive, that man, being united to Him, may be able to partake them. Hence it is that the Lord says, ‘ All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, I have given them,’ and again, ‘I pray for them?’ For He prayed for us, taking on Him what is ours, and He was giving what He received. Since then, the Word being united to man himself, the Father, regarding Him, Ff 2