J^g^^gT'^Jj^ 
 
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 '-' SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 1891 
 
 A.MJJ. /.f/iM. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 BX890.N55 T7 1895 
 
 Tracte theological and ecclesiastical / 
 
 olln 
 
 3 1924 029 365 180 
 

TRACTS 
 
 THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN 
 
 NEW EDITION 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK : 15 EAST i6th STREET 
 1895 
 
 k 
 
f\.T^%']'6 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 ON collecting into one volume Tracts written at 
 long intervals of time from each other, with the 
 use of various libraries, and of different editions of the 
 Fathers, I have some anxiety lest, in consequence, 
 mistakes should be found in my references, in spite of 
 the great pains I have taken to make them accurate. 
 However, I give here, to the best of my power, a list 
 of the Editions I have followed : — 
 
 Africanus, apud Routh. Relliqu. Sacr. t. ii. 
 Ambrosius, Paris. 1686, &c. ed. Benedict, seu. Maurin. 
 Anastasius Sinaita, Ingolstad. 1606, Gretser. 
 Athanasius, Paris. 1698 (Montfaucon), Maurin. 
 Athenagoras, Vend. 1747, Maurin. 
 Augustinus, Paris. 1689, &c. Maurin. 
 Basilius Magnus, Paris. 1721, &c. Maurin. 
 Basilius Seleuc. Paris. 1622, Dausque. 
 Bibliotheca Patrum, Colon. 1618. 
 
 Paris. Quart. 1624. 
 
 Lugdun. Max. 1677. 
 
 Venet. 1765, &c. Galland 
 
 Chrysostomus Joannes, Paris. 1718, &c. (Montfaucon), 
 
 Maurin. 
 Clemens Alex. Oxon. 1715, Potter. 
 
iv Advertisement. 
 
 Collectanea Monumentorum, Romce, 1698, Zacagn. 
 Collectio Nova Patrum, Paris. 1706 (Montfaucon), 
 
 Maurin. 
 Conciliorum Collectio Regia, Paris. 1715; Harduin. 
 Concilium Antiochenum, ap. Routh. Rell. S. t. ii. 
 Cyprianus, Venet. 1758, Maurin. 
 Cyrillus Alex. Lutet. 1638, Aubert. 
 Cyrillus Hieros. Paris. 1720, Maurin. 
 Damascenus Joannes, Venet. 1748, Lequien. 
 Didymus, Bonon. 1769, Mingarelli. 
 Dionysius Alex. ap. Athan. et Rell. S. Routh. t. iii. 
 Dionysius Rom. ibid. 
 Ephraem, ap. Photium. 
 Epiphanius, Colon. 1682, Petav. 
 Epistola ad Diognetum, ap. Justin. 0pp. 
 Epistolse Pontif. Roman. Paris. 1721 (Constant.), 
 
 Maurin. 
 Eulogius, ap. Photium. 
 Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. ) 
 
 Laud. Constant.i^'^^^^^^^- ^^95, Vales. 
 
 Praepar. \ 
 
 Demonstr. VColon. 1688. 
 
 c. Marcell. &c. •' 
 
 Euthymius, Lips. 1792, Matthaei. 
 
 Facundus, ap. 0pp. Sirmondi, t. ii. 
 
 Gregorius Nazianz. Paris. 1778, 1840, Maurin. 
 
 Gregorius Neocsesar. (Thaumaturg.) Paris. 1622. 
 
 Gregorius Nyssen, 0pp. Paris. 1615, &c. 
 
 Antirrhet. ap. Collectan. Zacagn. 
 
 Hieronymus, Venet. 1766, Vallars. 
 
Advertisement. v 
 
 Hilarius Pictav. Paris. 1693, Maurin. 
 
 Hippolytus, 0pp. Hamburg. 1716, Fabric. 
 
 c. Noetum, ap. Opuscula, Routh. 
 
 Elenchus, Oxon. 1851, Miller. 
 
 Incerti Dialogi, ap. Athan. 0pp. t. ii. 
 
 Irenseus, Venet. 1734, Maurin. 
 
 Isidorus Pelus. Paris. 1638. 
 
 Justinus Mart. Venet. I'j^'j, Maurin. 
 
 Lactantius, Lutet. 1748, Dufresnoi. 
 
 Leo Magnus, Venet. 1753, &c. Ballerin. 
 
 Leontius, ap. Bibl. P. Colon, et Venet. Galland. et 
 
 Thesaur. Canis. t. i. 
 
 Malchion, ap. Rell. S. Routh. t. ii. 
 
 Maximus, Paris. 1675, Combefis. 
 
 Melito, ap. Rell, S. Routh. t. i. 
 
 Mercator, Paris. 1673, Garner. 
 
 Methodius, ap. Bibl. P. Venet. Galland. t. iii. 
 
 Novatianus, Londini, 1728, Jackson. 
 
 Opera Varia Sirmondi, Venet. 1728, La Baume. 
 
 Opuscula Eccles. Oxon. 1832, Routh. 
 
 Origenes, Paris. 1733, &c. Maurin. 
 
 Philo, Francofurt. 1691. 
 
 Phoebadius, ap. Bibl. P. Venet. Galland. t. v. 
 
 Photius, Rothomag. 1653, Schott. 
 
 Plotinus, Oxon. 1835, Creuzer. 
 
 Proclus, RomcB, 1630, Riccard. 
 
 Relliquise Sacras Patrum, Oxon. 1814, &c. Routh. 
 
 Rusticus, ap. Bibl. P. Colon, t. vi. 
 
 Socrates ) 
 
 „ (Amstelod. 1695, Vales. 
 
 Sozomenus ) ^"^ 
 
vi Advertisement. 
 
 Tatianus, Venet. 1747, Maurin. 
 Tertullianus, Lutet. 1641, Rigalt. 
 Theodoretus, 0pp. Halce, 1769, &c. Schulze. 
 
 Hist. Eccl. Amstelod. 1695, Vales. 
 
 Theophilus, Venet. 1747, Maurin. 
 Thesaurus Eccles. Canisii, Antverp. 1725, Basnage. 
 Victorinus, ap. Bibl. P. Venet. Galland. t. viii. 
 Vigilius Thaps. ap. Bibl. P. Lugdun. t. viii. 
 Vincentius Lirin. ap. Bibl. P. Venet. Galland. t. x. 
 Zeno, Veron. 1739, Ballerin. 
 
 I thus complete the references made in the following 
 places to Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. : — 
 Infr. p. 84, ed. Vales, ii. 27, p. 113, 
 
 ed. Schuke, ii. 23, p. 898. 
 Infr. p. 86, ed. Vales, ii. 8, p. 81, 
 
 ed. Schulze, ii. 6, p. 844. 
 Infr. p. 88, ed. Vales, i. 4, p. 15, 
 
 ed. Schulze, i. 3, p. -740. 
 Infr. p. 89, ed. Vales, ii. 22, p. 103, 
 
 ed. Schulze, ii. 17, p. 883. 
 I take this opportunity of acknowledging the special 
 obligations I am under to the Rev. Fr. Henry Bittleston 
 of this Oratory, as regards this and other of the new 
 editions of my Volumes, for the service he has done me 
 in bringing to my notice, as the proof sheets came down 
 to me, various inaccuracies both of thought and language 
 which required correction. 
 
 Birmingham, 
 
 yanuary 5, 1874. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 I. DiSSERTATIUNCUL/E QUATUOE CrITICO-ThEOLOGIC/E 
 
 II. On the Text of the Epistles of St. Ignatius 
 
 III. Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism 
 
 IV. The Heresy of Apollinaris 
 
 V, St. Cyril's Formula, /ila <pi(Tis (reaapKUfievri . 
 VI. The Ordo de Tempore in the Breviary . 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I 
 
 93 
 137 
 301 
 
 329 
 383 
 
 VII. History of the Text of the Douay Version of Scripture 403 
 
CORRIGENDA 
 
 Made by the Author for this Edition. 
 
 FOR 
 
 PAGE LINE 
 
 203 
 
 2 
 
 too 
 
 204 
 
 25 
 
 becoming its First-born 
 
 20s 
 
 2 
 
 formation 
 
 209 
 
 24 
 
 and the External Arianism 
 
 229 
 
 13 
 
 as a categorical - 
 
 234 
 
 3 
 
 equal - 
 
 243 
 
 19 
 
 if the second eight 
 
 ,, 
 
 20 
 
 Son of God 
 
 ,, 
 
 25 
 
 one 
 
 ,, 
 
 27 
 
 what all, 
 
 ,, 
 
 28 
 
 to say witli Gregory, 
 
 244 
 
 14 
 
 what they do not profess 
 to hold ; 
 
 245 
 
 n 
 
 inquiring into, by the text, 
 
 „ 
 
 26 
 
 The writers of 
 
 246 
 
 I 
 
 certainly not by Egyptians, 
 
 247 
 
 22 
 
 the eternal if, with Origen, 
 
 248 
 
 24 
 
 he substitutes 
 
 250 
 
 15 
 
 Word 
 
 258 
 
 10 
 
 of the Word 
 
 259 
 
 19 
 
 found to 
 
 READ 
 
 also 
 
 becoming, as He has become, its First- 
 bom 
 
 typical order. 
 
 and the External, Arianism 
 
 as used for a categorical 
 
 equal 
 
 supposing the second eight 
 
 Son of God 
 
 one 
 
 what all 
 
 to say with Gregory, 
 
 what, as I have shown, they even do 
 not profess to hold ; 
 
 inquiring into, is symbolised by the text, 
 
 And again) the writers of 
 
 certainly not by Egyptians, 
 
 the Eternal, supposing, with Origen, 
 
 Bull substitutes 
 Word 
 
 of the Word 
 
 found substantially to agree 
 
I. 
 
 DISSERTATIUNCUL^ QUiEDAM CRITICO- 
 THEOLOGIC^ 
 
 AUCTORE JOANNE H. NEWMAN 
 
 ANGLO. 
 
REVERENDO PATRI 
 
 ANTONIO BRESCIANI 
 
 E SOCIETATE lESV 
 
 COLLEGII VRBANI RECTORI 
 
 VIRO LECTISSIMO 
 
 NOBIS HOSPITIBVS SVIS ET LINGVA P^ENE BARBARIS 
 
 ACCEPTISSIMO 
 
 HOC SERENISSIMORVM DIERVM 
 
 SVB EIVS TVTELA ACTORVM 
 
 QVALECVNQVE MONVMENTVM 
 
 COMMENDATVM DICATVMQUE 
 
 VELIMVS. 
 
MONITUM. 
 
 OPUSCULA hsec qualiacunque, ex nupera Oxo- 
 niensi Bibliotheca Patrum maxima ex parte 
 desumpta, Latine autem liberius reddita, 
 criticis prudentioribus commendo ; id segre ferens, quod, 
 notulis quibusdam meis domi relictis, minus prodeunt 
 accurata, quam pro ratione studiorum meorum a 
 benevolis sperari potuisset. 
 
 ROMiE, 
 
 In Fest. S. Anselm. 
 1847. 
 
PAGE 
 
 Dissert, i. De quarta Oratione S. Athanasii contra Arianos . 7 
 
 J.. De Ecthesi Ephesina contra Paulum Samosa 
 tenum ........ 
 
 3. De formula wply y^vvr\Qj\vai ovk ^v Anathematismi 
 
 Nicaeni . ..... 
 
 4. De vocibus i( sTtpas Imoarafffws % ovirias Anathe 
 
 matismi Nicaeni . ... 
 
 36 
 
 57 
 
 78 
 
DISSERTATIUNCUL^ QU^DAM 
 CRITICO-THEOLOGIC^. 
 
 DISSERTATIO I. 
 
 DE QUARTA ORATIONE S. ATHANASII CONTRA ARIANOS. 
 
 OUATUOR illas, quas vulgo vocant, Athanasii 
 Orationes contra Arianos partes esse unius 
 operis, recentioribus criticis persuasissimum 
 est ; post ipsum, ut videtur, Photium, qui codice cxl. de 
 irevra^i^Xtp Athanasii mentionem facit. Profecto Mon- 
 tefalconius, ut in re minime dubia, omni probatione 
 prseter ipsam librorum structuram supersedendum 
 judicat. " Nihil opus est longiore disputatione, cum 
 clarum sit ex hisce ipsis quatuor Orationibus, nihil eas 
 commune cum ullo alio opere habere ; sed ita inter se 
 cohserere, ut unum ipsae opus simul conficiant, quarum 
 prima sit principium, quarta autem omnium sit finis, 
 quam sane ob causam sola hsec ultima solita terminatur 
 conclusione." Athan. 0pp. t. i. pp. 403-4. Hsec ille; 
 qui tamen paullo submissius loquitur, cum in Prcsfat. sua 
 
8 Dissertatiuncul{2 qucedam 
 
 p. XXXV. et in Vit. Athan. p. Ixxii. concedit eas non esse 
 exaratas certo aliquo consilio prius inito, sed, decursu 
 controversiae, aliam ex alia, quo res majorem haberet 
 lucem, fuisse productas ; id quod praecipue cernitur in 
 secunda et tertia incipientibus, ubi sanctus Doctor, more 
 suo, disputationem jam forte longiorem, propter hsereti- 
 corum tamen pervicaciam, continuandam judicat. 
 
 Nee minus liquida res est Tillemontio, scribenti ; " Les 
 quatre oraisons sont toutes liees ensemble, et en un mfeme 
 corps, comme il parait principalement, parcequ'il n'y a 
 que la derniere qui finisse par la glorification ordinaire." 
 Mem. Eccl. t. 8, p. 701. Et alibi : " II est certain que ces 
 quatre discours . . . semblent . . . ne faire qu'une seule 
 piece, qu'on aura partagee tantot en quatre, tantot en 
 cinq." p. 191. 
 
 Tillemontii vestigia sequitur, tanquam pedissequus, 
 Ceillerius, Ant. Eccl. t. 5, pp. 217, 218, qui cum Monte- 
 falconio consentit posteriores libros, vice quemque sua, 
 anteriorum partes suscipere. 
 
 Jam prius Petavio, Incarnationem V. D. tractanti, 
 idem excidit judicium ; eo gravius, quod obiter doctissimo 
 theologo elapsum est. Dum enim Epistolam Athanasii ad 
 Ep. Mg. et Lib. contendit non esse revera partem Ora- 
 tionum contra Arianos, (ut turn temporis ab Athanasii 
 editoribus habebatur,) quia scilicet ilia Epistola non 
 spectet, nisi in parte quadam, ad doctrinam Arianorum, 
 hffic monet : " Non est ejusdem cum sequentibus argu- 
 menti, nam in istis adversus Arianam hasresim disputat 
 etc. . . . prima autem (i. e. Epist. ad Ep. .^g. et Lib.) 
 nihil horum facit. De Incarn. v. 15, § g. 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 9 
 
 Auctoribus tamen tarn gravibus atque inter se consen- 
 tientibus hie contra eundum est ; cum plane comprobari 
 possit, ut puto, et sine magno conatu, quartam illam 
 contra Arianos Orationem non esse contra istos hsereticos 
 ab Athanasio scriptam, neque prorsus esse orationem, 
 ne disputationem quidem continuam, sed esse conglu- 
 tinationem quandam fragmentorum theologicorum, vel 
 annotationum seriem, varias et longitudinis et materiae, 
 praecipue de haeresi Marcelli et Photini, aliqua ex parte 
 de Sabellianismo et Samosatenismo, vix aut ne vix qui- 
 dem contra Arianos. Quam sententiam his argumentis 
 fultam velim. 
 
 § I. De Structura Libri. 
 
 I. Jam hoc prasmittendum est; — nusquam, ut credo, 
 ab antiquis ad Orationem banc quartam provocari, tan- 
 quam ad partem operis Athanasii ^^ contra Arianos" vel 
 " ie Trinitate;" cum secunda contra et tertia laudantur 
 a Theodoreto, Justiniano, Cyrillo Alexandrino, Facundo, 
 Concilio Lateranensi sub Martino I. habito, Agathone 
 Pontifice, et aliis, idque illo ipso numerandi ordine qui 
 etiamnum servatur in editione Maurina.^ Quamvis 
 autem Photii, de toto opere ut quinquepartito loquentis, 
 interpretes esse quodammodo videantur, et Patres Con- 
 cilii CEcumenici Septimi et Agatho P. Romanus in Sexto, 
 ex eo quod tertiam Maurinam pro quarti habeant, inde 
 tamen non concludi potest quartam Maurinam, de qua 
 
 ' Theod. Eran. ii. p. 136. Justin, ap. Baron. Ann. 538. Cyrill. 
 Ej>. p. 4. Facund, Tr. Cap. iii. 3. Concil. Later. Sect. 5, etc. 
 
 2 
 
lo Dissertatiunadcs qucedam 
 
 hie qusestio est, eomprehensam fuisse ut quintam partem 
 TrevTa^i^ov Photii. Nam, quoniam in uno codice haec 
 Maurinorum quarta vocatur sexta Oratio, alia quasdam 
 ibi reperienda est quintan quae quidem, Montefalconio 
 judice, est opusculum illud quod vulgo appellatur De 
 Incarnatione contra Arianos, quod re ipsa in aliquibus 
 codd. quintae nomen gerit. Sunt porro codices qui 
 Epistolam ad Ep. A£g. et Lib. quae in codd. solebat esse 
 prima, quartam nominant; alius autem est Alontefalconii, 
 ex quo quarta ilia Maurinorum plane excidit. Accedit 
 quod in codice quodam Bodleiano (Roe 29, an. 1410) 
 opusculum De Incarnatione contra Arianos tres priores 
 subsequitur orationes, quartas vice. Aliis autem codd. 
 quarta Maurinorum quinta est ; aliis Epistola ad Ep. j^g. 
 et Lib. est " tertia contra Arianos," Epistola de Sent. 
 Dion, in duas partes divisa, pro prima et secunda, ut 
 videtur, habita. Quare, cum adeo varietur in codicibus, 
 nulla prsescriptio est ex usu editionum, cur quarta haec 
 oratio adsciscatur in numerum earum, quae cum Arianis 
 bellum gerunt. 
 
 2. Deinde notandum est, librum hunc ipsa fronte sua 
 prodere se non esse orationem similem illarum quae ei 
 pragierunt. Nam, cum secunda ilia et tertia prooemium 
 utraque suum habeat, in quo mentio fit gravissimi illius 
 argumenti, quod ab illis est continuandum, nihil contra 
 aut scope definitum aut ratione ordinatum in quarta in- 
 cipiente reperitur. In argumentum suum, quicquid sit 
 illud, nullum enim profitetur, praeceps ingreditur, pro- 
 positionem prae se ferens categoricam quandam ex Evan- 
 geHsta desumptam, " Ex Deo Deus est verbum, nam 
 
Critico- TheologiccB. 1 1 
 
 Deus erat Verbum ; " plane omisso verborum illo 
 apparatu et verecunda dicendi pompa, qua in limati- 
 oribus suis operibus, res divinas tractaturus, utitur 
 sanctissimus Prsesul. 
 
 Nee sequabilius aut liquidius fluit postea orationis 
 cursus, sed turbatus semper, incertus, mutabilis. Nam 
 ssepius materies subito profertur nova, ut in sectionibus 
 6, 9, et 25 editionis Maurinse ; id quod amanuensibus 
 tam plane constitit, ut in quinque codd. temere in- 
 seruerint inter sectiones 12 et 13 opusculum de Sabbatis 
 et Circumcisione, Athanasio dubie a Maurinis (t. ii. p. 54) 
 ascriptum. Plane diversum est ab hoc genere disserendi 
 animosum illud et bene continuatum sancti oratoris elo- 
 quium, qui tam soleat priorem materiem suam producere 
 et tanquam abdere in proxime sequentem, et rem cum re 
 tam callida junctura coUigare, ut editori difficillimum sit 
 disputationis cursum ad certa qusedam capita revocare. 
 
 Accedit quod tres illse quae prsecedunt Orationes com- 
 mercium inter se ultro citroque habent, et ad se mutuo- 
 respiciunt, et complent definita. qusedam docendi spatia, 
 quae terminantur prope exeunte tertia. Integra qusedam 
 disputatio, in Scripturis contra Arianos explicandis tota, 
 continuatur a § 37 primse ad § Sg tertise ; ante tertiam in 
 locis Propheticiset Apostolicis, per tertiam in Evangelicis 
 versata. Incipit autem, procedit, et terminatur scopo 
 ecclesiastico, seu canone fidei, proponendo, ut divinorum 
 oraculorum justo interpreted At in hac accurata rerum 
 
 ' Vid. voces <TK6'iros, Kaviiv, dA.^0Eia, iiivoia, etc. Orat. i. 37, 44, 46 ; 
 "• i> 5, 31. 33, 35. 44, 63, 65, 70 ; iii. 7, 18, 28, 29, 35, 58, etc. 
 
12 Dissertatiunculce qticedam 
 
 dispositione nullam plane sedem sibi vindicare potest 
 quartus ille liber seu Oratio Maurinorum. 
 
 Quid quod in verborum quoque usu sui similis est 
 quartus liber, aut saltern dissimilis trium Orationum. 
 Nam in quarto, cseteris licet breviore, vocula celeberrima 
 ofioovcTLov ter reperitur, vid. §§ lo, 12, at eandem in tribus 
 illis prioribus nusquam esse dicendum est, cum soli- 
 tarius iste locus, Orat.. i. 9, qui earn continet, symboli 
 quandam fert speciem, ut ex ipso loco intelligitur, neque 
 in propriam Athanasii disputationem cadit. Contra, 
 verbum illud omittitur aliquando in Orationibus tribus, 
 ubi jure posset quseri.^ Deinde in Orat. ii. 78, 79, 80, 
 ut in Gent. 40, at 46, Incarn. V. D. 20, ad Scrap, iv. 20, 
 verbum avToao^la reperitur; at in quarta reprobatur 
 idem, Petavio judice, (de Trin. vi. 11,) ut Sabellianum. 
 Tum hoc quoque e minutioribus rebus ad rem nostram 
 facit, quod tres illse, in Sanctissima Trinitate priedicanda, 
 illustratione uti solent ex luce et ejus irradiatione de- 
 sumpta ; quarta vero, modo ignem non lucem, modo 
 ignem et lucem inducit. Depravato denique textu hsec 
 graviter laborat ; illse non laborant. 
 
 3. Profecto, ut antea dictum est, etiam hoc in quses- 
 tionem venit, an forte portiones saltern aliquae hujus libri 
 fragmenta sint tantummodo cujusdam operis, vel plurium 
 operum ; vel notulas rudiores subita manu scriptis man- 
 
 'Vid. aWoTpiooiaios, Orat. i. 20; S/iolas oi(rtas, ibid. 21, 26, iii. 26; 
 Sfioyey^s, i. 56 ; dfio(l>v^s, ^repoyev^js, iTepo^itnos, ibid. 58. Cf. de Syn. 53, 
 ubi ifioioiinov reprobatur. Cf. item argumentum, non ad consubstantiali- 
 tatem, sed ad aeternitatem Filii a voce eiVic ductum, Orat. i. 20, cum illo 
 ab eadem ad consubstantialitatem, de Decret. 20, et 23 ; Greg. Naz. Orat. 
 
Critico- Theologies. 1 3 
 
 datae, prout menti occurrerent ; vel capita controversi- 
 arum ; quae casus rerum temere in unum cumulum con- 
 gesserit. Peregrinum omnino opusculum, forte non 
 Athanasii, illud d,e Sabb. et Circumc. nonnunquam in 
 medium hunc librum intrusum jam diximus ; praeterea, 
 (quod prascipue ad rem nostram facit) idem opusculum 
 in codd. omnibus, excepto uno, quos memorant Maurini, 
 re ipsa consociatur cum fragmento quodam Epistolae de 
 Deer, et Tractatu In illud omnia, quasi totum quid, quam- 
 quam nihil cum illishabet commune. Alterumexemplum 
 cernitur in Sermone Majore de Fide, qui in Montefalconii 
 Nova Collectione editus est, qui autem vix aliud est quam 
 series qusedam portiuncularum ex variis Athanasii operi- 
 bus in unum compai-atarum. Praeterea, quod attinet ad 
 librum nostrum, in codd. quibusdam singuli singulis 
 partibus praeponuntur tituli ; ut tou? aa^eXki^ovTai;, k. t. 
 X. in sect. 9 ; in sect, autem 11, Trpo? roii^ Xeyovra^ otl, 
 K. T. X. Porro " illi " et " ille " stant nudi aliquando, nullo 
 antecedente nomine. Sed et infractum illud et inordi- 
 natum in orationis filo, indicium aliud est multiplicis et 
 disparis materiae. Quid quod § 25 in duas partes temere 
 secat quod alioqui continuum haberet cursum a 15 ad 36 ; 
 § II autem mentionem ultro objicit alicujus rei quam in 
 praecedentibus frustra quaesiveris. Tum §§ 6 et 7, quae 
 solae pertinent ad Arianos, jacent inter argumentorum 
 locus Arianis plane alienos, stylum autem sapiunt diluci- 
 dum ilium etliberum Orationum trium ; qui quidem stylus 
 aliqua ex parte in §§ 14, 17, 27, 28, et 34 reperitur. 
 
 Notatu etiam dignum est, a Montefalconio in Monito 
 suo Epistolae Encyclicae praefixo esse observatum.phrasim 
 
14 DissertatiunculcB qucsdam 
 
 illam oi -rrepl Evae^iov non adhibitam esse ab Athanasio 
 post Eusebii mortem ; " Neque enim sequaces Eusebii 
 jam defuncti usquam apud Athanasium ol irepl Evae^iov 
 vocantur, sed Koivavoi t&v irepl Evak^iov vel KXrjpovop,oi, 
 T^? a(Te0eCa<; tov Evae^iov." t. i. p. iio. Jam banc ipsam 
 phrasin (non de rebus prseteritis sed tunc prsesentibus) 
 legimus in sectione 8 hujus Orationis quartse ; unde 
 sequitur, cum Eusebius discesserit^ e vivis an. 341, 
 Oratio autem prima scripta fuerit circ. an. 358, illam 
 saltern quartag Orationis particulam, quae phrasin oi Trepl 
 Evae^iov continet, ante Orationem primam auctoris in 
 manibus fuisse. 
 
 Plura adhuc sunt quae in hac re possint offerri ; nam 
 sectiones 1-5, g, 10, versantur in argumento plane suo, 
 quod in reliquo libro nusquam attingitur. De fiovap'x^La 
 tractant ; verbo autem apxv utuntur pro origine, ut in 
 prioribus Orationibus moris est ; cum idem usurpetur 
 pro initio, sectionibus hujus libri 8, 25, 26, 27. Porro 
 in disputatione §§ 30-36 singularis usus est epitheti 06to9 
 ad Christum adhibiti ; vox quoque v.oelv ejusdem loci 
 propria est. 
 
 Quod porro singulare est in hoc libro, adeo ut vel stylo 
 signum imprimat,argumentum autem idem non leva quod 
 deseriequadamannotationumpolemicarum nuncagimus, 
 non de justo et simplici opere, frequentia ilia est vocabu- 
 lorum hujusmodi, ■irev(neov2,t.ipa>TqTeov:^, f. 4, a. XeKTeov 
 4, init. 5, d. 10, a. iXeyKreov 3, a. 4, e, epeaOai hUaiov, 
 KoKov etc., II, d. 14, a. 23. b. Cujus generis sunt ilia quo- 
 que, uKoXovOijcrei to, ev roh 'ifiirpoa-Oev aToira elpr]fieva, e. g. 
 2, e. 4, e. 4 fin. 15 init. 25, b. 26 init. quibuscum confer- 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 1 5 
 
 amus elegantiorem periodi cursum, Orat. ii. 24, b. koKov 
 avTov; ipeadai koI tovto, Iv eVt fiaSXov 6 eXe^^o?, k. t. \. 
 ejusmodi sunt etiam to 8' airo Se koX irepl Swva/ieo)?, § 3 ; 
 quae omnia Aristotelem sapiunt, non Athanasium. Vi- 
 desis etiam locos Scripturse sacrse abrupte propositos ut 
 materiem disputandi, ut in §§ i, 5, g, et 31. 
 
 Aristotelem etiam agit in hoc libro sanctissimus Doc- 
 tor in effatis suis theologicis proferendis ; e.g. el dyovo<; 
 KoX dvevepyr]To<; ©eo?, 4 fin. to eV Tti/o? vTrdp^ov uto? 
 ecTTiv eKeivov, 15, c. ovSev ev Trpo? tov -Trarepa, el fir) to e'f 
 avTov. 17, d. (ov ovK euTiv eh ra? KapBl,a<; 6 vio'i, tovtwv 
 ovBe TraTrjp o 06o?. 22, b. el fir) ut09, ouSe Xo'-yo?" et /mt] 
 Xoya, ovBe vi6<;. 24 fin. 
 
 4. Ulterius nunc progrediendum est; liquet enim 
 Athanasium hoc in libro non raro innuere se non doctri- 
 nam solum hsereticorum percellere, sed hsereticos ipsos ; 
 tamen de nominibus tacet ; quod contra fit in Ariana sua 
 controversia, ubi liberrime loquitur de Ario, de Eusebio, 
 de Asterio, et aliis ejusdem sectae. Hie contra, licet 
 occurrant certe ot diro tov Xa-fioadTew^, et icaTa Sa^eXXiov, 
 adversarii plerumque anonymi, unus aut plures, in cam- 
 pum descendunt, vel potius illabuntur ; ut colligi potest 
 ex (pare g init. ■niTTTovai 11 init. vireXaffe 13 init. avTov 
 ToiavTa XeyovTa 14, a. 01 tovto XeyovTei; 15 init. KaT 
 aiiToix; 21 init. kut eKeivovi 22, c. Vid. etiam 8, c. 13, 
 c. 20 init. 23, c. 24, a. 25, b. 28 init. Jam si acer ille 
 accusatorius stylus huic libro abest, in hac re saltern, si 
 non in alia, a prsecedentibus tribus differt, in quibus ilia 
 oratoris vis et fervor animi prsecipue cernitur; quid 
 quod hoc fortasse inde colligendum est insuper, neces- 
 
1 6 Dissertatiunculce qucsdam 
 
 situdinem scilicet aliquam fuisse Athanasio cum quibus- 
 dam istarum factionum hominibus, quibus sagax et bcne- 
 volus pra;sul, etsi congrediendum, tamen aliquatenus 
 parcendum duxerit. 
 
 Deinde observandum est hseresim, de qua per totum 
 paene librum agitur, etsi Sabellianse proximam, non fuisse 
 Sabellianam ; nam comparatur cum ea, e. g. Sa^eXKwv 
 TO iirtTi^Sev/j,a, g, et ocra dWa eiri Sa^eWiOv aToira 
 airavra, 25. Quinimo, cum haeresis hasresi opponitur in 
 fine § 3, de Arianis aperta mentio est, ut mos est Atha- 
 nasii, de Sabellianis autem non est mentio, sed de lis qui 
 " Sabellizant," quibuscum scilicet sancto Doctori res erat. 
 Prseterea hseresim, quae agebatur, esse temporis illius, 
 non prseteritorum sasculorum, certum est turn ex loquendi 
 modo, quo utitur Athanasius, turn quia cseterse, quibuscum 
 dimicat in scriptis suis, sunt sui aequales. Namque, 
 etiam cum Pauli Samosateni hasresim aggreditur, non 
 priscam istam saeculi anterioris in arenam immittit, sed 
 immutatam et novam, qualem ipse eam conspexerat in 
 populo Christiano. Nee sane probabile est, in medio illo 
 tot tantorumque errorum certamine, quod Athanasio 
 contigit, prudentissimum virum ad obsoleta quaedam, ut 
 TpalKov Koi a'xoXaa-riKov,^ confugisse. 
 
 Quae omnia suspicionem movent, haeresim, quae mate- 
 ries est hujus libri, illam esse Marcelli Ancyrani, qui cum 
 Athanasio commilitaverat contra Arianos, et sectatorum 
 ejus ; cum omnibus notum sit, simillimo illo Apollinaris 
 exemplo, Athanasium id ipsum facere in disputationibus 
 
 1 Plutarch, Cic. 5. 
 
Critico- TheologiccB. 1 7 
 
 suis, hseresiarchse parcere nomini, haeresim severissime 
 impetere. Quid quod similiter a nominibus abstinet 
 Eusebius in Arianis suis reprobandis {Eccles. Theol. i. 9, 
 10) ; silet porro Vincentius Lirinensis, si revera in Com- 
 monitorio suo Augustinum petit. Idem quoque in Platone 
 fecit Aristoteles ; sed in hac re testes supervacanei sunt. 
 
 Quod ex ipsa libri structura nihil habet difficultatis, 
 id, collatis inter se dogmatibus, hie Marcellianorum seu 
 Photinianorum, illic eorum quibuscum in hoc libro agitur, 
 plenissimam habebit confirmationem ; nempe eo modo, 
 quo Orationes tres hseresim tractant Arianam, disputa- 
 tionem banc quartam, divulsam licet et incompositam, in 
 Marcelli vel Photini,necnonSabellii et Samosateni errori- 
 bus refutandis versari. Quod cum dicimus, prudentes 
 prseterimus sectiones 6 et 7, ad Arianismum procul 
 dubio spectantes, sed in summa operis importunas. 
 
 His nostris jam in formam redactis, perjucunda fuit 
 nobis fortuita lectio libelli, inscripti, In Eusebii contra 
 M'Cvrcellum libros Selectee Observationes, auctore R. S. C. 
 Lipsise, 1787. Laudato Athanasii " quinto libro," ut 
 ilium vocat, " contra Arianos," pergit auctor anonymus 
 dicere, " ibi, ut in libro de Mt. subst. Fit. et Sp. S. sen- 
 tentiam Marcelli, suppresso tamen nomine, refellit. 
 Quod an aliis sit observatum, ignoro." p. 28. 
 
 § II. De Materie Libri. 
 
 Quo melius huic rei satisfiat, triplex hie sumendum est 
 argumentum : primum enim necessitudo ilia inter Atha- 
 
1 8 DissertatiunculcB qucsdam 
 
 nasium et Marcellum in historia istorum temporum, quae 
 et qualis fuerit, definienda est ; deinde enucleanda doc- 
 trina Marcelli, Photini, et istiusmodi hsereticorum ; turn 
 ilia Photiniana haeresis conferenda est cum ea quae in 
 hoc libro ab Athanasio oppugnatur. 
 
 I. Cum Athanasius adhuc junior esset in Episcopatu 
 suo, Marcellus Ancyrae in Galatia Episcopus responsum 
 illud edidit Ariano sophistae Asterio, ex quo et originem 
 suam et subjectam materiem ceperunt Eusebii contra 
 Marcellum et de Ecclesiastica Theologia libri, nobis hodie 
 principales testes opinionum Marcelli. Neque Eusebius 
 solum, sed aliquot Concilia Arianorum condemnarunt 
 hominem, qui, Romam petens, ibi Athanasio occurrit 
 circa an. 341 ; cum uterque prsesul a Pontifice, Concilio 
 habito, de Arianorum criminationibus purgatus est. 
 
 Purgatus est iterum uterque Concilio Sardicensi an. 
 347 ; ab eo tamen ipso tempore, nisi, cum Montefalconio 
 dixerimus, ab an. 336-8 {Nov. Coll. p. lii.), postulationes 
 ese, quae hactenus ab Arianorum factione urgebantur in 
 Marcellum, inter catholicos etiam circumferuntur. Cyril- 
 lus Hierosolymitanus in Catechesibus suis an. 347 men- 
 tionem facit hsereseos nuperae Galatarum, quae Christi 
 sempiternum regnum negaret ; ubi Marcellum indicari a 
 sancto oratore, et regio et dogma quae nominantur liquido 
 demonstrant. Cyrillum excipit Paulinus in Concilio Arela- 
 tensi ; Paulinum Hilarius ; sed Athanasius, cautus homo 
 et clemens, siquis alius, Maixello patrocinatur usque ad 
 circ. an. 360. Idem tamen, confessus tandem Marcellum 
 non longe abesse ab haeresi, a communione, ut traditura 
 
Critico- Theologies. 1 9 
 
 est ab Hilario et Sulpicio, hominem semovet. Narrat 
 insuper Hilarius(Fyfl;^w. ii. 2i)inductumesseAthanasium 
 ut hoc faceret, non propter opus Marcelli contra Asterium, 
 sed ob ejus scripta qusedamposteriora ConcilioSardicensi. 
 Id autem fecit Athanasius, cum Photinus, Episcopus 
 Sirmiensis, qui hajresim fere illam Marcelli, magistri 
 sui, ante an. 345 ediderat, jam aliquot annos, Catholicis 
 et Arianis consen^entibus, a sede sua depositus esset. 
 Marcellus, per totum decennium a sanctissimo praesule 
 repudiatus, quocum tot tantaque ab Arianis pertulisset, 
 tandem ab eodem, morti jam proximo (an. 371) leniore judi- 
 cio excipitur, ob rem hujusmodi : Basilio Cassariensi cum 
 Athanasio agenti, ut ne Galatis benignius usus, rei Catho- 
 licse noxam inferret, occurrunt Galatae, missi ad Alexan- 
 driam, qui orarent causam suam, quid autem revera 
 senserint de Christo sine ambagibus expedirent. Eugenius, 
 Diaconus Ecclesise Ancyranse, confessionem catholicam 
 in suorum nomine ibi subscripsit, quam confirmavit manu 
 sua clerus Alexandrinus, necnon, ut videtur, Athanasius 
 ipse, quamquam inter nomina subscripta ille non apparet 
 hodie. Confessio hsec, cui Montefalconius lucem dedit, 
 scripta est in nomine " clericorum et caeterorum qui Ancyrse 
 in Galatia sunt, una cum patre nostro Marcello congregati." 
 Quo negotio ad finem perducto, et Ancyranus hie, et 
 Alexandrinus ille praesul morti protinus succubuerunt, 
 bellatores ambo in summo Ecclesiae discrimine, diversa 
 fortuna ; plusquam septuagenarius Athanasius, Marcel- 
 lus autem nonaginta saltern annorum cumulo oppressus, 
 — feliciter grandsevus, si reservabatur in hoc, ut errores 
 suos illo extreme halitu vere efflaret. Nihilominus, qui 
 
20 DissertatiunculcB qucedam 
 
 in re historica, non biographia versantur, his, ut mos est 
 in Ecclesia, Marcellus apparet, non ut privatus quispiam, 
 in sua ipsius persona et pcenitentia sua, sed in secta quam 
 genuit, et in maturitate postrema earum opinionum, quae 
 inipsosemina tantummodo fuerant et elementapravitatis. 
 Caeterum, utrum in hominem ipsum an tantummodo in 
 sectatores ejus Athanasius in quarta sua, quam vocant, 
 Oratione invehatur,concludi non potest in alterutram par- 
 tem, ex ilia, seriore utique, confessione ab Eugenio sub- 
 scripta. Neque Hilarius, Athanasium testatus Marcelli 
 operi contra Asterium pepercisse.nos moveat,ne illo opere 
 utamur in Marcelli placitis eruendis ; nam neque in aliis 
 rebus tam fidus in narrando reperitur Hilarius, (ut cum 
 de Liberio loquitur,) ut ex iis quae plane haeresim sapiunt, 
 Hilarii causa pios sensus extorqueamus. Ea autem 
 sunt hujusmodi. 
 
 2. Eusebio teste, placuit Marcello, (i) unam tantum- 
 modo in Deitate esse personam ; a Sabellio tamen in hoc 
 dissentienti, quod teneret (2) non Patrem continuo esse 
 Filium, Filium Patrem, (id quod vloiraroplav vocant,) sed 
 (3) Patrem et Filium esse nomina mera et nudos titulos ; 
 (4)nequeexprimerere]ationesaliquasessentialesinnatura 
 divina, sed ex eo originem cepisse (5) quod Verbum Dei 
 sempiternum, seu Xo'^o'; evhid6ero<;, (quod Divina quaedam 
 est Ratio,) sese manifestaverit in carne, in hypostasi scili- 
 cet Jesu Christi, Filii Mariae ; (6) hunc itaque unum Deum, 
 seu jMovdZa, quodammodo se aperire solere vel dilatare 
 (TrXaTvvea-dat) ut nos salvos faciat ; (7 et 8) quam dilata- 
 tionem esse actionem quandam, seu ivepyeiav, Vei-bi, qua 
 
Critico- Theologies. 2 1 
 
 fit irpocjiopiKO';, seu Vox creatrix Dei, cum alioqui sit Ratio 
 interior ; (g) harum autem dilatationum singulare esse 
 specimen Incarnationem Verbi, scilicet dilatationem in 
 carne hominis Jesu, (10) quern susceperit ineunte dispen- 
 satione Evangelica, quern exeunte i-elicturum sit (11). 
 Sequi inde, Verbum non esse Filium, (12) nee Dei Imagi- 
 nem, Christum, Primogenitum, Regem, sed Jesum esse 
 hsec omnia : quod si ea prsedicentur de Verbo in Scrip- 
 turis V. T. propheticum illud est propter futuram suam 
 in carne manifestationem, (13) neque, dispensatione 
 absoluta, tribui poterunt eadem Verbo, carnem tunc 
 relicturo, regno se abdicaturo, ad Deum redituro, Verbo 
 mero ut antea futuro. 
 
 Haec ille : neque est cur fidem denegemus Eusebio, 
 Ariano homini, vel Arianorum certe fautori, qui, tum con- 
 trariarum partium studio tum propter contrariam suam 
 perfidiam, iniquius laturus esset judicium de opinionibus 
 Marcelli. Nam ipsissima verba Marcelli citat scriptorille ; 
 ab aliorum porro testimonio confirmatur. Prseterea si 
 Athanasius in libro hoc quarto hseresim quandamdescribit 
 similhmam illius quae Marcello ab Eusebio tribuitur, du- 
 plex hoc testimonium Eusebium corroborat, Athanasium 
 interpretatur. Photiniana porro doctrina, a Marcelli 
 auditorio profecta, in iis autem placitis sita quae ante 
 illam ortam Eusebius assignavit Marcello, argumentum 
 est validum, eruditissimum hunc, licet lubricum, theolo- 
 gum Marcelli animum et consilium recte divinasse. 
 
 Nunc singula hsereseos capita, quae supra percurrimus, 
 testimoniis allatis illustremus. 
 
 (i) Unam tantummodo in Deitate esse personam : 
 
2 2 Dissertatiunculce qucedam 
 
 Scripturae adductis verbis, Kvpwi 6 0eo? in Exod. iii. 5, 
 prosequitur Marcellus : 6pa<; otto)? ev iiriheiKvii^ rifi-lv 
 ivravOa irpoacoTrop, to avro kvpiov koI @eov Trpoaayopevei ; 
 Euseb. p. 132. a. Iterum : to yap eya> iv6<; irpoa-mirov 
 SeiKTiKov iaTiv; p. 133. a. Turn pergit definire 7rpo<7Q)- 
 TTov quasi sit idem atque 17 tjj? OeoTrjTO'; p,ovd<;. Vid. 
 iterum ei/o? Trpoa-eoTrov, ibid. b. Atque iterum : dvdyKT] 
 yap el Svo Scaipovfieva, C09 'Acrrepioi; e^, •Kpoawrra eir], rj 
 TO TTvev/jia, K. T. X. p. 168, c. 
 
 (2) Id proprium esse Sabellio, non Marcello, quod 
 vioTTUTopa doceret ; Patrem scilicet esse Filium, Filium 
 autem Patrem. Sa^eWco^, eh avTov 7rXr)fifie\a>v tov 
 iraTepa, ov viov Xeyeiv eToXfia. Euseb. p. 76, a. Et Euge- 
 nius quoque, in Apologia sua apud Athanasium, anathe- 
 matizat Sabellium et eos qui cum eo dicerent, avTov tov 
 irarepa elvai vlov, koI oTe fj,ev yiverai, vib<;, fj.r) elvai Tore 
 avTov iraTepa, OTe Si yiveTai TraTrjp, fir) elvai Tore vlov. 
 ■Nov. Coll. t. 2, p. 2. Et Basilius : d Sa^eXKio^ elirmv, 
 TOV avTov &eov, eva tS VTroKei/xevo) ovTa, Trpo<; ra? eKiiaTOTe 
 irapaimrTovda'; ^(peuK; fieTap,op^oviJ,evov,vvv fiev tt>? Trarepa, 
 vvv he d)<i vlov, vvv Se &)? "Trvevfia ayiov SiaXeyeadai. Ep. 
 210, 5 fin. 
 
 (3) Patrem et Filium Marcello videri titulos quosdam, 
 in tempore ascriptos sempiterno Deo et Verbo ejus, tunc 
 scilicet, cum ivSiddeTo<; ille X6yo<:, in Deo inhaerens, fieret 
 7rpo<f>opiKo<; in hypostasi Jesu Christi. 
 
 MdpKeWo^ Kaivtorepav i^evpe Trj irkdvyj p.rj'xavrjv, &eov 
 Kal TOV ev avTm Xoyov eva fj,ev elvai opi^ofievov, Svo S" av- 
 T<ia iraTpo'i Kal vlov ■)(apil^6fievo<; eirrjyopla';. Euseb. p. 76, 
 a. vid. etiam. p. 63, c. Itaque, quo melius exprimeret 
 
Critico- Theologiccs. 2 3 
 
 figurata solum locutione Patrem esse Deum, ilium 
 appellavit " Patrem Verbi," h to3 \jov Xpiarov] <pderKeiv 
 [rov ©eov] fj.7]Se rov kavrov \6yov icvpiov elvai, aWa koI 
 rovTov TOP iraripa, a^ai,pei(j6ai top Trarepa to. iSca tov 
 7rat8o? SeUvvcriv. Ibid. p. 38. 
 
 Cui suffragata haereticus ille qui reperitur in Contr. 
 Sabell. Gregcil. § 5, quem R. S. C, p. 28, putat esse Mar- 
 cellum. Kayo), ^alv, o/ioXoyS) yevvrjaiv • yevvarai yap 6 
 \0709, ore Kol XaXeirai Kol yivdxTKerai. 
 
 Alibi testatur Eusebius a Marcello proponi avTov[©€6v] 
 elvat TOV iv avrm \6yov TruTepa, ibid. p. 167, c. Quod 
 quidem, etsi vel purum catholicismum sapit, Eusebii 
 ipsius ssepius fortiter arianizantis doctrinse comparatum, 
 tamen eo nomine in observationem venit, quod Nestorius 
 apud Mercatorem sic distinguit a Sabellio Photinum, 
 " Sabellius vloitaTopa dicit ipsum Filium, quem Patrem, 
 et ipsum Patrem quem Filium, Photinus vero \070- 
 iraTopa [Verbumpatrem]." Mercat. t. 2, p. 87. 
 
 (4) Verbum esse revera Verbum, akridm Xoyov, neque 
 nisi improprie Filium : Xoyovyap elvai Sow rov iv tS Oeo), 
 ev T€ KoX TavTov bvTa avrw tovtov opi(rdfj,evo<;, irarepa 
 TovTov '^(p'qixaTiXeiv avrov e^Tj • tov re Xoyov vlov etvai avrS, 
 ovK aXrjffa)<; ovra vlov iv ovo'Laf vTroardaei, Kvpiai<; he Kol 
 aXrjdoi^ ovra \6yov. iiria-Tifiaiverai, yovv otl /xtj Kara'^^^prjo ri- 
 Ka><; Xoyov, aXKa Kvpi'ax; xal d\T}6S)<; ovra \6yov, Kal firjBev 
 erepov rj Xoyov. et oe firjoev erepov, orjXov on ovoe vio<; r]v 
 Kvpicoi Kal dXri6u)<;, fJ-ey^pi he (fseovfji Kal 6vofiaro<; Kara'^pr)- 
 (TTiKOi<; wvo/j.aa-fievo<i. Euseb. p. 61, a. b. 
 
 (5) Verbum esse ab aeternitate in Deo, seu ivhid6ero<;, 
 ut atti-ibutum quoddam : 
 
24 DissertatiunculcB qucedam 
 
 n\r)v 0eov, disputat Marcellus, ovBep erepov rji/ • elxev 
 ovv TT}v olKsLav So^av 6 \6yo^ ot)v iv tcu Trarpi. Euseb. p. 
 39, c. Ubi notandum est, phrasin illam eV rm 0eiS, teste 
 Montefalconio (Coll. Nov. torn. 2, p. Ivii.) in suspicionem 
 venisse multis Patribus, utpote suppositam pro ilia tt/so? 
 Tov 0edv qua utitur S. Joannes ; ovk eiiroav, observat 
 Eusebius, p. I2I, b. ev rS &ew, 'iva /j,r) Kara^aXj] eVi 
 TTjv avffpeoirLvrjv ofWiOTqra, a)? ev viroKei/iiva) <TV/j,^e/3r)K0(;. 
 
 Haud aliter Basilius, ovic elirev, ev tS ©ea rjv o Xoyoi;, 
 aXXa TTjoo? tov ©eov, k. t. \. Horn. xvi. 4, p. 137. 
 
 (6) Unitatem in Trinitatem esse productam seu dila- 
 tatam, rursus autem Trinitatem in Unitatem esse col- 
 lapsuram. 
 
 Dicit Marcellus, el toLvvv 6 X6yo<; (fyaivoiTO i^ avrov tov 
 7raT/30? e^e\6a>v, . . . to Se irvevfia to ayiov irapa tov 
 iruTpoi; eKiropewTai . . . ov (Ta(^S)<; Koi (jjavep&i; ivTavda 
 airopprjTa) Xoyip f) p,ova<; <f)aiveTai TrXuTwop-evrj piev el<; 
 TpidSa, Siaipela-Oat Se prjSapa)'; vTrop,evova-a ; Euseb. p. 
 168, a. b. Etiam pp. 108, b. c. 114, b. 
 
 Apud Theodoretum quoque Marcellum tenuisse legi- 
 mus, eKTaaCv Tiva Trj<; tov iraTpo'; 6e6T7]TO<; . . . fieTO, Se 
 TTjV crvpTraaav oiKovopiav irdXiv dvaa-Traa-drjvai koi avcTTa- 
 Xfjvai •rrpo'; tov ©eov, i^ oinrep e^eTadj}- to Se Travdyiov 
 TTvevpa TrapeKTaaiv ttj? eKTacreca'i, koX tuvttjv rot? diroa-TO- 
 Xot9 irapaaxeOrjvai. Hcer. ii. 10. Nestorius quoque 
 Photinum citat dicentem : " Vides quia Deum Verbum 
 aliquando Deum, aliquando Verbum appellat, tanquam 
 extensum atque collectum." Mercat. t. 2, p. 87. 
 
 (7) Dilatationem banc sive irXaTvcrp.ov consistere in 
 actione sive evepyeta tov p,ovdSo<}. 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 2 5 
 
 Verbum docet Marcellus, evefjysia ixovr], ht,a ri^v crdpKa, 
 K£j(^(oprja-6ai tov TruTpo';. Euseb. p. 51, a. 
 
 Quapropter argumentatur Eusebius, ttjv fiovdSa, [&>?] 
 ^rjai, MdpiceWo'i, ivepyeia TrXarvveaOai, iirl jxev aafiaTav 
 ■)(mpav ex^h eTTt Se tjJ? dcrwfidTov ovaia^ ovk en' oiiBe yap 
 iv T^ ivepyelv irXaTweraL, ovB' iv tS fj,ri ivepyeZv o-vcrTeX- 
 Xerai. p. 108, b. c. 
 
 Adeatur quoqu'e ad sextum et septimum anathema 
 Concilii Sirmiensis primi, in quibus Marcellum et Photi- 
 num feriri ex quinto Macrostichi facillime concluditur. 
 
 (8) Turn primum verbum fuisse in ivepyeia, cum mun- 
 dum crearet : 
 
 Ov8evo<! ovTo^ irpoTepov, docet Marcellus, ^ Qeov fiovov, 
 irdvTav he Sid tov \6yov yuyveaOai fieXkovTwv, irporjKdev 6 
 X0709 BpacrriKy ivepyeia. Euseb. p. 41, d. Et continue, 
 TT/oo TOV TOV KOffpLOV elvai, rjv 6 Xo'70? iv rm waTpi' ore he 6 
 0609 -TTavTOKpaTcop nrdvTa rd iv ovpdvot<; kuI eVt yfj'; -irpov- 
 deTO TTOirjaai, ivepyeia<; rj tov tcoa/Mov yeveai<; iBeiTO Spaa- 
 TiK7J(;, Ka\ ht,d tovto . . . 6 \6yo(; irpoeXOmv iyiveTO tov 
 Koafiov iroir^Trjf; . Ibid. 
 
 (g) Consistere Incarnationem Verbi in dilatatione 
 [TrXaTVo-yLtw] Monados, vel actione {ivepyelcf] Verbi in 
 came, seu homine Jesu Christo : 
 
 El p,ev ■)■) TOV TTvevfiaToi e'^eracrt?, inquit Marcellus, 7^7- 
 votTo fxovrj, ev Kal TavTov el/coTw; elvai rai 06c3 ^aivoiTO • 
 el Be 7) KaTa adpKa Trpoa6r]Krj iirX tov X(OTrjpo<; i^eTd^oLTO, 
 ivepyeia 7] deoTTj's povr) irKaTvvecrOai SoKel. Euseb. p. 36, a. 
 
 Neque aliter apud Theodoretum : exTaaiv Tcva rij? 
 TOV iraTpof 6e6TijT0<; e^tfaev et? tov XpiaTov eXrjXvdevai. 
 Hcer. ii. 10. 
 
 3 
 
26 DissertatiuncutcB qucsdam 
 
 (10) Cum Verbum esset in actione, ev ivepyeia, seu 
 fieret ■n-po<})opiKd<;, seu procederet, ut opus quoddam na- 
 varet, hoc absolute rediturum esse in ilium in quo prius 
 esset statum : Tdv ev rm &eS Xoyov, narrat Eusebius, irore 
 fiev evSov elvai ev t&5 06o3 e^acrKe, trore Se irpolevai rod Oeov, 
 KoX aXkore Trakiv avahpajxeZaOai el<; rov Oeov, Koi etrecraai, 
 ev avrSm'i koI irpoTepov rjv. p. 112, c. Vel ut ipsis Mar- 
 celli verbis utar, eZ? ©eo?, Kal 6 tovtov \0709 06^9 Trpor^Xde 
 fiev Tov TTOT/ao?, iva irdvra hi avrov yevrjTai • fiera Be rov 
 Kaipov T»J? Kpicre(0<; Kal rrjv t&v airavTcov hiopOwaiv Kol tov 
 a(j>avia/idv t^9 dvTtKeifievrj<; aTrairri^ ivepyeiw;, Tore avro<; 
 virorwyrjcrerai ra vTrord^avri avr^ ra irdvTa Qeai Kai 
 irarpX, "va ovtw'; y ev @ew o \oyo<;, (oairep /cat irporepov 
 rjv irpo TOV tov Koafiov elvai. Euseb. p. 41, c. d. 
 
 Quod corroborat Basilius quoque in epistola sua ad 
 Athanasium missa, cum Marcellum testificatur docuisse, 
 Xoyov eiprjcrOai tov fiovoyevrj, KaTa '^eiav Kal iirl Kaipov 
 wpoe\66vTa, irdXiv he ei? tov o6ev e^fjXdev i'TravaaTpeyjravTa, 
 ovTe irpb Trj<; e^ohov elvai, ovTe yttexa ttjv eiravohov v(f>eaTdvai. 
 Ep. 69, 2. 
 
 (11) Non Verbum sed Jesum esse Dei Filium. Quod 
 quidem,involutumcerte in iisquaejam citata sunt,tamen, 
 cum tam amplum impleat spatium in quarta contra Aria- 
 nos, Marcello autem et Photino a variis scriptoribus est 
 attributum, hie in pleniore lumine debet collocari. 
 
 'lepd'i diroaToXo'; re kul fxadrjTTji; tov Kvpiov' Iwdvvr]<;, dicit 
 Marcellus apud Eusebium, t7J<; dtStoTi^To? avTov iiv7)fu)vev- 
 av, dXrj6ri<; eyvyveTo tov Xoyov fidpTVt;, 'Ev dp')(rj rjv 6 \0709, 
 Xiyav, Kal .... ovSev yevvijaemi; evTavda p,vr] fiov eixov tov 
 Xoyov. Euseb. p. S7> b. vid. etiam p. 27 fin. Atque iterum, 
 
Critico- Theolog icce. 2 7 
 
 oiiK viov &eov eavrov ovofid^ei, aW' 'iva Bia ttj? ToiavT7]<; 
 OfioXoylav [f. 6vo/iaata<; R. S. C.J dea-ei rov avOpmtrov, hia 
 Trjv TTpo? avTov KoivmvLav, v'lov Qeov yeveadat "rrapaaKevaari, 
 [i. e. Oeaei vlov Qeov\ p. 42, a. Iterum o5to? ioTiv 6 ar/a- 
 trrjro^ [i. e. u/o?], 6 rp XoYp woj^el? dvdptovo';. p. 49, a. 
 
 Apud Epiphanium autem Photinus, 6 \0709 eV tw jraTpl, 
 (jjijalv, rjv, a\X' ovk fjv vi6<i. HcBV. p. 830, b. vid. etiam 
 p. 831. 
 
 Eugenius porro, in expurgatione sua, 01; yap dWov t6v 
 vlov Koi aXXov rov Xoyop (ppovovfiev, &<; Tive<; r)ij,a<s Sti^dXov. 
 Anathematizat autem insaniam Photini et sectatorum 
 ejus, on (IT) ^povovav rov vlov rov Qeov avrov eivai rov 
 \6yov, dWa Staipova-iv a\6ycc<; Kal dp-)(r)v rS vim StBovffiv 
 d'TTO TTjs eK MapLa<; Kara adpKa yeveaefa. Coll. Nov. t. 
 2, p. 3, d. 
 
 Nestorius quoque : " Cogitur Photinus Verbum dicere, 
 non autem Verbum hoc Filium confitetui-." Mercat. t. 
 2, p. 87. Vid. etiam Garner. Mercat. t. 2, p. 314 init. 
 
 Accedit quod Marcellus ipse, in apologia sua coram 
 Julio Summo Pontifice habita, prsecipue insistit in eo 
 fidei articulo confitendo, qui in his locis periclitatur : e. g. 
 fiovoyevrji} vl6<; \6yo^, cujus regni, ut testatur Apostolus, 
 non erit finis ; — Verbum de quo Lucas testatur, sicut 
 tradiderunt nobis ol dirapx>i<> ditoiTrai ical vwqperai 761*0- 
 fievoi rov Xoyov • 6 vloi, rovreari o X0709 rov TravroKparopot 
 Qeov- f) SvvafiK rrarpo'; 6 v(6?. Epiph. H(er. pp. 835, 6. 
 
 (12) Non Verbum, sed Jesum, esse Christum, Primo- 
 genitum, Dei Imaginem, Regem. 
 
 ElrK rov vlov, dicit Eusebius, «5 irdvra rrapeScoKev 6 rra- 
 rrjp, Xoyov opl^oiro /movov, o/xoiov rS ev dv9pcoiroi<;, eira aapKa 
 
28 Dissertaiumculce qucedam 
 
 ^rja-lv dveiXrjipevai, koI rore v'lbv @eov yeyovevai, Kal 'Itjo-ow 
 Xpi<JTOV)(^pr)iiaTiaai, ^acrCKea re avcuyopeveaOai, elxova re 
 Tov @eov rov aopdrov, Kal TrpanoTOKov iracrr]^ KTiaewf, fir) 
 ovra irpoTepov, Tore d'7rohehel-)(6ai, Tt? dv XfCirviTo tovt^ 
 Suo-cre/Seia? vTrepffoXrj ; p. 6, b. d. Locus hie, |quem, 
 omissis quibusdam, coarctavimus, omnia ilia quae Mar- 
 cello assignantur enumerat. Vid. quoque pp. 49, 50 ; 
 vel, ut ipsis Marcelli verbis utamur de Primogenito, ov 
 ro'ivvv cvTo? ayKBTaro? Xojot; irpo rrj<; evavdpcinrrja-eco^ 
 •7rpcoTOTOKo<; diraarj'i KTtcreo)? oovop,aaTo, (ttw? 7(1/0 Bvvarov 
 TOV del ovra TrpmroTOKOv elvai Tivo'; ; ) dXkd tov irpSyrov 
 Kaivov dvOpcoTTov, €t? ov rd iravTa dvaKe(f>d\aioi)cracr6ai ej3ov- 
 XrjuT} o @eo^, TOVTOV ai Oetab 'ypa<j}al irpcoTOTOKov ovopd^ovcn. 
 Euseb. p. 44, b. c. De Imagine autem, ttco? ow eUova tov 
 dopdrov 0eov rov tov ©eov Xoyov 'AcrTepio<; elvai yeypacbe ; 
 at rydp elK6ve<iTovTcov,&v elaiv elK6v€<;, km dirovraiv, SeiKTiKai 
 elcTiv TTco? eiKcbvTov dopdTov@eov6\6<yo<;,Kal avTo<id6paro<; 
 cav ; . . . BfjXoVyOTnqv'bKaTrjv KOT elKOVUTOv QeoviyevopAvriv 
 aveiXr]<f)e aapxa, elKwv dXrjOwi; tov dopdrov @eov yeyove. 
 p. 47, a.-d. Vid. etiam p. 142, b. 
 
 Et, quod totius argumenti fundamentum est, p^tjS" 
 eovai avTov ti irpo rrj^ evadpKov 7rapovai,a<; rj Xoyov, p^r/h' 
 wvopMcrdai erepov, el prj dpa •7rpo(f)7}TiKco<;. pp. 82, 83. 
 
 (13) Verbum, in fine saeculi, ad Deum rediens, carnem 
 seu humanitatem esse relicturum, regno valedicturum. 
 
 Quo in articulo, hujus hsereseos summa fere et capite, 
 ut in suo symbolo indicarunt Patres Constantinopolitani, 
 multus est Marcellus. Cum "caro non prodest quid- 
 quam," quomodo potest habere sempiternam cum Verbo 
 societatem? pp. 42, 3. Prseterea Dominus jam dix- 
 
Critico- TheologiccB. 29 
 
 erat, " Si videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat 
 prius ? " id quod videtur innuere Verbi separationem 
 illam a carne sua, p. 51, c. A Propheta porro diserte 
 dictum est : " Sede a dextris meis donee ponam," etc. ; 
 et a Paulo : " Oportet ilium regnare iomc ponat," etc. 
 p. 51, d. et a Petro : " Quem oportet coelum suscipere 
 usque ad tempora restitutionis omnium," etc. p. 52, a. 
 Porro in id univejsa ceconomia dirigitur, non ut a Verbo, 
 sed ut ab homine, hostis hominis possit subjici, coelum 
 aperiri, p. 49, c. d. ovZe •^ap awro? itaQ^ eavrov 6 X0709 
 apyrjv ^aaiKeia';eiXr]<^ev, aXX'6 aTraTrjdel<! vttotov 8ta^6\ou 
 avOpeoTro<;, Bid tij? tov \6yov Bvvdfj,eo}<;, /SacrtXeu? yeyovev, 
 iva ^acriXeix; yevofievo^ tov irpoTepov diraTijaavTa viKrjcrri 
 Sid^oXov. Euseb. p. 52, a. Prjeterea, si initium habu- 
 erit regnum illud 400 ante annos, non mirum est si habeat 
 finem. p. 50, d. Sairep dpx^Sjv ovtco kuI reXo? e^eiv. p. 52 c. 
 Quod si rogaverit quispiam. Quid tum fiet de carna ilia 
 immortali, quondam propria Verbi ? respondit Marcellus, 
 BoyfiaTi^eiv irepl mv p,r) uKpi^co'; [e/c] tS)!/ Beocov /Me/xaOijKUfiev 
 ypa<ji&v, oiiK dar(f}aXi<;. Euseb. p. 53; S-- /'■'? /"oi' irvvOdvov 
 trepX S)v (Ta(j)Q)<i irapa t?)? Oeta'; ypaipfj'; p-rj p,efia6r]Ka. Bia 
 TovTO Tolvvv ovBe irepl Trj^ detw; iKeivr)<!, Trj<; to3 ffeo^ \6yw 
 Koivo}iirjada-r]<; aapKoi;, cra(pS)<; elirelv Svvijo'Ofiai. Ibid. b. c. 
 
 ' 3. Jam vero, cum haec fuerit doctrina Marcelli, Pho- 
 tini, et factionis istorum hominum, vix quicquam oc- 
 currit in singulis ejus articulis, sic ex ordine collocatis, 
 quod non sit tum expressum tum confutatum in quarta 
 ilia, quam vocant, Oratione Athanasii. Cujus rei vis eo 
 major esse debet, quod in historia temporum illorum 
 
30 Dissertatiunculce qucedam 
 
 Athanasius tarn alienus est ab Eusebio, tarn familiariter 
 agit eum Eugenio et Basilic. Cum enim dissimilium 
 ingeniorum, diversarum partium viri, ut Athanasius et 
 Eusebius, ejusdem erroris sunt testes, ut reipsa hie aut 
 illic existentis, errorent ilium verisimile est et revera 
 existere, et existere in illo loco, cui Eusebius eum assig- 
 nat, Athanasius saltem non abjudicat. Deinde Basilius, 
 Athanasius, Eugenius, unam rem agunt in historia hujus 
 qusestionis ; accusator Basilius, Marcellus et Eugenius 
 rei, Athanasius judex, crimen hasresis cujusdam societas; 
 quare, cum Athanasium eundem de eadem haeresi jam 
 antea scripsisse constet, facilis est conjectura, sanctum 
 Doctorem, cum scriberet, versari in illis ipsis hominibus 
 impetendis, quos postea notat Basilius, horret Eugenius. 
 Verum ad ipsam locorum collationem veniamus, ex- 
 positis hinc sectse istius placitis, illinc opinionibus ab 
 Athanasio damnatis. 
 
 (i) E sectionibus triginta sex libri quarti, saltem una 
 et viginti id agunt ut refellant eos qui dicerent Verbum 
 non esse Filium : esto septem ex iis respexerint Pau- 
 lianistas, nihilominus reliquis quatuordecim aliquis in- 
 veniendus est scopus, cui plene et unice responsurus est 
 comitatus Marcelli. 
 
 (2) Increpat Athanasius commentum dicentium, Ver- 
 bum Dei, similem verbi humani, non habere substantiam ; 
 ov BtaXe\v/jLevo<;, rj airXSx; ^(ovrj crrjfiavTtKrj, aWd ov(jiwBrj<; 
 X0709 • et yap jit), earai 6 0eo? \a\S)v et? depa. . . . eVetS^ 
 Se ovK ea-Tiv dvdpmiroi, ovk dv elr] ovhe 6 X6yo<; avrov, Kara 
 TTjv To)v dvOpcoirav da-Oiveiav. § I. Vid. quoque Contr. 
 Sabell. Greg. § 5, e. Hoc vero idem illud est, qonceptis 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 3 1 
 
 verbis, cujus Eusebius insimulat Marcellum, e. g. eVt Se 
 rov Xojov, crrjfiavTticdv avrov SiScccri, koI ofioiov t.^ aidpco- 
 iriva. p. 118. Vid. quoque p. 128. 
 
 (3) Reprobat Athanasius illud in hsereticis suis, quod 
 dicerent in Natura Divina prius fuisse silentium, turn 
 actionem quandam ; rov Qeov, aicoirSivra jjuev avevepyrjTov, 
 XaXovvra Be la-^veiv avrov ^ovKovrai. § II, vid. etiam 
 § 12. At Eusebius Marcellum postulat de eodem ; 
 X0709 ei'Soi' /j,ev(ov iv ■^crv'x^d^ovTt rm irarpi, evepymv Se iv 
 T(p rrjv KTicnv hrjfuovpyew, Ofioico^ tS rifterepcp, iv cnanrMcn 
 fj,€V rjavjfa^ovTti, iv he ^0eyyofievoi<; evepyovvri. p. 4, d. 
 Alibi objicit Eusebius Marcello posse fieri, ut artifices 
 etiam humani et in silentio sint et in actione simul, 
 interna quadam mentis operatione, p. 167, b. ; idem 
 objicit Athanasius, § 11, d. 
 
 (4) Non pauca superius dicta sunt de TrXaTva-fia illo 
 /lovdBo'i in carne, idque ivepyeia quadam ; jam in hac 
 materie tota est una pars libri seu Orationis quartae, viz. 
 §§ 13, 14, 25. ^nfjal yap, dicit Athanasius, 6 -jraTrjp 
 TrXarvverai eh viov Ka\ irvevfia. § 25. rt? r) ivtpyeia rov 
 Toiovrov TrXarvo'fiov ; ^av/^o'erai rrarrjp ical yeyovm^ o'ap^, 
 eiye avTO^ ixova<; oiv iv tcS avdpanrtp iirXarvvOy). § 14. 
 
 (5) Dogma illud Verbi a Deo procedentis, ad Deum 
 redeuntis, Marcello tribuunt et Eusebius et Basilius; 
 Athanasius autem illi quam impugnat factioni, ipsis 
 adhibitis vocibus irpoeXQmv et TraXivBpofiwv, irpooBo'; et 
 avaBpofii), irpoe^dXXero et dvaKaXelTai, yevvr]a-i<s et TravXa 
 T^9 yevv>]a-eai^. § 12, § 4, e. 
 
 (6) Marcellum de Verbo disserentem jam vidimus in- 
 sistere in phrasi iv rm @e^ : idem fecerunt hasretici illi, 
 
32 Dissertatiunmlce gucsdam 
 
 de quibus loquitur Athanasius, vid. § 12 passim, § 2 init. 
 etc. § 4, e. 
 
 (7) Eosdem incusat Athanasius, (nisi vellent esse 
 meri Sabelliani,) quod necessario tenerent attributa Dei 
 esse res quasdam per se subsistentes in divina natura, 
 quae proinde <Tvv6eTo<; asset : at hoc ipsum deducit Euse- 
 bius ex doctrina Marcelli. Athanasius : Kara tovto tj 
 6eia /lovd'i avvdera (pavijaerat, re/j,vo/Mevrj et? ovcriav Kal 
 avfi^e^rjKoi. § 2. Eusebius : avvOerov mairep ela-fjyev top 
 Qeov, ovaiav avrov VTroriOe'/xevo'; St%a \6yov, a-vfi^6^T)K'6<; 
 Be rfi ovcrta rbv \6<yov. p. 121, vid. p. 149. d. Iterum 
 Athanasius : el tovto, iraT'qp fiev otb cro(f>o<i, vlo<; Be oTe 
 ao^ia- dWa fir] &)? ttoiott;? t(? TavTa ev Tat Oea. § 2. 
 Iterum Eusebius : el 8' ev koX tuvtov rjv o &eo<; xai rj ev 
 Tal<; irapoifiia^ ao^ia, e^ti ovaa (TOff>rj ev avT(S voovfievr), 
 KaOo a-oij)6<; 6 0eo9, rt iKcoXvev, k. t. X. p. 150, b. 
 
 (8) Teste Eusebio, Marcellus^ dogma suum insinuans, 
 professus est sibi prsecipue cordi esse monarcliias dogma, 
 p. 109, b. quod quidem dogma Athanasius contra, dispu- 
 tationis suae statim principio, confirmat illassum pi-orsus 
 esse et securum in doctrina catholicorum. 
 
 (g) Celebre est MarcelH dogma illud de regno Christi 
 ad tempus duraturo, ab initiis quibusdam orto, finem 
 tandem habituro : haereticorum. autem, quos urget Atha- 
 nasius, baud absimile est illud § 8, quod Filio et existendi 
 et regnandi initium videntur assignasse. 
 
 (10) Verbum esse Filium etc. in Veteri Testamento 
 negat Marcellus apud Eusebium p. 131, b. pp. 83-101, 
 pp. 134-140; negant hseretici apud Athanasium, §§ 
 23-29. 
 
Critico-TkeologiccB. 33 
 
 (11) Cum loca ilia Veteris Testamenti objicerentur Mar- 
 cello, profitebatur ea anticipationes esse Novi ; d hk Tt9, 
 Kai irpo T^9 ^ea? hiaOrjKrj^, to rov Xpiarov 'Irjo-ov ovofia cttI 
 Tov \oyov jxovov SeiKvvvai hvvaaOai eTrfvyyeWoiTo, evprjcrei 
 TovTo '7rpo(j)'r]riKco<; eiprjfievov. Euseb. p. 43, a. Quare apud 
 Apostolum ad Rom. i. 4, pro opuaOeU legebat Trpoopia-dek. 
 Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 2. ; vid. Anathem. 5'™ Concil. 
 Sirm. Prim. ; vid^ porro Select. Observ. R. S. C. p. 10. 
 Quod idem de Photino quoque narrat Epiphanius, autu- 
 masse scilicet eum Vetus Testamentum scriptum esse 
 ■TrpoKaTayyeXTCKco<;, ■7rpo')(^pr]crTiK(o';. Hcsr. 71, p. 830. 
 At Athanasius quoque de hasreticis suis disputans, aXKa 
 vai, tpaat, Keirai, p.eu, ripo<f>rjTiKS)'; Be earai. § 24. 
 
 (12) Marcellus, cum testimonio Psalmi log urgeretur, 
 voluit " Luciferum ' ilium esse stellam, quae Magorum 
 dux fuit. Euseb. p. 48, b. Vid. Epiphan. Hcer. p. 
 833, a. Athanasius quoque pro parte sua, per duas 
 sectiones (27, 28) totus est in eodem Scripturas loco 
 excutiendo. 
 
 (13) Accedit denique, quod notatu certe dignum est, 
 idem propemodum sentire Athanasium de natura dog- 
 matis Sabelliani, quod Eusebium, Eugenium, Basilium 
 sensisse supra dictum est. Sa^eWiov to eTriTrjBevfia, tov 
 avTov vlov KoX TTUTepa Xeyovro^, ical maTepov avaipovvTo<;, 
 ore fiev vios, tov irarepa, ore 8e iraTrjp, tov vlov. § 9. 
 
 Profecto plura sunt quae conferri possint ad Athanasii 
 librum quartum ex Marcelli et Photini hseresi illustran- 
 dum ; hsec autem qualicumque satis sint quo demon- 
 stretur, illud sanctissimi doctoris opus, non adversus 
 Arianos, sed adversus Photinianorum dogma esse exara- 
 
34 Dissertatiuncultz qucedain 
 
 turn. Neque id multum in hac re valet, quo motus 
 Montefalconius dubitat an opusculum Contra Sabellii 
 gregales sit Athanasii, nullam scilicet esse memoriae 
 proditam Athanasii cum Sabellianorum familiis dimica- 
 tionem. Nam si reipsa certum est, hunc librum de 
 Sabellianismo quodam disputare, esse autem genuinum, 
 (id quod nemo inficiatur), quid ultra quaerendum est ? 
 aliorum silentium explicatione eget, sed nihil probat. 
 Opportunum autem est Sirmondi responsum de Hier- 
 onymo similiter prsetermittente Eusebii tractatus contra 
 Sabellium : — " de infinitis voluminibus quae ab Eusebio 
 edita testatur, pauca, certe non omnia, Hieronymum 
 commemorasse." Sirmond. 0pp. tom. i. init. 
 
 Jam mihi disputandi tandem finem facturo, in mentem 
 subit Ciceronianum illud, " Utitur in re non dubia testi- 
 bus non necessariis." At certe nulla moles argumen- 
 torum illis nimia est, qui adversarios habeant Montefal- 
 conium Benedictinum, Jesuitam Petavium. 
 
 Restat ut subjiciatur operi nostro brevis quaedam 
 analysis partium seu fragmentorum eorum, ex quibus 
 consistit hie liber. 
 
 1. Sectiones septem, 1-5, 9, 10, Monarchiam tractant, 
 et cognatam materiam unitatis, simplicitatis, integritatis 
 divinse, turn Filii generationis ; quarum una § 4, et alte- 
 rius pars § 3, Arianos alloquitur; reliquse familias 
 Sabellianas. 
 
 2. Duo, 6 et 7, cum Arianis cominus pugnant, nihil 
 autem commune habent neque cum sectionibus quse 
 prascedunt, neque cum iis quEe subsequuntur. 
 
Criiico-Theologicce. 35 
 
 3. Tres, 8, 11, et 12, comparationem ineunt inter con- 
 trarias sectas, prsecipue Sabellianam. 
 
 4. Tres alias, 13, 14, 25, pertinent ad praecipuum 
 quoddam dogma Sabellii et Marcelli. 
 
 5. Universse 21 sectiones, quae reliquae sunt, cursum 
 autem paene continuum habent, 15-24, 26-29, unam rem 
 agunt, Verbum scilicet idem esse ac Filium, contra doc- 
 trinam Marcelli et fauli Samosateni. 
 
36 Dissertatiunailce quadain 
 
 DISSERTATIO II. 
 
 DE ECTHESI EPHESINA CONTRA PAULUM SAMOSATENUM. 
 
 EXTAT in tertia parte Actorum Concilii CEcu- 
 menici Ephesini an. 431 habiti, symbolum quod- 
 dam sic fere inscriptum : " De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, 
 Filii Patris, Definitio Episcoporum, qui Nicsese in 
 Synodo convenerunt, et expositio ejusdem Synodi 
 adversus Paulum Samosatenum." Ecthesis base Patri- 
 bus Antiochenis, qui Paulum condemnaverunt cir. an. 
 264-270, vindicatur a Baronio an. 272 ; J. Forbes, Imtr. 
 Hist. Theolog. i. 4, § i ; Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. t. 2, p. 
 255; Worm. Hist. Sabell. p. 116-119. (vid. Routh, Rell. 
 Sacr. t. 2, p. 523) ; Simon, de Magistris, Prcsfat. ad 
 Dionys. Alex. p. xl. ; Feverlin, Dissert, de P. Samos. § g ; 
 Fasson, de voce Homoiision; Molkenbuhr, Dissert. Crit. 
 4; Kern. Disqu. Hist. Crit. &&ha.cvQ; Burton, a/). Faber, 
 " Apostolicity of Trinitarianism," et aliis. Cum autem 
 homoiision Filii Dei profiteatur, adhibita est a criticis 
 quibusdam, quo probabilius fieret, Athanasium, Basilium, 
 et Hilarium, gravissimos auctoi-es, errasse cum dicerent 
 vocabulum illud Antiochiae tunc temporis, in Epistola 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 3 7 
 
 Synodica Patrum, aut condemnatum esse, aut prudenter 
 omissum. Quae quidem subdifficilis quaestio non hujus 
 est loci, ubi id tantum agimus, pace eruditissimorum 
 vii'orum, ut allatis argumentis pro captu nostro common- 
 stremus, ecthesin illam Concilio neque Antiocheno, 
 neque vero Nicasno esse coajvam, sed jure referri in 
 tempora et Paulo et Ario posterioi'a. 
 
 Cseterum occurrit hoc Symbolum ap. Harduin, Condi. 
 t. 1, p. 1640. Routh, Rdliqu. Sacr. t. 2, p. 524. Dionys. 
 Alex. 0pp. Rom. 1696 (1796), p. 289. Card. Mai, Nov. 
 Coll. t. 7, 162. Burton, Testimonies, p. 397-399. Faber, 
 Op. cit. t. 2, p. 287. Ad rem aggrediamur. 
 
 I. Ecthesis hsec habet : oKov ofioovaiov tS Qem kol 
 fieTO, Tov crit)/iaT09, dW ov'^l Kara, to awfia ofioovaiov tw 
 Qe^. At multa suadent vocabulum homoiision non 
 habere locum in symbolis sasculi tertii. 
 
 (i) Primum, decantata sunt ilia Augustini et Vigilii, 
 ex quibus constat tempore Concilii Nicseni homoiision 
 fuisse instrumentum novum, quo munita est fides 
 Ecclesise contra Arianos : " Adversus impietatem Arian- 
 orum hsei-eticorum," inquit Augustinus, " novum nomen 
 Patres homoiision condiderunt, sed non rem novam tali 
 nomine signarunt," in Joan. 97, n. 4. Alio loco monet : 
 " minus quam oportuit intellectum " esse illud nomen 
 Arimini, " propter novitatem verbi," {Contra. Maxim, ii. 
 14) ; " quod tamen," subjungit, "' fides antiqua pepererat." 
 Vigilius .autem, "res antiqua novum nomen accepit 
 homoiision." Disput. Athan. et Ar. ap. Bibl. Patr. Col. 
 1618, t. v.part. 3, p. 695. Vid. Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. I. c. 
 
38 Dissertatmnculce qucsdam, 
 
 (2) Deinde, auctor est Sozomenus, Hist. iv. 15, a 
 Semi-arianis Sirmii an. 358 adhibitum esse in confessione 
 suaconscribenda illud ipsum symbolum, quod Antiocheni 
 Patres contra Paulum edidissent ; quod quidem certe 
 non adhibuissent amentissimi homoiisii insectatores, si 
 in illo ea vox locum habuisset. 
 
 (3) Turn ex ipsorum Semi-arianorum testimonio idem 
 conficitur, in iis scilicet quae ab illis scripta apud Epi- 
 phanium reperiuntur. Hceres. 73. Profecto ibi provocant 
 ad Concilium Antiochenum contra Paulum habitum, quo 
 melius, usiam prseseferentes, insinuent Euum homoeiision ; 
 quod, inquam.contra esset ab illis factum, si Concilium illud 
 in symbolo suo, ut usiam, sic homousion quoque ascivisset. 
 
 (4) Neque sane est quod miremur, (hoc enim obiter 
 dici liceat,) si Patres Antiocheni ceconomia quadam 
 utendum esse duxerint, in voce homousion adhibenda. 
 Nam qui primi Pauli causam tractaverunt, Dionysius, 
 Gregorius Neocsesariensis, Athenodorus, fortasse Firmi- 
 lianus, fuerunt Origenis discipuli, acerrimi impugnatoris 
 eorum qui corpoream aliquam naturam Deo tribuerent ; 
 qualem contendit Paulus, testibus Athanasio et Basilio, 
 in vocabulo homousion innui. De divina substantia tan- 
 quam corpore loquitur Tertullianus, in Prax. 7, utitur 
 porro, post Valentinianos, voce irpo^oXr), (sicut Justinus 
 cognata phrasiTrpo^Xij^ei/ yivvrjfjLa, Tryph. 62) ; at Origenes 
 contra, cum Candido Valentiniano congressus, verbum 
 illud reprobat, Melitonis autem opus, -n-epl iva-cofidTov 
 @eov severius notat, (in Genes. Fragm. t. 2, p. 25), quasi 
 Deum esse materialem Melito docuerit, vid. etiam de 
 Orat. 23. Ilia Platonicorum quoque. admiratio, qua in 
 
Critico- TheologiccB. 39 
 
 Origene cernitur, eodem spectat, cum philosophi istius 
 sectae, quo Deum simplicissimum et perfectissimum esse 
 traderent, soliti sint ilium appellare v-n-epovaiov. 
 
 Profecto a Plotino Deus appellatur, " origo existentise 
 et prsestantior Msj'a." 5 Ennead. v.. 11, quia " supereminens 
 omnia est, at non ilia, sed causa illorum." ibid. c. ult. 
 Quod docuerunt porro materialistse de necessitate physica, 
 in causa fuit cur Plotinus Dei energiam et voluntatem 
 diceret ejus esse usiam, 6 Enn. viii. 13. Origenes quoque, 
 " Neque enim usice particeps est Deus, participes enim 
 facit potius, quam ipse est particeps." Contr. Cels. vi. 64. 
 Hinc vox virepovaiov de Deo usurpatur ab Areopagita, 
 de div. nom. i. 2, et a Maximo Confessore; qui " ova-La," 
 scribit, " improprie de Deo dicitur, nam vTrepovmo^ est." 
 in Areopag. de div. nom. v. init. Vid. etiam Damasc. Fid. 
 Orth. i. 4 et 8, pp. 137, 147. Gregorium Naz. quoque, 
 qui Deum augurat esse virep ttjv oxxriav. Orat. vi. 12. 
 Et Constantinum ad Sand. Coet. g. 
 
 Origenes sane in Joan. t. 20, 16, eo usque progreditur, 
 ut verba reprehendat e'/e t?}s ovcria<; tov irarpo'; yeyevvriaOai, 
 Tov vlov ; sed ob banc plane rem, quia arbitratur, per- 
 peram quidem, formulam istiusmodi p,ei(o<Tiv quandam 
 inferre in notionem Dei. 
 
 Jam Arianis certe usitatissimum fuit, eo nomine postu- 
 lare homoiision, quasi, Gnosticorum et Manichaeorum 
 more, immaterialitati divinse injuriam fecerit. 
 
 Et Dionysium Alexandrise Episcopum constat primo 
 horruisse aliquantum hoc vocabulum, tum solum fidenter 
 illud enunciantem et confitentem, cum eum Pontifex 
 Romanus ad id hortatus esset. 
 
40 Dissertatiuncula quczdam 
 
 Neque illud omittendum est, quod circa idem tempus 
 cum habebantur Concilia Antiochise contra Paulum, illam 
 orbis Christiana; partem invaserat Manichseorum hsere- 
 sis ; qua;, utpote verbo homoiision usa in theologia sua, 
 idque materiali sensu, non immerito Patribus metum in- 
 cuteret, ne vox, in se sanctissima et prasclarissima, illo 
 tempore catholico dogmati parum asset profutura. 
 
 (5) Quibus perspectis, forsitan expediri poterit ille no- 
 dus in historia Patrum Antiochenorum, quod Athanasius, 
 Basilius, Hilarius, una consentientes de verbo homoiision 
 ab illis Patribus improbato, quare improbatum fuerit, inter 
 se non consentiunt. Scilicet, cum usia, ut a Petavio 
 dictum est, de Trin. iv. i, in philosophorum scholis, quod 
 unurri est et individuum tunc temporis significaret, cog- 
 nata vox homousion, de Sanctissima Trinitate usurpata, illis 
 qui a theologia sua mysteria excludebant, alterutrum de 
 duobus erroribus secum ferre videbatur. Nam si verbum 
 illud materiale quid innueret, id jam hasresis erat ; si vero 
 immateriale, continue fieri non poterat, quin illae duse Per- 
 sonse plane essent, non duse ullatenus, sed omnimodo 
 unum. Quare significaturum esset tandem aut Patris par- 
 tem (fiepo^ ojjLoovatov) esse Filium, sicut volebant Mani- 
 cha;i, aut Patrem esse Filium, sicut Sabelliani. Paulus 
 igitur in Patres Antiochiae congregates hoc fere usus est di- 
 lemmate : " Nisi vocabulum vestrum Manichfeorum est, 
 quod vos negatis, certe Sabellianismum sonat, id quod ego 
 libenter suscipio ; " unde et verum erit, quod Athanasius 
 narrat, Paulum dixisse : " Si homousius est Christus, tres 
 sunt substantise in deitate," et verum quod Hilarius, 
 " Homousion Samosatenus confessus est." Subduxerunt 
 
Critico- Theologiccs. 4 1 
 
 itaque Patres voculam, ne illam sophista aut de hseresi 
 postularet Manichasorum, aut in Sabellianam vindicaret. 
 
 2. Legimus etiam in Ecthesi, iiera rrit deoTijrot; &v 
 Kara trdpKa ofioovcrio's rjfuv. 
 
 Multa sunt et gravia, cur credamus, formulam illam 
 ofioova-iov r}fiiv temporibus esse tribuendam et Antiocheno 
 Concilio, et fortasse Nicasno, posterioribus. 
 
 (i) Si Waterlandio credendum est, setatem Symboli 
 Quicunque eruenti, 6/u,oova-iov ■^fuv pauci tantum ante Eu- 
 tychen conceptis verbis tradiderunt, post autem plurimi. 
 Exempli causa, provocat vir doctus ad confessionem Tur- 
 ribii Hispani an. 447 ; Flaviani Constantinopolitani et 
 Leonis Papas an. 449 : Concilii Chalcedonensis an. 451 ; 
 Felicis III. an. 485 ; Anastasii II. an. 496 ; Ecclesise Alex- 
 andrinse eodem anno ; necnon Hormisdae, Ecclesiarum 
 Syrise, Fulgentii, Justiniani, Joannis II. et Pelagii I. in sas- 
 culo sexto. " In quibus singulis," inquit, " aut unius natura; 
 dogma est reprobatum, aut duarum comprobatum, aut to 
 ofioovaiov rjfuv sancitum ; quos quidem articulos frustra 
 qu^siv&ris in Symholo Quicunque." Opp.t 4,-p.2/\y. Eodem 
 autem argumento, quo Symbolum Quicunque, verba ojio- 
 ova-Lov r^fiiv omitterts, collocatur ante Eutychen, Ecthesis 
 hsec Ephesina, iisdem usa, post Eutychen coUocabitur. 
 
 (2) Illud ipsum, quod 6fj,oovaiov rjniv est ab Eutyche 
 repudiatum, indicio est banc formulam nonuvsurpatam esse 
 ab Ecclesia in confessionibus suis, ante Eutychen ; nam- 
 que id hsereticorum proprium est, Catholicse traditionis il- 
 los articulos respuere, quae hactenus sunt fideliumtantum- 
 modo mentibus, non publicis monumentis, mandata. 
 
 4 
 
42 Dissertatiunculce quadam 
 
 "Usque ad hodiernum diem," contendit hseresiarcha in 
 Concilio Constantinopolitano,"non dixi corpus Domini et 
 Dei nostri esse ofioovaLov rjfilv ; confiteor autem Sanctam 
 Virginem esse 6fj,oov<nov ij/iw, ex qua Deus noster est in- 
 carnatus." Hard. Cone. t. 2, p. 164, 5. Scilicet in quses- 
 tionem venerat, utrum formula qusedam reciperetur necne, 
 quae, cum apprime esset utilis ad nascentem hseresin op- 
 primendam, adhuc tamen privati solummodo fuisset juris 
 et in certis ut plurimum locis usitata. Idem accidisse cerni- 
 mus in vocabulo <j>v(ri<;, quod eo plausibilius rejecerunt Eu- 
 tychiani, quia rarius adhibitum fuisset in scriptis Patrum, 
 turn cum in controversiam vocaretur. De uTroo-Tacrt?, quae 
 vox alteri erit exemplo hujusce rei, post dicendum erit. 
 (3) Occurretur forsitan a quibusdam dicentibus, articu- 
 lum hunc ofioovaiov -{jfuv sancitum esse ab Ecclesia cum 
 Apollinaristis confligente ; qui, teste Athanasio ad Epict. 
 2, Christi corpus Divinitaticonsubstantiale esse jactabant. 
 Concedo utique ; sed cum Apollinaristse dogma ipsi suum 
 brevi deseruerint, (Epiph. Hxr. 77, 25,) non necesse habuit 
 Eccelsia tesseram aliquam fidei contra perfidiam eorum 
 proferri. Ambas quippe Apollinaristarum sectae videntur 
 inter se consensisse in articulo ofioovcnov fj^lv verbo tenus 
 recipiendo, id solum exagitantes, utrum de carne Domini 
 jam cum Divinitate unita posset ille praedicari, necne ; 
 vid. Leont. de Fraud. Apollin. ap. P. Col. Bibl. t. 6, part. 
 I. Attamen occurrit certe formula ilia in confessione 
 Johannis Antiocheni, circ. an 431. Rustic, contra Aceph. 
 ibid. t. 6, p. 2, p. 799, et alibi, ut credo ; ea vero non am- 
 plius 21 annis antecessit Concilio Chalcedonensi, a quo 
 inter formulas Ecclesiae ilia onoovcnov f/filv recepta est. 
 
Critico- Theologicce, 43 
 
 (4) Enimvero contra Apollinaristarum. o/ioovaiov 
 deoTtjTi usitatius est in scriptis Patrum, non o/iooiaiov 
 ■^fjLiv, sed ofioovaiov Mapla. Scilicet Amphilochius, quasi 
 summam rei explicans, "Apparet certe," scribit, "sanctos 
 Patres dixisse, Filium esse consubstantialem Patri 
 secundum divinitatem, at consubstantialem Matri secund- 
 um humanitatem." ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 789. Proclus, non- 
 6fioov<Tiov, sed ofi^vXov, scribit, adjecto tamen " Virgine," 
 non "nobis;" tw Trarpl /cara ttjv deoTTjra ofioova-io'}, 
 ouTw? o ai/Toi; xal ry irapQevcp Kara rrjv (rapKa 6/i6^v\oi. 
 ad Arm. p. 618, circ. init. ed. 1630. Vid. quoque p. 613, 
 fin. p. 618. Saepius ofMoova-iov adhibens Proclus in theo- 
 logia explicanda, hie non adhibet in ceconomia. Atha- 
 nasius quoque : rbv rivcofievov Trarpl Kara irvevfj.a, rjfuv Be 
 Kara crdpKa. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 139. Alibi : ouk etc 
 Mapia^, aW' ex tt)? eavrov outrta? trSifia. ad Epict. 2. 
 Vid. quoque verba 6fioy6vr)<} et 6fioova-i,o<: inter se oppo- 
 sita, de Sent. Dion. 10. Eandem rem exprimit Te\.eio<s 
 dvOpcoTTo^, e. g. Procl. ad Arm. p. 613, quam quidem 
 phrasin, ab Apollinare rejectam, Eutyches recepit.' 
 Condi, t. 2, p. 157. Leon. Epist. 21. 
 
 Contra ab Eustathio an. 325 certe dictum est, Christi 
 animam esse ra'i<; ■^vx^a^-'i t&v avOpdnroiv ofioovcnov, wairep 
 ical 7) aap^ 6fjLoov(Tio<i ry t&v dvOpcoireov aapKi. Ap. Theod. 
 Eran. i. p. 56, et ab Ambrosio ihid. p. 139. o/ioovaiov rm 
 Trarpl Kara rrjv deorrjTa, koI Ofioovaiov rjfiiv Kara rrjv 
 dvOpairoT'rjTa ; (vid. quoque Leont. Contr. Nest, et Eutych. 
 Bibl. Col. p. 977,) quod mirabile sane erit si ab Ambrosio 
 scriptum est, at sancto Doctori psene abjudicatur a Mauri- 
 nis, 0pp. tom. 2, p. 729. Quid quod Leontium hunc, in 
 
44 DissertatiunailcB qutsdam 
 
 cujus opere occurrit, alium esse atque auctorem ilium 
 qui scripserit de Sectis, Coustantii judicium est, Append,. 
 Epist. Pont. Rom. p. 79, eo autem nomine (quod ad rem 
 nostram facit) quia minus " accuratus " scriptor esset. 
 Attamen videas aliud specimen ejusdem formulae in 
 ■Theophilo ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 154. 
 
 (5) Neque illud leve est, quod, cum scriptoribus o/io- 
 ovaLov 7}fiiv proferentibus vox ova-La pro (f)vcn<; sive yevo<; 
 sumatur, ita ut ofioovcnov valeat ofiotfivXov, sensus contra 
 ofioovaiov patribus Antiochenis saeculi tertii videtur esse 
 ille quem fert in formula 6fj,oovcno<; Trarpl ; nempe ut indi- 
 viduum, non speciem, significet ; quod quidem, ut jam 
 vidim.us, Paulus pro concesso habet in sophismate suo 
 contra illos Patres torquendo. Quod adeo receptum fuit 
 illis temporibus, ut Hippolytus tantum non diserte neget 
 homines esse inter se unius substantise vel oiia-ia^ ; rogat 
 enim, /^^ irdvTe<; ev crcjfid ea-fiev Kara rf]v ovcrLav ; Contr. 
 Noet. 7. Malchion quoque, in ilia ipsa cum Paulo dimica- 
 tione, haeresiarcham incusat quod non teneret ovcri,&cr6ai 
 ev Tw o\a> awTrjpi tov vlov rov fiovoyevrj. Routh. Relliqu. 
 t. ii. p. 476. Africanus porro confitetur, oiiaiav o\r)v 
 ov(Tia)deh av6p(oiro<; Xeyerai. Ibid. p. 125. Quinimo Atha- 
 nasius ipse videtur uti verbo oval,a simpliciter de divini- 
 tate Verbi, numquam, quantum scio, de humanitate ab 
 eo assumpla. Vid. Orat. i. 45, 57 fin. 59 init. 60 init. 
 62, 64 fin. ; ii. 18 init. ; iii. 45 init. etc. Inducit autem, 
 quasi inter se contraria, ovcrLav et dvOpmirivov Verbi, 
 Orat. i. 41. ova-Lav et dvOpwiroTrjTa, iii. ^^init. Sedhac de 
 re plura possentdici, quam hujusdisputationisratio ferret. 
 
 (6) Accedit quod Epistola extat qusedam a Patribus 
 
Critico-Theologicce. 45 
 
 Antiochenis, vel quibusdam ex illis, scripta; quae, de 
 Incarnatione disputans, verbis utitur plane similibus 
 verborum sasculi tertii, plane dissimilibus eorum qua in 
 Ecthesi Ephesina reperiuntur. Mentionem scilicet facit 
 de Filio " incarnato " et " facto homine," de " corpore 
 ejus ex Virgine sumpto," de " homine ex semine David," 
 de " participatione carnis et sanguinis." Routh, Rdl. t. 
 2> P- 473- Atqus hsec de formula 6fj.oov(Tio<; r\tuv, Apol- 
 linaris, vel potius Eutychis aevo, primum in fidei con- 
 fessiones recepta. 
 
 3. Hsec quoque notanda sunt in Ecthesi : ev irpoa-mTrov 
 a-vv6erov sk 6e6T7]To<; ovpaviov koX dvdpcoTreia^ crapKof. 
 
 VerbUm avvOeTov, latine compositum, reperitur in frag- 
 mento quod extat disputationis Malchionis cum Paulo 
 in Concilio Antiocheno, Routh, Relliqu. t. 2, p. 476 ; at 
 irpoa-aTToi; sumptum pro antitheto, quod vocant, duarum 
 naturarum, ad seriorem setatem referendum est. 
 
 Concedendum sane est personce vocabulum reperiri in 
 Tertulliano, idque de duabus Christi naturis disputante. 
 Adv. Prax. 27. Hoc tamen fere aira^ Xeyo/Msvov est ; 
 quamquam Novatianus certe, cui cum Tertulliano magna 
 est necessitudo, loquitur de Trin. 21, de "regula circa 
 personam Christi." Sed usurpat ille auctor Christi 
 nomen passim in opere suo, non pro Filio Incarnato, sed 
 simpliciter pro Deo Unigenito : e.c. " Regula veritatis 
 docet nos credere post Patrcin etiam in Filium Dei 
 Christum Jesum, Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei 
 filium etc. c. g. init. Alibi, " Christus habet gloriam ante 
 mundi institutionem," 16. Vid. quoque 13, ubi Christum, 
 non Verbum, carnem sumpsisse docet; alibi autem, inita 
 
46 DissertatiunculcB qucBiiam. 
 
 jamdisputationede "Persona Christi,"tamen loquitur de 
 illo ut "secundam personam post Patrem," 26 et 31. Vid. 
 quoque 27. 
 
 Quidquid autem haec valeant, confirmare tamen ausim, 
 (si de re quaquam, quod plane demonstrari non potest, 
 secure potest confirmari), vocabulum irpotramov, de 
 Christo incarnato sumptum, non fuisse in usu Catho- 
 licorum usque ad tempora fere Apollinaris. 
 
 (i) Non occurrit in Athanasii opera contra Apollina- 
 rem, scripto circ. an. 370, exceptis locis duobus, de 
 quibus postea ; neque in Greg. Naz. Ep. 202 ad, Nectarium, 
 neque Epp. loi, 102, ad Cledonium ; neque in Dialogis 
 tribus Theodoreti, nisi in uno loco, quern, Ambrosio a 
 Theodoreto et Leontio tributum, Ambrosiinon esse jam 
 diximus ; neque in Symbolo Damasi, a quo condem- 
 natus est Apollinaris, vid. Epp. Dam. ap. Const. 4 et 5 ; 
 neque in Symbolo Epiphanii, ^wcor. 121 ; vid. quoque 75. 
 
 (2) Desideratur idem in iis disputationibus Patrum, ubi, 
 si turn esset in usu, jure erat expectandum; cujus vice 
 alias contra suppositse sunt voculse et phrases, quae et 
 iteratione sua formularum paene gerunt speciem, et 
 varietate sua admirationem movent, cur irpoa-ajirov quo- 
 que in illis locis non reperiatur. 
 
 E. c. Irenagus : " Non ergo alterum filium hominis novit 
 Evangelium, nisi hunc qui ex Maria etc. et eundem hunc 
 passum resurrexisse . . . Etsi lingua quidem confitentur 
 ununi Jesum Christum, . . . alterum quidem passum et 
 natum, etc. et esse alterum eorum," etc. Hmr. iii. 16, n. 
 5, 6 ; '•■ unus quidem et idem existens," n. 7 ; " per multa 
 dividens Filium Dei," n. 8 ; " unum et eundem," ibid. " Si 
 
Critico- Tkeologicce. 47 
 
 altcY . . . alter . . . quoniam unum eum novit Apostolus," 
 etc. n. 9. Extenditur disputatio ad c. 24. 
 
 Ambrosius : " Unus in utraque (divinitate et carne) 
 loquitur Dei Filius ; quia in eodem utraque natura est ; et 
 si idem loquitur, non uno semper loquitur modo." de Fid. 
 ii. g. Vid. 58. " Non divisus, sed unus; quia utrumque 
 unus, et unus in utroque . . . non enim alter ex Patre, alter 
 ex Virgine, sed ide^ aliter ex Pa!tre, aliter ex Virgine." 
 de Incarn. 35. Vid. 47, 75. " Non enim quod ejusdem 
 substantias est, unus sed umim est," 77, quo in loco ver- 
 bum persona sequitur de Mysterio Trinitatis. 
 
 Hilarius : " Non alius Filius hominis quam qui Filius 
 Dei est, neque alius in forma Dei quam qui in forma servi 
 perfectus homo natus est . . . habens in se et totum ve- 
 rumque quod homo est, et totum verumque quod Deus 
 est." de Trin. x. ig. " Cum ipse ilk Filius hominis ipse 
 sit qui et Filius Dei, quia totus hominis Filius totus 
 Dei Filius sit, etc. . . . Natus autem est, non ut esset 
 alius atque alius, sed ut ante hominem Deus, suscipiens 
 hominem, homo et Deus possit intelligi." ibid. 22. " Non 
 potest . . . ita ab se dividuus esse, ne Christus sit ; cum 
 non alius Christus, quam qui a forma Dei, etc., neque 
 alius quam qui natus est, etc. . . . neque alius quam qui 
 est mortuus, etc. ... in coelis autem non alius sit quam 
 qui," etc. ibid. " ut non idem fuerit qui et," etc. ibid. 50. 
 " Totum ei Deus Verbum est, totum ei homo Christus 
 est. . . . nee Christum aliud credere quam Jesum, nee 
 Jesum aliud prsedicare quam Christum." 52. 
 
 Haud aliter Athanasius : aXKo<:, aXKo<; • eTepo<s, 6Tepo<! • 
 el? Kol avTos • ravTov • aoialperoi;. Orat. iv. 15 et 2g. 
 
48 Dissertatmnculce qut^dain 
 
 aXXb9, aXko';. 30. eva Ka\ rov avrSv. 31. ov^ o)<; tov Xoyov 
 Ke'x^apicr/j^evov. ibid, tov Trpo? auTov \7)^6evra, & koI rjvaicr- 
 6ai TTKneveTai, avQpanrov air avrnv 'X^copi^ovai. ibid, rrjv 
 dveK<f)paaTov ei'oiaiv. 32. to deiov ev /cat u/ifKovv jivarnpiov. 
 ibid, rrjv kvoTTjra. ibid. o\ov avTcv avOptoirov re Kai 0eov 
 ofiov. 35. Vid. etiam disputationem maxime subtilem 
 in Orat. iii. 30-58, ubi lamen vix inveneris verbum unum, 
 quod sit theologicae scientiae proprium. 
 
 Alia veterum theologorum specimina sunt hujusmodi : 
 " Mediam inter Deum et hominem substantiam gerens." 
 Lactant. Instit. iv. 13. 0eo? xal ai'dponro'; reXeto? 6 
 avToi;. Meliton. ap. Routh, Rell. t. i. p. 115. "'ex eo 
 quod Deus est, et ex illo quod homo . . . permixtus et 
 sociatus . . . alterum vident, alterum non vident." 
 Novat. de Trin. 25. Vid. quoque 11, 14, 21, 24. " Duos 
 Christos . . . unum, alium." Pamphil. Apol. ap. Routh, 
 Rell. tom. 4, p. 320. auTo? eanv, del Trpo? eavTov waav- 
 Tws" ej(;(uz/. Greg. Nyss. t. 2. p. 6g6. eva koI tov uvtov. 
 Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, p. 85. aXko fxev koI dWo to ef Syv 
 SoiTTjp • ovK aXXo? Se koI aAXo?. p. 86. 
 
 Vid. quoque Athan. contr. Apollin. i. 10; fin. 11 ; fin. 
 13, e. 16, b. ii. I init. 5, e. 12, e. 18, circ. fin. Theoph. ap. 
 Theod. Eran. ii. p. 154; Hilar, ibid. p. 162; Attic, ihid. 
 p. 167; Hieron. contr. Joan. Hieros. 35. 
 
 Haud absimiles loquendi modi, omisso plane vocabulo 
 7r/3oo-«B7roz/,reperiunturin Epistolailla Patrum Antiochen- 
 orum, ad quam jam supra provocatum est : to ex ttj? 
 TrapOevov (TUfia ^(wpriaav ttolv to TrXr/pafia Tfj<; ^eori^ro? 
 awfiaTiKcas, ttj OeoTTjji aTpeiTTco'; fjvcoTai koL TeOeoiroirjTai • 
 OX) x^pi-v o ai/To? 0609 KOi dvOpwTTo^. Routh, Relliq. t. 2. 
 
Critico- TheologiccB. 49 
 
 p. 473- 0V7W Koi 6 XpiaTo<s irpo rrj^ aap/cdicrea)^ to? eU 
 tavofiacnaf icaOo Xpiarb<; ev kuX ro aiiTo S)v rfj ovcrta. 
 ibid. p. 474. 6t aWo fiev . . . aXXo Be . . . Svo viovv, 
 ibid. p. 485. Malchion quoque, " Unus factus est . . . 
 unitate subsistens, etc." Ibid. p. 476. 
 
 (3) Constat prseterea, vocabulum Trpoawirov a Patribus 
 antiquis de Christo prsedicari incerto illo quotidiani 
 sermonis sensu, aon theologico ; id quod ssepius vix 
 fieret, si jam recepta esset ea vox in symbola et confes- 
 siones Ecclesise. 
 
 E. c. A ClemenLeAlexandrinoFiliusvocatur7r|Oco-(U7roi', 
 id est, vultus Patris. Strom, v. 6, p. 665, et Pcsdag. i. 7, 
 p. 132. Vid. quoque Strom, vii. 10, p. 886. Haud aliter 
 ewpoaaiTro) Trarpof, Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 22. Vid. quoque 
 o/xoioirpoacoTTov, Cyrill. Hier. Catcch. xii.14 fin. Apud Chryso- 
 stomum legimus, Bvo Trpoaonra, humanum scilicet et divi- 
 num, (nisi placuerit cumTentschero de Patre et Filio illud 
 accipi,) Sijjprjfiiva Kara rrjp viroaracnv, in Hebr. Horn. iii. 
 I fin. ita loquentem, cum paulo ante locutus esset contra 
 Paulum Samosatenum, in quern Ecthesin Ephesinam 
 conscriptam esse creditur. Vid. quoque Amphilochium 
 ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 67, qui Christum docet dixisse, Pater 
 major me est, " ex carne et non Ik irpoaanrov OeoTriro^." 
 Hislocis7r/3co-o)7roi^videturvelleaspectumquendam,unum 
 e multis, sub quibus res eadem potest considerari, quod 
 item Athanasio usitatum est ; vid. de Deer. 14 ; Orat. i. 54, 
 ii. 8 ; Sent. Dion. 4. Qua quidem ratione explicandi sunt 
 duo loci, in quibus videtur sanctus Doctor uti vocabulo 
 Trpoaairov, et quidem incommode, in eo sensu quem fert in 
 theologia, viz. eontr. Apoll. ii. 2 et 10, iv Biaipea-ei irpoa-- 
 
50 DissertatiuncMlce qucedam 
 
 (OTTcov ; ubi Lequienius, (in Damasc. Dialect. 43) putat se 
 reperisse singulare exemplum vocis -rrpoawirov pro natura 
 adhibitae ; male quidem, cum ipse Athanasius in alterohor- 
 um duorum loco seexplicans.Tr/ooo-tBTrwi'^oi'o/iaTiBi'scribit. 
 Quae cum ita sint,fortasse minus audiendus est Montefal- 
 conius, fragmentum quoddam Athanasii non nisi propter 
 ipsam dictionem rejiciens, vid. 0pp. t. i. p. 1294. Monet 
 enim post Sirmondum in Facund. xi. 2, ilium locum con- 
 tineredoctrinam "ab Athanasianapenitusabhorrentem ;" 
 idcirco autem, quod versio latina, quam solam habemus, 
 proponit " duas personas, unam circa hominem, alteram 
 circa Verbum." Quod si aliunde ostendi potest non esse 
 Athanasii fragmentum illud.abjudiceturutique. Caeterum 
 in sensu paulum diverse, non tamen in theologico, voca- 
 bulo utitur Hippolytus in loco quem Leontius servavit, 
 Hipp. 0pp. t. 2, p. 45, ed. Fabric, ubi Christus appel- 
 latur Svo irpocraj'irwv fieaiTTjt;, Dei et hominum. 
 
 Prasterea apud Hilarium legimus, " utriusque naturae 
 personam," de Trin. ix. 14 ; "ejus hominis quam assump- 
 sit persona," Psalm. 63, n. 3. Vid. eundem in Psalm. 
 138, n. 5. Apud Ambrosium, " in persona hominis," de 
 Fid. ii. n. 61, v. n. 108, 124 ; Ep. 48, n. 4. Colligitur 
 autem ex loco quodam Paschasii Diaconi, de Spir. ii. 4, 
 p. 194, quem laudat Petavius, de Trin. vi. 4, § 3, voca- 
 bulum persona, pro qualitate seu statu sumptum, etiam 
 in sexto saeculo theologo posse imprudenter excidere. 
 Vid. quoque Cyril. Alex. Dial. v. p. 554. 
 
 Quapropter ab eodem Cyrillo, in quarto anathematismo 
 suo, adhibita est vox hypostasis ; e'i rt? irpoa-dnroi'i hvcrX, 
 rj'yovv inroa-Taaea-i, etc. quo quid vellet irpoaoyjrov clarius 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 5 1 
 
 efferretur. Vid. quoque diligentiam Vincentii Lerinensis 
 in hac re Comm. 14. 
 
 (4) Accedit quod mirum quantum distant ea, quae de 
 antiquorum dictis narrantur a scriptoribus serioris asvi, 
 ab lis ipsis eorum dictis, si quando casu temporum hodie 
 ad nos pervenerint ; hie scilicet notiones, justas quidem, 
 sed illas nudas reperimus, illic notiones, easdem certis 
 verborum formulis^estitas; ita ut ipsa locorum collatio 
 demonstret illas formulas non pertinere ad vetustatem. 
 E. g. Ab Ephraemio Antiocheno accepimus Petrum Alex- 
 andrinum, Chrysostomum, Basilium, Nazianzenum, et 
 alios docuisse " duarum naturarum unionem, unam hypo- 
 stasin, unamque personam." ap. Phot. cod. 229, p. 805-7. 
 Optime vero ; quis dubitet sanctissimos viros in gravis- 
 sima materia Catholicas enunciasse sententias ? Sed 
 aliud est loqui catholice, prorsus aliud uti iis vocabulis 
 quibus, catholici hoc tempore utuntur, quae quidem non 
 erant necessaria, non erant in ecclesiastico usu, donee 
 irrepsisset hseretieorum fraus, donee periclitaretur fide- 
 lium salus. Jam si Chrysostomum, quern Ephraemius 
 laudat, adeamus, invenerimus evcaai<; a-vvd^eia, ev 6 
 0609 \o7o? ical ?; a-ap^, vix autem ea verba quibus illas 
 notiones Ephraemius vestit ; in Gregorii Epistola ad 
 Cledonium, ad quam idem auctor provocat, ne semel qui- 
 dem verbum persona; in iis autem quae extant Petri 
 legimus hujusmodi, a-ap^ yevofievo^ ovk a7reKebj>67) ttJ'; deo- 
 Tr)To^ • lyeyovei^ ev p,y]Tpa. tjj? irapdivov a-dp^. 0eo? ^v (f>va-ei 
 Koi yeyovev dv0pai7ro<; ^vaei. Routh, Rell. t. 3, p. 344-346. 
 
 Maximus quoque Confessor sic interpretatur Gre- 
 gorium Nazianzenum : " Hoc sane, ut puto, magnus 
 
52 DissertatiunculcB qucsdam 
 
 quoque Gregorius Theologus dicere videtur ea magna 
 Oratione Apologetica, dum ait, ' Unum ex ambobus, et 
 ambo per unum : " quasi dicerd, quemadmodum enim ex 
 ambobus, {hoc est, ex duabus naturis,) unum (velut totum 
 ex partibus secundum hypostasis rationem,) sic et per 
 unum {hypostasis ratione ut totum,) ambo (partes natures 
 ratione, hoc est, duo." 0pp. t. 2, p. 282. 
 
 Profecto quod in hujusmodi locis immutatur a com- 
 mentatoribus suspecta facit excerpta ilia ex operibus Pa- 
 trum, qua; in aliam linguam reddita ad nos veniunt ; ut 
 Ambrosianum illud Leontii ; eo magis quia in versionibus 
 latinis, quae solent Grsecorum Patrum textum comitari, 
 verborum formulis reipsa occurrimus aliquando, contra 
 Grsecitatis fidem, injuria intrusis, non malo quidem 
 animo, sed quo sensus evidentior fiat. 
 
 (5) Hoc quoque, ut arbitror, ostendi potest, scilicet, 
 prout scripta de hac re, quondam antiquorum alicui assig- 
 nata, eidem decursu temporis a criticis abjudicentur, ita 
 probabile fieri vocabulum irpocrayirov hie aut illic in iis re- 
 periri. Quod in loco Ambrosii cernitur, jam bis citato ; at 
 major hie est materiesdicendi.quam quae juste a nobis pos- 
 sit tractari. Alteri tamen exemplo sit, quod exhibet Atha- 
 nasius. Abesse vocabulum irpoawrroi', theologorum sensu 
 intellectum, a magniDoctoris operibus j am diximus; nunc 
 divertamus ad fragmentum quoddam, in fine tomi prioris 
 Maurini p. 1279 positum. " Olet quidpiam peregrinum," 
 monet Montefalconius ; " et videtur maxime sub finem 
 Eutychianorum hsei-esin impugnare ; " ecce autem in eo 
 vocabulum irpoaaTrov. Tum, adeatur ad Epistolam, ad 
 Dionysium quendam scriptam, Julio autem Pontifici per- 
 
Critico-Theologicce. 53 
 
 peram tributam ; en tibi vocabulum irpoawirov, n. 2 ; vid. 
 Coustant. Epp. Rom. Pontif. Append, p. 62. Idem porro 
 reperitur in i/cdea-ei ilia ri?? Kara /nepo<; iriarea'i, olim Gre- 
 gorio Neocaesariensi uni ex Patribus Antiochenis, ab 
 Eulogio autem {ap. Phot. cod. 230, p. 846) Apollinaristis 
 assignata. Reperitur idem apud Sermonem quendam 
 " in S. Thomam," a Concilio sexto laudatum ut opus 
 Chrysostomi, a Mentefalconio autem rejectum, a Tille- 
 montio Edesseno auctori an. 402 tributum, (ed. Maur. 
 torn. 8, part. 2, p. 14). Hie autem obiter dictum velim, 
 celebrem illam Epistolam Chrysostomi ad Ccesarium, de 
 qua tantse motse sunt lites in controversia sanctissimse 
 Eucharistise, vocabulum irpocranrov continere ; quod de 
 Hippolyti quoque Contra Beronem et Helicem dici potest, 
 si decet de fragmentis illius operis strictim loqui. 
 
 (6) Liceat hie apponi locos quosdam antiquiorum 
 Patrum, in quibus vocabulum illud offendimus. 
 
 In Epistolis Apollinaristarum inter se dimicantium, 
 an. 381, ap. Leont. Bibl. Col. t. 6, p. 1033, b. p. 1037, b. 
 p. 1039, b. ubi etiam occurrit ofioova-iov rjiiiv. 
 
 In Apollinaris loco quodam ap. Theod. Bran. ii. p. 173. 
 
 In loco auctoris cujusdam adversus Arianos,quem vocat 
 Sirmondus " antiquissimum." Sirm. 0pp. t. i, p. 223. 
 
 In fragmento Athanasii, nempe ut citatur ab Euthymio 
 apud Petav. Incarn. iii. 15, not. 19 ; et in libro de Incarn. 
 et c. Arian. § 2, si Athanasio auctori jure sit ascribendus. 
 
 In Gregorii Nyssen. Antirrhet. contra Apollinarem, 35. 
 
 Vid. quoque ap. Damasc. contr. Jacob, tom. i. p. 424. 
 
 In loco Amphilochii apud Damasc. ibid, et ap. Anast. 
 Hodeg. 10, p. 162, et ap. Ephraem, ap. Phot. p. 828. 
 
54 DissertatiunciilcB qucsdam 
 
 In Ambrosii loco grsece reddito ap. Phot. p. 805. 
 
 In Isidori Pelusiotas Ep. i. 360, p. 94. 
 
 In Symbolo Pelagii an. 418, ap. August. 0pp. t. I2, p. 
 210. 
 
 In Procli Epist. ad Armenos, p. 613. 
 
 (7) Finem tandem disputandi facientibus forsitan 
 occurretur nobis, Pauli ipsius Samosateni hseresin fuisse 
 Nestorianse similem ; quid autem credibilius, quam Patres 
 Antiochenos, quomodo Hippolytus quadraginta ante 
 annos usus esset vocabulum vpoa-wirov in theologia contra 
 Noetum, ita ipsos quoque idem adhibuisse contra Paulum 
 in oeconomia tractanda ? Ad non constat Paulum revera 
 praeiisse Nestorio doctrina sua ; quamquam ex Athan. 
 Orat. iv. 30 colligi fortasse potest, sectatores ejus tandem 
 a Nestoriana perfidia non longe abfuisse. Nam si ex actis 
 Antiochenis, quatenus hodie extant, judicandum est, doc- 
 trinam effudit Paulus fere hujusmodi: — Filium exstitisse, 
 ante adventum suum in carne, solum in prsescientia 
 divina, Routh, Rell. tom. 2, p. 466; si quis doceret secus, 
 eum duos deos praedicare, p. 467; Filium, ante adventum 
 in carne, fuisse, aut instrumentum quiddam, aut saltern 
 attributum solum, p. 469 ; humanitatem ejus non ita esse 
 unitam divinitati ut aliter esse non posset, p. 473. Ver- 
 bum et Christum non unum esse et eundem, p. 474. 
 Sapientiam in Christo esse, sicut in Prophetis, verum 
 abundantius, tamquam in templo ; eum autem qui appa- 
 ruisset, non esse Sapientiam, p. 475 ; denique, ut summa 
 rei proponitur, p. 484, "non congeneratam fuisse cum 
 humanitate sapientiam substantialiter, sed secundum qua- 
 litatem." Vid. quoque pp. 476, 485. Quae quidem omnia 
 
Critico-Theologic(B. 55 
 
 certo demonstrant, tribuisse Paulum cum Nestorio hypo- 
 stasin humanae Christi naturae ; tribuisse autem cum 
 Nestorio naturae divinae alteram hypostasin, non demon- 
 strant. Verius dictum erit, antiquiorem hseresiarcham 
 prorsus non admisisse divinam hypostasin in Christo, ut 
 Sabellii commilitonem ; quanquam id est verum quoque, 
 Patres Antiochenos, non libenter tantum scelus tribuentes 
 Paulo, ut hyposta*in Verbi negaret, ex iis quae de Christo 
 homine effutiebat, conjecisse eum docere, ut Nestorium 
 postea, duos esse filios, unum seternum, alterum tem- 
 poraneum, p. 485. Quare Epistola Synodalis, post ejus 
 depositionem a Patribus conscripta, eum docuisse testa- 
 tur, Christum venisse non de caslo, sed de terra. Euseb. 
 Hi%t. vii. 30. Neque aliter Athanasius Paulum dicit 
 Christum pro mero homine habuisse, Ik irpoKowfi'i ad 
 divinitatem suam evecto. 
 
 Cum autem non levis esset similitudo inter Pauli et 
 Nestorii dogmata, (illo capite excepto, quod personalita- 
 tem et aeternitatem Verbi, Nicaeae interea declaratam, 
 teneret Nestorius, rejiceret Paulus,) aequum erat, Nes- 
 torio in jus vocato, ad Pauli priorem haeresin, Antiochiae 
 jam condemnatam, a patribus Ephesi congregatis provo- 
 cari. Attamen contestatio ilia contra Nestorium, quae, 
 praefixa actis Ephesinis, Hard. Cone. t. i. p. 1272, Paulum 
 et Nestorium inter se ordine comparat, ne verbum 
 quidem profert quo concludi possit a Paulo duplicem 
 hypostasin esse excogitatam. Neque, cum narrat 
 Anastasius, i/orfeg'. 7, p. 108, " in sacra Ephesina Synodo 
 demonstratum esse, dogmata Nestorii consonare cum 
 doctrina Pauli •Samosateni" Nestorianismum continuo 
 
56 Dissertatmnculce quoedani 
 
 tribuit Paulo, nisi Artemoni quoque tribuit, quem alibi 
 testatur " Christum in duos divisisse." c. 20, p. 323, 4. 
 Ephraemium autem Antiochenum, cum Paulum dicit 
 "alterum ante ssecula filium, alterum vero postea summa 
 cum dementia asseruisse," ap. Phot. p. 814, verisimile 
 est nihil amplius velle, quam uti iis ipsis verbis Patrum 
 Antiochenorum, de quibus paulo ante locuti sumus. 
 Contra, plane coUigitur ex Vigilio in Eutych. Bibl. P. 
 Col. 1618, t. V. p. 731 (omittitur locus in Ed. Par. 1624), 
 Eutychianos distinctionem fecisse inter dogmata Nestorii 
 et Pauli, hujus Christum simpliciter pro mero homine 
 habentis, illius eatenus solum usque dum consociaretur 
 Verbo Dei. Marius item Mercator diserte testatur: 
 " Nestorius circa Verbum Dei, non ut Paulus sentit, qui 
 non substantivum, sed prolatitium potentias Dei efficax 
 Verbum esse definit." p. 50. Idem affirmant, licet non 
 fidelissimi testes, et Ibas, et Theodorus Mopsuestise 
 Episcopus, vid. Facund. vi. 3, iii. 2. Leont. de Sect. iii. 
 p. 3. Cseterum, si genuina; essent Dionysii Alexandrini 
 Epistola adversus Paulum, et Responsio ad Pauli Propo- 
 sitiones decern, tum certo concedendum esset Paulum 
 Nestorio prselusisse ; id autem affirmantibus Tillemontio, 
 Fabricio, Natali Alexandro, Bullo, Burtono, et aliis, nos 
 in contrariam sententiam cum Valesio, Harduino, 
 Montefalconio, et Routhio, ire velimus. 
 
 Haec de Ecthesi Ephesina, plurima de re exigua ; 
 nisi, ut speramus, iis qui scripta Patrum diligentius 
 tractant, aliqua protulerimus, quae, in uno loco definita, 
 ad multa transferri possint. 
 
Critico-Theologiciz. 57 
 
 DISSERTATIO III. 
 
 DE FORMULA TzpiV yevVTjOfjl'ai, oiiK rjv ANATHEMATISMI 
 NIC^NI. 
 
 SYMBOLO Ecclesise, Catholicas, celeberrima vocula 
 homousion locupletato, subjunxerunt Patres 
 Nicseni anathematismos quosdam, qui Arianae perfidise 
 praecipua capita ferirent. Ex quibus ille est, de quo 
 pauca qusedam hoc loco dicenda censuimus. Non quod 
 formula ilia Arianorum sumpta per se difficilior sit 
 intellectu, sed quia placuit doctissimo cuidam viro, de 
 Nicasno autem Symbolo optime merito, native verborum 
 sensui subtiliores notiones suas imponi. Qusenam illse 
 sint, quare prolata;, et qua rationum vi confirmatas, nunc 
 explicandum est. 
 
 Docentibus catholicis Christum esse Deum, Ariani 
 protinus ilium esse Deum confitebantur ipsi, at Deum in- 
 feriorem quendam, ne scilicet Deos duos introducerent in 
 Ecclesiam. Quibus responsum est, Christum contra 
 revera esse summum Deum, nee tamen duos esse Deos, 
 quia Christus esset Filius Dei ; qui autem Dei Filius 
 esset, oportet ilium et verum esse Deum, nee tamen 
 alterum, sed eundem ac Patrem suum. At in illo ipso 
 
 5 
 
58 Dissertatmncul<2 qucedmn 
 
 vocabulo Filius, quod fidelibus jure documento erat verse 
 divinitatis Verbi Dei, hsereticorum factio collocavit omnem 
 spem suam atque conatum fidei catholicse convellendse ; 
 argumentabantur enim, cum omnis filius patri junior 
 esset, idcirco Filium Dei non esse seternum, neque 
 habere csetera signa veras divinitatis. Quare summa 
 qusestionis in significatione Filii tandem posita fuit ; 
 utrum scilicet Filius Dei, utpote Filius, essentiam totam 
 et universa habuerit attributa Omnipotentis Dei, an 
 contra initium existendi, et alia quae de rebus creatis 
 praedicantur. Quo autem facilius rem dirimerent, catho- 
 lici provocabant ad Patres priorum sseculorum, qui 
 scilicet Filio Dei non temporaneum ortum, sed paternag 
 Divinitatis plenitudinem tribuissent. 
 
 At in hoc antiquorum scriptorum testimonio esse quod 
 subtiliore tractatione egeret, jure censuit Bullus, cui lis a 
 nobis intendenda est, quo melius curreret catholicorum 
 argumentum, et eruditioribus persuaderet. Nam scrip- 
 tores quinque aevi Ante-nicseni, Athenagoram, Tatianum, 
 Theophilura, Hippolytum, Novatianum, quorum duo in 
 catalogo sunt sanctorum, non inficiatus est vir doctus ita 
 de Filio Dei loqui, ut hsereticis ansam prsebuerint affir- 
 mandi, Patres illos docuisse Verbum Dei factum esse Dei 
 Filium certo quodam tempore, atque ideo quodammodo 
 ■' extitisse ante generationem suam," eo dissidentes cum 
 Ario quod dicerent Verbum esse aeternum, eo consen- 
 tientes quod Filium aeternum esse non dicerent. 
 
 Non ideo tamen improbandus est Bullus, quia sollicita 
 mente priscorum famae, suorum fidei consuluerit. Fateor 
 equidem, non Sanctis, Hippolyto solum et Theophilo, sed 
 
Critico-Theologicce. 59 
 
 Post-nicsenis etiam Sanctis, Hilario et Zenoni Veronensi, 
 in hac materia iilud excidisse, quod resecatum vel saltern 
 explicatumprudentiores velint; ut Maranoquoque, Balle- 
 riniis, et aliis visum est. Scilicet omnes norunt incom- 
 modiora hsec gravissimorum scriptorum verba ab haere- 
 ticis saltern recentioris sevi in partes suas adduci ; nam 
 utrum ab ipsis Arii sectatoribus objecta fuerint catholicis 
 Concilii Nicseni sseculo, alia res est. Profecto notatu 
 dignissimum est Arianos ipsos, cum Ecclesia dimicantes, 
 non provocasse ad Patres priorum temporum usque ad 
 circ. an. 352, paene triginta post Concilium Nicaenum 
 exactis annis, cum, argumentis ex ratione et ex Scripturis, 
 (ut Athanasius loquitur in Epistola sua de. Sent. Dion. 
 i), frustra petitis, " tandem eo audacise processerunt, 
 ut etiam Patres calumniarentur." Nimirum primo ad 
 Collucianistas solum suos confugiebant ; cum autem 
 multos post annos Patres Ecclesise in suos usus con- 
 vertere coeperunt, etiam tum Origenem solum appella- 
 runt et Dionysium, non Hippolytum, non Theophilum, 
 non alios illos de quibus supra mentio facta est. Quod 
 autem ne versutissimorum quidem hominum illis tempo- 
 ribus in mentem venit, id recentiores ausi, hos ipsos 
 Hippolyti et caeterorum locos in medium protulerunt, ut 
 inde comprobarent dogma suum, Dei Filium non esse ad 
 seternitatem genitum, sed in tempoi'e creatum. Quibus 
 ut occurrat Bullus, eximius alias in hac materie scriptor, 
 Patres reos, in Defensione sua Fidei Niccence, illato crimine 
 ita liberat, ut non neget tamen illos dixisse, improprie 
 certe, sed aliquo modo, Filium in tempore fuisse genitum. 
 Exceptio autem quam profert hujusmodi est : — plures 
 
6o Dissertatiunculce qucedam 
 
 scilicet eos Patres docuisse Verbi generationes, tropicas 
 illas quidem, sed quje verse generationis typi assent et 
 adumbrationes ; quales sunt ejus resurrectio a mortuis, 
 item nativitas ex Maria ; qualis porro, de qua agendum 
 est, missio ejus a Patre et processio, cum res universse 
 creandse essent. Hinc non gravate concedit dictum quod- 
 dam fuisse Catholicorum, si non Catholicum dogma, tum 
 ante Concilium Nicseae habitum tum post, "Verbum 
 exstitisse antequam gigneretur; " cujus rei inter alia in 
 testimonium adhibet verba Anathematismi, quorum 
 interpretationem in nos hie suscepimus. Contendit enim 
 Patres Nicaenos eo ipso quod condemnarent eos " qui 
 dicerent Verbum non exstitisse ante generationem suam," 
 liquido comprobasse contra istam formulam, " Verbum 
 ante generationem suam exstitisse." Nullus dubitat, ut 
 ipsius verbi utar, " quin hoc pronunciatum Arianorum 
 oppositum fuerit catholicorum istorum sententiae qui 
 docerent Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum 
 inexplicabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse 
 ad constituendum universa." T>ef. N. F. iii. g, § 2. 
 
 Hsec sane de hac Anathematismi Nicaeni clausula 
 argute nimis dicta sunt, et turbant verborum sensum 
 alioqui simplicem et luculentum. Nam procul dubio in 
 ilia formula Arianorum, quae a Patribus percellitur, con- 
 tinetur contra argumentum ex absurdo, quod vocant, 
 desumptum ; cum ex ipsa vi vocabuli genitus confici 
 crederent haeretici, Christum existendi initium habuisse. 
 Confirmabant enim (quasi id inficiari quenquam jam 
 fuerit ipsis verbis sibi discrepare) Filium non exstitisse 
 priusquam gigneretur; alioqui non esset Filius. 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 6 1 
 
 Quod interest inter explicationem banc et illam Bulli, 
 in hoc vertitur ; — utrum verba ista Arianorum, " prius- 
 quam gigneretur non erat," sint simplex propositio cate- 
 gorica, an argumentum ; sint negatio propositionis ei 
 contrariae, " erat priusquam gigneretur," id quod Bullo 
 placuit ; an potius, ut nobis vidctur, yvto/irj quaedam, quam 
 Aristoteles vocat, ipOvfirj/iariKri, pro-positio rationem suam 
 secum ferens, in q^a, assumpta, non affirmata, contrariae 
 propositionis vanitate, I'ecta impetitur aliud quiddam, 
 nempe Filium ab aeternitate exstitisse. Arbitratur contra 
 BuUus, et Patres Nicaenos et Arianos apertis oculis con- 
 templatos esse propositionem banc, "exstitisse Filium 
 antequam gigneretur ; " de bac, certamen inter se insti- 
 tuisse : negasse Arianos, et Catbolicos, aut affirmasse, aut 
 saltem permisisse. Profecto ne unum quidem Catbolicum 
 virum unquam earn emisisse sententiam non dixerim ; 
 affirmasse autem eandem Patres Nicaenos prorsus nego. 
 
 I. Primum percurrendum erit ad pristinum illud jur- 
 gium, quod nascentem baeresin subito Ecclesiae ostenta- 
 bat, ut a Socrate narratum est. Testatur enim scriptor 
 ille, Alexandrum, de mysterio Sanctissimas Trinitatis 
 inter suos disputantem, interpellasse Arium, qui fortiter 
 diceret, (i) si Filium genuerit Pater, ergo genitum babere 
 existendi initium ; (2) ergo fuisse quando Filius Dei non 
 esset ; (3) ergo eundem subsistentiam suam ex nibilo 
 babere. Socr. i. 5. Quibus e contrario jam collocabimus 
 Anatbematismi Nicaeni clausulas; " Illos vero qui dicunt, 
 (i) fuit aliquando cum non esset, et (2) antequam gignere- 
 tur non erat, et (3) ex nibilo factus est, etc. etc. . . . , 
 anatbematizat Catbolica Ecclesia." Quarum cum duae 
 
62 Dissertathmculce qucsdam 
 
 plenissime respondeant duabus ab Ario in Alexandrum 
 conjectis, cui dubium esse potest, tertiam quoque re- 
 spondei-e tertiae ? id est, " antequam gigneretur non erat " 
 idem velle atque illud "si Filium genuerit Pater, habet 
 genitus existendi initium ; " id quod nos contra Bullum 
 contendimus. Hsereseos initia non fefellit posterior 
 cursus, namque hie, ut diximus, ipse cardo fuit totius eon- 
 troversiae, nempe utrum Filius, quia Filius, fuerit necne 
 necessaria lege junior setate Patre suo. At ubinam contra 
 in historia Concilii Nica;ni inveneris mentionem ullam 
 illius propositionis,cui credit Bullus ab Arianis esse recla- 
 matum, " Filium scilicet esse prius quam gigneretur ? " 
 Sentit angustias suas vir perspicacissimus, cum ad verba 
 quaedam appellat Arianorum in Epistola illorum ad 
 Alexandrum missa, in qua perstringunt hseretici illos qui 
 dicerent " eum qui prius erat, postea genitum esse aut 
 creatum in Filium." Athan. d,e Syn. i6, quos vult Bullus 
 quosdam esse Catholicos. Hos autem credo non esse 
 Catholicos, sed potius sectatores Marcelli et Photini, ut 
 conjicere licet, cum ex Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. i, ii. 9, p. 
 114, b. Contr. Marcell. ii. 3, tum prsesertim ex Anathe- 
 matismo Eusebianorum in Confessione sua quinta, sive 
 Macrosticho, ubi ita loquunturj" " Execramur eos qui 
 ilium simplex {■\jrL\ov) Dei Verbum non subsistens appell- 
 ant, Christum autem ipsum et Filium Dei non fuisse 
 ante ssecula contendunt, sed eo tempore ex quo carnem 
 nostram ex Virgine assumpsit ; hiijusmodi sunt sectatores 
 Marcelli et Scotini (Photini) Ancyrogalatarum." Athan. 
 de Syn. 26. Quare fortasse non Catholicos, sed Marcel- 
 lum et suos respicit Epistola ilia Arianorum ad Alexan- 
 
Critico-Theologicce. 62, 
 
 drum ; quod quidem inde confirmatur, quia illo ipso 
 tempore Marcellum Asterius Sophista, Arianorum ante- 
 signanus, scriptis suis lacessebat. 
 
 2. Notandum prseterea est, alias quoque Arianorum 
 formulas, decantatas illas quidem, in quibus summa hse- 
 reseos posita est, ut captiosissimos homines decuit, vim 
 quamdam habere enthymematicam. Cujusmodi sunt, 
 "Qui est, eumne^qui nondum esset, fecit ex nihilo, an 
 qui esset ? " et " Unumne est non-factum an duo ? " 
 Athan. Oral. i. 22, et interrogatio ilia de " mutabili," 
 quam, cum locum habet in Anathematismo Nica;no, ita 
 exponit Athanasius : " Num libero prseditus arbitrio est, 
 an non ? an voluntate pro sui arbitrii libei"tate bonus est, 
 et, si velit, potest mutari, cum mutabilis sit natura ; an, 
 ut lapis et lignum, liberam non habet voluntatem in 
 utramque partem se movendi et vergendi ? " Athan. Orat. 
 i. 35. Scilicet voluerunt hseretici, liberum, quod vocant, 
 arbitrium oportere necessitate quadam ita proprium esse 
 Christi, ut aliter esse non potuerit quin absurdum quid 
 subsequeretur ; ex quo conficeretur ilium in numero esse 
 creatorum. 
 
 3. In Orat. i. § 32, scribit Athanasius wyevr^Tov illud 
 sive non-factum serius esse suppositum ab Arianis in 
 locum priorum suarum captionum : " Cum jam non sit 
 eis integrum his uti vocibus, 'e nihilo est,' 'non fuit 
 antequam gigneretur,' vocabulum non-facti, etc. cogita- 
 verunt, ut, cum apud simpliciores Filium factum esse 
 dicunt, eadem rursus ilia significent vocabula, nempe, ' ex 
 nihilo est,' 'aliquando non fuit.'" Quo in loco quamvis 
 non disertis verbis dicat "Non-factum unumne an duo?" 
 
64 DissertatiunculcB quadam 
 
 pro " Antequam gigneretur non erat" esse substitutum, 
 tamen probabile est certe ilium hoc voluisse. Atqui 
 constat formula non-factmn vel dyevrjroi', ut ea quae jam 
 diximus aliis verbis proferamus, hoc innui, " Nisi duo 
 sint non-facta vel dii, Christus, utpote factus sive geni- 
 tus, initium habet existendi ; " id quod ipsissimum est 
 argumentum illud, quod verbis " Antequam gigneretur non 
 erat," nos assignatum volumus. Casterum distinctionem 
 illam inter cuyevrjTov et ilyevvriTov, de qua loquitur Monte- 
 falconius in Admonitione sua in Epistolam de Deer. Nic, 
 a Damascene notatam, mihi non persuaderi potest esse 
 coasvarri Athanasio ; — sed hoc obiter. 
 
 4. Praeterea dubium non est quin " Non erat prius- 
 quam gigneretur" apud Athanasium idem valeat atque 
 alterum illud " Qui est, eumne, qui nondum esset, fecit 
 ex nihilo, an qui esset ? " Scilicet quod Ariani contra 
 Filium effutiebant, id pariter ostendit sanctus Doctor con- 
 tra ipsum Patrem posse contorqueri. " Num qui est 
 Deus," interrogat, "cum anteanonesset.posteafactusest, 
 vel estne etiam priusquam gignatur (fiat) ? " Orat. i. 
 25. At illud " Qui est eumne qui nondum esset," etc. 
 (6 S)v Tov /^Tj ovra, etc.) argumentum prorsus est, non mera 
 propositio, idque ex absurdo ductum ; ergo ejusmodi est, 
 " Priusquam gigneretur non erat." Quod plane confir- 
 matur ex Alexandri Epistola Encyclica cum Arii contra 
 Alexandrum prima ilia disputatione et Anathematismis 
 Nicaenis comparata. Nam, cum ex his triplex conficitur 
 testimonium, quales fuerint formulae istse in quibus posita 
 est haeresis Ariana, nulla alia in re sibi discrepat, nisi in 
 hac, quod, omisso " Si Filius, ergo habet initium exist- 
 
Critico-TheologiccB. 65 
 
 endi," ipsius Arii, et " Priusquam gigneretur non erat," 
 Anathematismi, Alexander in Epistola sua supponit 6 wv 
 TOP fir] ovra, etc. "Qui est eumne qui non esset," etc. 
 Accedit quod sibi invicem respondent illse duae, in locis 
 Gregorii Nazianzeni et Basilii infra laudatis, et in Cyrilli 
 Thesaur. 4, p. 2g, fin. 
 
 5. Multa sunt temere jacta in Orationibus Athanasii 
 quse nobiscum fiy:iunt in hac re. Nam si Arianorum 
 dictum illud, " Non erat antequam gigneretur," argu- 
 mentum erat, ut nobis videtur, contra Filii seternitatem, 
 turn responsuri essent Catholici, "Vere dictum est Chris- 
 tum non existere antequam gignitur ; existere non potest 
 ante, quia gignitur ab seternitate, utpote ab ffiterno 
 Patre ; " id quod re ipsa reperimus dictum ab Athanasio. 
 "Res creatas fieri cceperunt (yii/ea-Oai)," scribit ; "at 
 Dei Verbum, cum principium ex quo sit {(ipxv^) nullum 
 habeat, merito nee esse nee fieri ccepit, sed semper fuit. 
 Opera igitur principium (I'tpxhv), cum fiunt, habent; quod 
 quidem principium rebus, quse fiunt, prius est ; Verbum 
 autem, cum non sit ex numero rerum quae fiunt, ipse 
 potius rerum principium habentium demiurgus fit. De- 
 inde ipsum esse rerum factarum in eo ipso quod fiunt 
 mensuram habet (eV tS yiveadai), easque Deus ab aliquo 
 principio per Verbum facere incipit, ut perspicuum sit 
 illas non fuisse priusquam gignerentur (^irplv yevea-Oai); at 
 Verbum non in alio principio habet ut sit, nisi in Patre, 
 qui, ut isti etiam consentiunt, principii est expers ; ut 
 ipse quoque Filius sine principio existat in Patre, a quo 
 genitus est, non autem creatus." Orat. ii. 57. Neque 
 absimili modo disputant alii Patres. Alterum exemplum 
 
66 Dissertatumculce qucedam 
 
 peti potest ex Orat. i. lO, ubi pro -npXv 'yevvrjOg supponit 
 Athanasius irplw TroiTjOfj ; at credo Bullum non esse dictu- 
 rum, secundum hypothesin suam, Patres ullos antiques, 
 disputantes de Filio, verba irplv Troiriefj, ut sua, alicubi 
 adhibuisse. Attamen, " Quis hominum, sive Graecus 
 sive barbarus," scribit Athanasius, "quern Deum confi- 
 tetur, unam ex rebus creatis ausit dicere, et non fuisse 
 SLntequam ficret ? " Orat. i. lo. Idem profitetur ipse 
 Arius, suorum certe verborum optimus interpres, cum 
 ad Eusebium Nicomediae Episcopum scribens, vocabulo 
 •yevvrjOri in KTLa6§ et alia similia mutato, luculentissime 
 ostendit, quod certe non siverit Bullus, se ea esse mente 
 ut argumentum quoddam proferret. " Nos quid senti- 
 amus, et professi jam sumus et nunc profitemur; Filium, 
 antequam gigneretur, aut crearetur, aut destinaretur, aut 
 fundaretur, non fuisse." Theod. Hist. i. 4. Nee discre- 
 pat ab Ario Eusebius ipse : " Manifestum omnibus est, 
 illud quod factum est, non fuisse antequam fieret." Athan. 
 de Syn. 17. 
 
 6. Jam si occurrunt apud Athanasium, quae Bullo fa- 
 vere videantur, facilem tamen habent solutionem. E. g. 
 " Qui fieri potest," rogat, " ut non sit in numero creato- 
 rum, si, ut isti opinantur, non erat antequam gigneretur ? 
 siquidem rerum creatarum et factarum proprium est non 
 esse antequam fiant ? " Orat. ii. 22. Dixerit fortasse 
 Bullus, ex hoc perspicuum esse, Arianos affirmasse Filium 
 "Non esse priusquam gigneretur," Catholicos autem 
 " Esse." Sed non est ita ; nam, quemadmodum Patres 
 Nicseni in Anathematismo suo, ut diximus supra, non 
 ipsam Arianse formulae propositionem impetunt etferiunt, 
 
Critico- Theologiccs. 6 7 
 
 sed ejusdem vim argumentativam, ita hie quoque vult 
 Athanasius, non " Quo pacto non est creatus, nisi erat 
 antequam gigneretur," sed, " Quo paeto non est crea- 
 tus, si illorum argumentum veriim est, non erat ante- 
 quam gigneretur?" Eodem raodo Orat. i. 20, cum dicit, 
 " Si non fuerit Filius antequam gigneretur, non semper 
 fuit in Deo Veritas," vult, non "Nisi fuerit" sed "Si 
 verum sit illud, Ngn fuit Filius," etc. Itaque, non multo 
 post idem dicit de Deo Patre, ut vanissimos sophistas 
 sue sibi gladio jugulet, " Estne Deus etiam priusquam 
 gignitur?" 25. non certe quasi in Patre ullam significet 
 generationem, sed quo argumentum ipsum ut ineptissi- 
 mum aptius explodat, sive de Patre usurpatum sive de 
 Filio. 
 
 7. Et profecto ineptissimam et importunissimam esse 
 hanc interrogationem, non simpliciter verse cuidam pro- 
 positioni contrariam, plenissime cum Athanasio consen- 
 tientes, judicant et Hilarius et Gregorius Nazianzenus. 
 Missamfaciunt,quamprorsusneproferriquidemoporteret. 
 Gregorius scilicet de hac et aliis Arianorum formulis 
 loquens, docet, " Generationem " in Filio, " cum essentia 
 ipsa concurrere atque a principle existere ; " qiiod contra 
 fit in hominibus, qui quidem, " ut Levi in lumbis Abra- 
 hae," cum " partim erant, partim procreati sunt, ac pro- 
 inde partim sunt ex entibus, partim ex non entibus," 
 illud scilicet complent " Fuit antequam gigneretur ; " 
 quod Bullus non in hominibus, sed in Filio Dei dici 
 posse arbitratur. Pergit de eadem re magnus theo- 
 logus : " Qusestionem hanc tuam absurditatis multum, 
 difficultatis nihil habere aio." Turn captionibus ver- 
 
68 Dissertatiuncula qucedam 
 
 borum quibusdam aliis prolatis quae cum Ariana ilia 
 possent comparari, " Ineptius est" dicit, "id quod a 
 principio erat, utrum ante generationem esset {irpo 
 T?7? <yevi>ri<T€(os) necne, in quaestionem vocari." Orat. 
 xxix. g. 
 
 8. Hilarium fateoi- Pictavensem in Commentario suo 
 in Matthseum c. 31, n. 3, verba qusedam emisisse quas 
 Bullo favere videantur. Docet enim egregius ille vindex 
 catholica; veritatis, "Verbum in principio Deum, et hoc 
 a principio apud Deum, et natum esse ex eo qui erat, et 
 hoc in eo esse qui natus est, quod is ipse est penes quem 
 erat antequam nasceretur.'' Cujus simile est illud quod 
 Bullo favet ex Zenonis Tractatu de Filii generatione : 
 "Procedit in nativitatem, qui erat antequam nasceretur." 
 At Zenonem non est cur moremur, diligentem, ut a Bal- 
 leriniis monstratum est, Diss, i, 2, § 6, Hilarii imita- 
 torem. Quod autem ad Pictavensem ipsum attinet, pro- 
 vocamus ab Hilario imperito ad Hilarium pei'itissimum 
 Arianorum. Constat enim sanctissimum virum, ilia scrip- 
 sisse antequam in Asiam venisset ; " regeneratum autem 
 pridem," ut ipsius verbis utar, " et in Episcopatu ali- 
 quantum permanentem, Fidem Nicsenam nunquam nisi 
 exsulaturum " conceptis verbis " audivisse," de Syn. gi, 
 postea autem, ut Coustantius nos monuit, sese correxisse 
 in celeberrimo suo opere quod de Trinitate conscripsit. 
 Illic enim, secus ac voluit Bullus, Ai'ianorum formulam 
 " antequam gigneretur non erat," in sophismatis loco 
 luculentissime ponit. "Adjiciant hffic," de eo scribit, 
 " arguta satis atque auditu placentia ; Si, inquit, natus 
 est, ccepit^ et cum ccepit, non fuit ; et cum non fuit, 
 
Critico- Theologic(s. 69 
 
 non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco pias intelligentiae ser- 
 monem esse contendant, non fuit antequam nasceretur, 
 quia ut esset qui non erat, non qui erat, natus est," xii. 18. 
 Neque aliter illi Arianorum formulae occurrit ; " Uni- 
 genitus Deus neque non fuit aliquando non Filius, neque 
 fuit aliquid antequam Filius, neque quidquam aliquid 
 ipse nisi Filius," 15; quod quidem nihil aliud est nisi 
 negatio illius " Fuit antequam genitus est." Pergit, ut 
 Gregorius : " Ubi Pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est, et 
 vero ubi auctor seternus est, ibi et nativitatis aeternitas 
 est." 21. Quid potest esse disertius ? Porro pro " fuit 
 ante quam natus est," supponit, " semper natus fuit ; " 
 e. g. " Numquid ante tempora seterna esse, id ipsum sit 
 quod est, eum qui erat nasci ? quia nasci quod erat, jam 
 non nasci est, sed seipsum demutare nascendo . . . Non 
 est itaque id ipsum, natum ante tempora aeterna semper 
 esse, et esse antequam nasci." 30. Concludit, Athanasii 
 sensum vel clarioribus retractans verbis; " Cum itaque 
 natum semper esse, nihil aliud sit confitendum esse quam 
 natum, id sensui, antequam nascitur vel fuisse vel non 
 fuisse, non subjacet." 31. 
 
 g. Prodeat denique Basilius in dimicatione sua contra 
 Eunomium ; cui argumentato, " Aut existentem genuit 
 DeusFilium,aut non existentem," et "Qui est,generatione 
 non indiget," respondit sanctissimus Praesul, " Euno- 
 mium, quoniam animalia, cum prius non sint, deinde 
 generentur, qui autem hodie genitus sit, heri non esset, 
 hanc notionem in Unigeniti subsistentiam transferre ; et 
 quoniam genitus' est, dicere, ante generationem non 
 fuisse." contra Eun, ii. 14. Sophisma autem solvit, ut 
 
Jo Dissert atiunctdce qz{(sdam 
 
 Pati-es supra citati, dicendo, Filio esse aeternam genera- 
 tionem, ut loquitur Evangelista, cum " seternitati Patris 
 generationem Unigeniti connectit." Ibid. 15. 
 
 Satis superque de hac re sumus disputati ; pro certo 
 jam habeatur, a Concilio Qicumenico, Nicaese congregato, 
 minime sancita esse ilia verba quae Bullo Catholica viden- 
 tur, " Verbum Dei fuisse antequam gigneretur ; " quasi 
 ulla Apostolica traditione aut Ecclesise auctoritate nobis 
 commendentur. Quae cum ita sint, operi nostro hie finis 
 esset imponendus, nisi vir doctissimus, Concilio nequic- 
 quam appellato, ad Athanasium ipsum confugisset, Con- 
 cilii illius magnam partem, quo causam suam apud eru- 
 dites feliciore spe posset orare. Opinionemnimirum eam, 
 de generatione quadam Verbi ante mundum conditum in 
 tempore facta, Athanasio ipsi impactam voluit, provocans 
 ad Orationem secundam contra Arianos, capp. 61-64. 
 
 Ilia operis sui parte, copiosissima disputatione inita 
 de verbis Prophetae, quae Ariani objiciebant Ecclesiae, 
 " Dominus creavit me in initio viai-um suarum in opera 
 sua," ut in Versione LXX. Interpret, leguntur, provehitur 
 sanctus Doctor ad verba Apostoli, '• Primogenitus omnis 
 creaturffi ; " quae proinde ita interpretatur ut doceat Ver- 
 bum, quod ante saecula fuit Unigenitum, cum creandus 
 esset mundus, condescensione quadam seu avj/caTa^da-ei 
 e Patre procedens factum esse Primogenitum. Unde 
 deducit Bullus, illam processionem sive condescensionem 
 auctore Athanasio novam quandam, improprie utique, 
 Verbi in tempore esse generationem. 
 
 Jam Verbi condescensionem quandam esse exhibitam in 
 rerum universitate condenda consentiunt omnes ; namque 
 
Critico- TheologiccB. 7 1 
 
 ineffabilis procul dubio erat gratise et bonitatis, Filium, 
 qui " in principio erat apud Deum," in cogitationem 
 venisse creatorum, et increatorumfragilitateversari. Sed 
 hoc Bullo non satis est, nisi condescensio ilia generatio 
 seu nativitas quasdam appelletur. " Catholici quidam doc- 
 tores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt," 
 ad Athanasium autem provocat, "illam TovXoyov exPatre 
 progressionem (quam eto-i»7«ara/3acrti',hocest,condescen- 
 sionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt) ad condendum hsec 
 universa agnovere ; et ejus etiam progressionis respectu 
 ipsum Tov Xoyov a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis 
 creaturse primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt." 
 Defen. F. N. iii. 9. § i. At Athanasium, in hac progres- 
 sione et condescensione Verbi, voluisse natum denuo esse 
 quodammodo Verbum, et proinde appellatum esse " Pri- 
 mogenitum omnis creaturse " profecto non puto ; contra 
 " Primogenitum " illud, non relationis alicujus, qu£E in- 
 tercederet inter Verbum et Patrem suum, esse signifi- 
 cativum, sed plane muneris cujusdam quod, mundum 
 creaturus, pro bono mundi, benignissime in se suscepit 
 Unigenitus. Scilicet ille, qui ab seternitate fuit Unigeni- 
 tus Patris, in universorum compagine et structura illam 
 Filietatem suam signatam voluit, ita ut typum quendam 
 Unigeniti atque imaginem universa in se exhiberent. 
 Itaque hoc sensu Unigenitus omnis creaturse se fecit 
 Primogenitum, quod, dum mundum ex nihilo duceret, 
 illo ipso tempore se quoque fecit ideam et normam ejus- 
 dem mundi, Demiurgus nimirum et summus Artifex, sese 
 contemplans atque intuens tanquam unicum exemplar 
 suum, ex quo mundum nascentem exprimeret imitando 
 
72 Dissertaiiunctilcs qucBdam 
 
 et conformaret. Quare Filius progrediens a Patre non 
 factus est denuo Filius Patris, sed mundo Filius, ut 
 scilicet condescensione sua mundus fieret quodammodo 
 Patris filius, et in ccelestem familiam adoptaretur. Quod 
 si verum est, Primogenitus nihil aliud significare, nisi 
 Filius Archetypus, videbitur. Ad rationes veniamus. 
 
 Primum, verbum o-i'7/faTa;8ao-t?, sive condescensio (quod 
 adeo non generationis in se habet ullum sensum, ut, testi- 
 bus Vesselio et Suicero, de ^temo Patre, omnium con- 
 servatore, a Patribus nonnunquam usurpetur,) quid velit 
 apud Athanasium, legentibus sectiones 78-81 Orationis 
 illius, de qua hie agitur, satis liquebit. Ilia disputationis 
 suae pars incipit et terminatur mentione facta condescen- 
 sionis Verbi : quare ad earn adeundum est tanquam 
 ad prsecipuum quemdam locum, unde vis vocabuli in 
 gravissima hac materia possit erui. Incipit autem his 
 verbis : " Quo res factae non tantum existerent, sed etiam 
 bene existerent, placuit Deo ut sua Sapientia ad i"es cre- 
 atas condescenderet, ut typum aliquem et speciem ipsius 
 Imaginis, cum in omnibus simul, turn in singulis impri- 
 meret ; quo nimirumperspicuum fieret et sapientia ornatas 
 esse res factas et digna Deo esse opera. Ut enim nostrum 
 verbum, Verbi, qui Dei est Filius, est imago ; ita sapientia 
 in nobis facta ejusdem Verbi, quae ipsa est Sapientia, 
 imago quoque est," etc. § 78. Quid hie reperimus de 
 Verbo denuo facto Filio ? quid non de Filio imaginem sui 
 imprimente in operibus suis ? Finem autem facturus 
 Sapientiam introducit sanctus Doctor ita loquentem : 
 " Omnia quidem in me et per me facta sunt : quia autem 
 opus erat ut sapientia in operibus crearetur,ego secundum 
 
Critico-Theologicce. 75 
 
 substantiam quidem cum Patre aderam, sed ad res factas 
 condescendens, meum typum in illis apte imprimebam, 
 ut universus mundus lanquam in uno corpore non secum 
 discordaret sed concordaret." § 8i. 
 
 Quod ut planius intelligatur, exponendum est Athana- 
 sium autumasse, ne ullam quidem rem creationem suam 
 sustinere posse, ut non sanctissimam Creantis manum 
 tanquam refugiat *bt ad nihilum continuo recidat, nisi 
 eidem simul Demiurgus ipse condescensione quadam 
 suam impertiat gratiam, quo mirabilem illam patienter 
 subeat operationem, per quam in rerum naturam per- 
 ventura est. " Verbum," scribit, " cum principio Demi- 
 urgus esset creatorum, condescendit ad res creatas, ut 
 fieri possent. Neque enim ejus naturam, quae purus 
 Patris est splendor, ferre potuissent, nisi," grasca fortius 
 currunt quam latina, (fnXavOpcoirM TrarpiK'p cvyKaTa^a<; 
 CLvreKd^eTO, koI KpaTijaw; avra et? ovcriav 'qveyxe. Orat. 
 ii. 64. Quare operibus suis, dum creabantur, ut crearen- 
 tur, virtutem quandam suam impertiens Artifex Filius, 
 eadem proinde augustissimo filiorum nomine donatus est; 
 <TvyKaTa0dvTo<; toD Xoyov, pergit sanctus doctor, vtoTroieiTai 
 Kal aiirr) ■fj ktictk St avrov. Ex quo fit, ut non modo per 
 Filium, verum etiam in Filio, ut Apostolus loquitur, rerum 
 universitas facta esse dicenda sit, cum non exteriore solum 
 mandate, sed intima vi et virtute Spiritus ejus consistant 
 et permaneant omnia. " Nam," ut alibi docet uberrimus 
 ille rerum divinarum interpres, quern saepius appellasse 
 jucundissimum est, " Deus non solum nos ex nihilo fecit, 
 sed etiam Verbi gratia secundum Deum vivere concessit. 
 At homines ab seternis rebus aversi, sibi ipsis corruptionis 
 
 6 
 
74 bissertatiunculcs qti^edam 
 
 mortiferas auctores facti sunt ; qui ex natura quidem mor- 
 tales fuerunt, sed gratia in Verbi participatione sita naturae 
 statum effugerunt." de Incarn. V. D. 5. Itaque nihil fere 
 est creatum, quod non genitum sit quoque ; cum contra 
 non stent in locosuo, sed retro fluant et pereant,nisi vitam 
 quandam a Creatore percipiant intus, superadditam crea- 
 tioni suae. Proinde Athanasii mos est in scriptis suis, ut 
 res creatas potius appellet genitas quam factas vel opera, 
 jevrjTa seu 'yevv7jTa,nomroi-)jfj,aTa et epya,quo planius sanc- 
 tissimam hanc exprimat veritatem : cauto tamen semper, 
 gratise illud esse non naturas, donum Creatoris non crea- 
 turse proprium, quod mundus in se habeat hanc formam 
 pulchritudinis, et ccelestium necessitudinera, et principium 
 stabilitatis. " Res factae," docet, " cum sint opera, genitas 
 dici nequeunt, nisi, geniti Filii participes postea effectse, 
 genitse et ipsas dicantur, non sane propriam ob naturam, 
 sed quia Filii factae sint in Spiritu participes." Orat. i. 56. 
 His perspectis, non difficilis intellectu est mens Atha- 
 nasii, cum Unigenitum Patris docet esse factum in crea- 
 tione mundi Primogenitum omnis creaturae. Nam, cum 
 gratia ilia, qua impertita natura rerum in suo loco per- 
 manet, variis nominibus respici possit, ut lux, ut pul- 
 chritude, ut sapientia, ut ratio, ut coelestis adoptio, ut 
 similia, ille supremus Conditor universorum, seipsum 
 mundo impertiens, fit quodammodo mundo et lucis illius 
 principium, et pulchritudinis, et sapientias, et rationis, 
 et adoptionis in ccelestium societatem. Itaque, qui ex 
 asterno Sapientia, Lux, Ratio, Filius est Patris, factus est 
 operibus suis principalis quaedam Sapientia, et formatrix 
 Ratio, et Lux plenissime irradians, et archetypus Filius. 
 
Critico-Theologic(s. 75 
 
 Sapientia autem Patris tandem facta est sapientia mundo, 
 et fecit ut mundus sapiens essct ; lux Patris facta est 
 lux mundo, et fecit ut mundus splendesceret ; Uni- 
 genitus Patris factus est Primogenitus mundo, et fecit 
 ut mundus in familiam Dei adscisceretur. 
 
 Profecto fateor hsec omnia in mysterio et fructibus 
 sanctissimae Incarnationis verissime compleri, cujus 
 gratia ita superat Quicquid universse naturae a Creatore 
 datum est, ut Athanasius in quodam opere confirmare 
 non dubitaverit, mundi creationem esse per Filium 
 solummodo, dispensationem autem Evangelicam esse 
 in Filio. " Decebat creationis quidem exordium per 
 ipsum fieri, ut res existerent ; earum autem instaura- 
 tionem, in ipso ; quae sane verba inter se differunt. Nam 
 initio quidem omnia per ipsum facta sunt ut essent ; 
 postea, ubi omnia defecerunt, Verbum caro factum est, 
 quam scilicet induit, ut in ipso omnia reficerentur. In 
 illud Omnia. 2."' Quid quod, cum carnem sumeret, 
 imaginem sui mundo exhibuit solidiorem multo et clari- 
 orem, et verius se ipsum fecit primogenitum inter 
 creaturas, quam cum, universa conditurus, rerum con- 
 dendarum ideam se faceret et regulam. Fateor equidem ; 
 sed prioris operis praestantiam non imminuunt prae- 
 stantiora ilia quae subsecuta sunt ; id quod Athanasio 
 adeo persuasum est, ut saepius duo ilia una consociet et 
 comparet, extollens quidem meliora, non deprimens 
 quod in se bonum est. 
 
 Infinita prope locorum sylva est in Sanctis Patribus, 
 ex quibus augustissimum hoc munus Unigeniti, et in 
 rerum natura et in ceconomia evangelica, possit illustrari. 
 
76 Dissertatmnctdce qucedam 
 
 " Cum justitia nulla esset in terra, doctorem misit, quasi 
 vivam legem " dicit Lactantius, Instit. iv. 25. " Quidquid 
 facturus erat Deus in creatura " docet Augustinus, "jam 
 Verbo inerat, nee esset operibus, nisi esset in Verbo." 
 In Ps. 44, 5. Alio loco Filius ab eodem appellatur, " ars 
 qusedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium 
 rationum viventium incommutabilium." De Trin. vi. 
 II. Cyrillus autem Alexandrinus : " Unigenitus " scribit 
 " secundum naturam ; primogenitus propter nos, ut tan- 
 quam immortali cuidam radici omnis creatuira insita sit, 
 et ex eo qui semper est, germinet." Thesaur. 25, p. 238. 
 KaTea^payiaOrj/xev, docet idem Cyrillus, et? to apxeTVTrov 
 Tij? elK6vo<;. in Joan. p. 91. Similiter ab Athenagora 
 Filius vocatur ihea km, ivepyeia omnium rerum materia- 
 lium ; 17 IBea, oirep 'Koyov elprjKaai, a Clemente Alex. Strom. 
 V. 3. iheav IBemv Kal ap')(r]v Xexreov rbv irpaiTOTOKOv irdcrew'i 
 KTiaeaf, testatur Origenes, contr. Cels. vi. 64 fin. otov 
 anvo TWO? apxrj<>, concinit Gregorius Nyssenus, Catech. 
 p. 504 fin. Et, ut ad Athanasium redeamus, multus est 
 in eadem doctrina, ut in locis hujusmodi : elKcov koX 
 TV'7ro<; 7r/309 aperrjv, Orat. i. 21. Tiitrov riva \a06vTe^, et 
 viroypa/ifibv, iii. 20. iv avrw ^fiev irpoTeTvnwp.e.voi, ii. 76 
 init. TVTTov elKovoi; evOelvai, 78 init. irpanoTOKO'; et? 
 utrniiei^iv Trj(i tmv TrdvTtov Bta rov vlov BrjfuovpyLai; koX 
 vioTroiijaeay;, iii. g fin. rrjv tov ap'x^eTV'Trov ifkaatv 
 dvaaTTjaacrdai, iavT(£. contr. Apoll. ii. 5. 
 
 Quare jure optimo, ut credo, pro concesso potest 
 assumi, condescensionem illam Primogeniti ad universa 
 constituenda nullam esse adumbrationem asterni mysterii 
 quo Filius a Patre gignitur, sed simpliciter referre ad 
 
Critico-TheologiccB. yj 
 
 munus quo fungitur Unigenitus erga opera sua, dis- 
 ponens, stabiliens, vivificans ea quae condidit. Scilicet 
 idem fere valet irpoaroTOKoi atque apxh ''"'55 /fTicrew?, et 
 fiovoyevrji; TrpcoreiKov iv rp KToaei, et TrptoTorvirov ryivvqua, 
 fiovo<i yevvrjTcx; iv tok ryevrjroi'i, et caetera ejusdem generis, 
 ut clarissimo etiam Marano credo placuisse in opere 
 suo " De Divinitate Christi ; " neque quicquam facit ad 
 probandum, quod^ voluit Bullus, Concilium Nicsenum 
 iis favisse, (etiamsi non eos omnino reprobaret.) qui 
 dicerent, fuisse Filium antequam gigneretur. Finem 
 igitur ponamus aliquando disputationi nostras, id solum 
 suggerentes insuper, nempe ilia quae de Athanasii 
 doctrina supra dicta sunt, fortasse inutilia non fore in 
 quibusdam Ante-nicaenorum nodis expediendis, quos non 
 Bullus solum, sed eventu feliciore et Maranus et 
 Ballerinii tractaverunt. 
 
78 Dissertatiunctdiz qucBdam 
 
 DISSERTATIO IV. 
 
 DE VOCIBUS el eripa^ v7roaTdcrem<; rj ovaLa'i ANATHEMA- 
 TISMI NIC^NI. 
 
 AMBIGITUR inter doctos, utrum, cum Patres 
 Nicseni eos anathemate feriunt " qui Dei Filium 
 ex alia hypostasi vel usia esse sentirent," vocabula hypo- 
 stasis et usia rem unam significent an duas. In hac 
 diversitate judiciorum, jure optimo licet in banc vel in 
 illam iri sententiam, cum utramque sustineant ii, quos 
 neminem in hujusmodi materie secutum esse pcenitebit. 
 Si hypostasin volumus ab usia distinctam, Bullum habe- 
 mus auctorem ; si vocabula in unam redacta, Petavium. 
 Ego profecto Petavium sequor, felix tanto patrocinio, 
 adductus autem non auctoritate viri, sed ipso factorum 
 monitu, ut arbitror, et rei vei'itate. 
 
 Bullus, in Defensione sua Fidei Nicaense, ii. 9, § 
 II, credit, si eum recte interpretor, singulas notiones, 
 inter se sejunctas, subesse singulis vocabulis usice et 
 hypostasi in hac formula ; quasi anathematismus ille, in 
 quo reperiuntur, duas hsereses uno ictu feriens, et illos 
 condemnet qui dixerint Filium ex iisia Patris non esse, 
 et illos quoque quibus placuerit Filium non esse ex 
 hypostasi Patris. Et pragterea duas revera hsereti- 
 
Critico-Theologiccs. 79 
 
 corum factiones in historia temporum illorum sibi in- 
 venisse putat, quae suum utraque in illo Anathematismo 
 locum habeant. 
 
 Petavius contra, de Trin. iv. i, hypostasin tunc tem- 
 poris idem velle atque usiam arbitratus, in una proposi- 
 tione Anathematismi mentem docet esse conclusam ; eo 
 maxime quia, ante Concilium Alexandrinum an. 362 
 habitum, sensus hypostasis ab usia diversus nulla esset 
 publica Ecclesiae auctoritate munitus. Quocum consen- 
 tiunt Coustantius {Ep. Pont. Rom. pp. 274, 290, 462) 
 Tillemontius, (Dion. Alex. § 15.) Huetius, {Origenian. 
 ii. 2, n. 3.) Thomassinus {de Incarn. iii. i), et Morinus, 
 (de Sacr. Ordin. ii. 6.) Maranus autem, {Prcef. ad 
 Basil. § I, t. 3, Maur.) Natalis Alexander, {Scec. i, 
 Diss. 22, circ. fin.) Bu.rtonus {Testimonies to the Trinity, 
 n. 71,) et Routhius (Relliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 189,) si a 
 Petavio dissentiunt, at certe non consentiunt BuUo. 
 
 Jam palmarium BuUi hoc est, quod Basilius, cum 
 Sabellianis dimicans, qui, suam rem agentes, dicebant 
 Concilium Nicsenum hypostasi et usice unum sensum 
 tribuisse, contra clara voce pronunciat Patres voluisse 
 duas res, cum duabus voculis uterentur, et suam cuique 
 vim tribuisse. 
 
 Provocat etiam ad Anastasium testantem, Hodeg. 21. 
 (22, p. 342, ed. 1606) Patres Nicsenos definivisse tres 
 esse hypostases in sanctissima Trinitate. Quod quidem 
 testimonium, ab Anastasio ipso Andreas Samosateno 
 ascriptum, Petavius putat esse Gelasii Cyziceni, non gra- 
 vissimi auctoris; testimonium autem est Amphilochii 
 quoque, idem fere scribentis apud eundem Anastasium 
 
8o Dissertatiunculce qucedam 
 
 ibid. c. 10, p. 164. Vid. quoque c. 9, p. 150, c. 24, p. 364, 
 ubi Anastasius ipse loquitur. Accedunt loci ex Dionysio 
 Pontifice Romano, Dionysio Alexandrino, Eusebio Caesa- 
 riensi, Origene quoque, a Bullo citati ; in quibus singulis 
 cum mentio sit trium hypostasium, trium autem similiter 
 usiarum nulla in patribus sit mentio, perspicuum est hypo- 
 stasin tunc expressisse notionem aliquam, quam usia non 
 exprimeret. Quid quod Athanasius ipse de tribus hypo- 
 stasibus loquitur, In illud Omnia 6. Expos. Fid. 2. Vid. 
 quoque Incarn. c. Avian. 10. Orat. iv. 25, init. 
 
 Hoc de testibus ipsis : nunc de hseresibus duabus, quae 
 ex his vocibus tesseram, sibi quseque suam, confecisse 
 dicuntur. Contendit Bullus distinctionem fecisse Semi- 
 arianos inter usiam et hypostasin ; ex hypostasi Patris esse 
 Filium concessisse, ex usia negasse. Quare, quando 
 anathematizat Concilium eos qui ex lisia Patris negant 
 esse Filium, Semi-arianos ferit ; quando eos qui ex 
 hypostasi, (credo virum doctum hoc velle, nam non 
 aperte loquitur,) Arianos. Diligentius rem excutiamus. 
 
 I. Incipio, non a testibus, sed ab hac interpretatione, 
 quam, quasi ex historiatemporumductam,Anathematismi 
 verbisvirdoctissimus imponit. Quinam sunt ii, qui, Bullo 
 judice, negarent ex /ly^ostesi Patris esse Filium ? Conceda- 
 tur hie Semi-arianos negasse " ex alia usia," at quinam 
 negabant "ex alia hypostasi ? " Ariani ? rejecerunt isti ex 
 usia utique, sed de hypostasi, tanquam diversa ab usia, ne 
 verbumquidemprotulerunt. Egovero nusquam esse tunc 
 temporis illos hasreticos existimo. Hsec autem jacienda 
 erant , caute non conj ectura, quasi fundamenta hujus inter- 
 pretationis ; si nulla sunt, corruit sedificium. Nam Bulli 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 8 1 
 
 haec plane principalis et absoluta est propositio, illos qui 
 negarent ex usia non esse eos qui negarent ex hypostasi. 
 Quserimus duo genera hsereticorum ; at non designat ullos 
 homines, qui negarent ex hypostasi, ex ttsia, non negarent. 
 
 2. Deinde, Semi-arianos tenuisse ex hypostasi sensu illo 
 peculiari personce, quem usia non habet, hoc unico probat 
 argumento, quod tres illae Semi-arianorum Confessiones, 
 ann. 341, 344, 351, quse sigillatim appellantur Marci Are- 
 thusii, Macrostichus, et prima Sirmiensis, illos anathe- 
 mate feriunt qui dicerent Filium esse "ex aXis. hypostasi et 
 non a Deo," pr£etermissis verbis " ex alia«SM," quasinde 
 concludit esse propria Semi-arianorum. Quid velint verba 
 ilia prsetermissa, mox dicendum erit ; interea notatu'di- 
 gnum est, confessionem Philippopolitanam, ex Marci ilia 
 Semi-ariana sumptam, Hilarium ita non suspicari, tan- 
 quam lacunosam, quia omiserit "ex alia usia," ut illam 
 contra defendat eo ipso quod retinuerit, ut putat, tesseram 
 Catholicorum, de Syn. 35 ; quod quidem perinde est, quasi 
 apertedixerit " ex alia hypostasi et non ex Deo," idem velle 
 atque " &x2i\\a.hypostasi\'&\usia." AcceditquodAthanasius 
 quoque, in narratione sua eorum quas Nicsese de anathe- 
 matismo occurrebant, de Deer. 20, fin. plane omittit hypo- 
 stasin ; quasi, dum usia staret in loco suo, hypostasin sive 
 adjungere sive omittere, idem fuerit. 
 
 3. Hoc prseterea notandum est, nihil prorsus a Bullo 
 esse prolatum, quo demonstretur Semi-arianos reyera re- 
 probasse "ex usia;" cum plane constet contra dogma 
 illud recepisse eos, non reprobasse. " Certissimum " esse 
 confirmat, hsereticos eos, qui tres illas confessiones supra 
 laudatas protulerunt, scilicet Semi-arianos, " nunquam 
 
82 Dissertatiunculos qticsdam 
 
 fassos nunquam fassuros fuisse Filium ex una Patris 
 progenitum." Fateor eum hac in re habuisse Petavium 
 consentientem sibi ; sed me non perterret tantorum 
 hominum conspiratio, qui Athanasium a me esse noverim. 
 Quod quidem concedit Petavius, Athanasium arbitratus, 
 utpote minus versatum in subtilitatibus Semi-arianorum, 
 credidisse id eos tenere quod non tenerent. " Horum 
 Semi-arianorum," scribit, " quorum antesignanus fuit 
 Basilius Ancyrae Episcopus, prorsus obscura fuit haeresis 
 . . ut ne ipse quidem Athanasius satis illam exploratam 
 habuerit." De Trin. i. lo, § 7. 
 
 Haec Petavius; nunc contra audiamus verba Athanasii. 
 " Viros qui alia quidem omnia Nicaese scripta recipiunt, 
 de solo autem homoiisio ambigunt, non ut inimicos spec- 
 tari par est . . . Cum enim confiteantur ex usia Patris ei 
 Hon ex alia hypostasi esse Filium . . . non longe absunt 
 ab homoihii voce recipienda. Talis est Basilius Ancyrse, 
 in iis quae de fide scripsit.'' De Synod. 41. Quo in loco 
 Athanasii illud quoque notabile est, praster ea quae de 
 Semi-arianorum doctrina testatur, quod hypostasin et 
 usiam idem plane facit fidelissimus ille hujus historiae 
 interpres. Neque id omittendum est, quo Semi-arianos 
 pergit urgere, idcirco scilicet eos debere " homousion " 
 profiteri, quia jam profiterentur " ex usia," quod ipsorum 
 tessera " homceilsion " non satis posset muniri. 
 
 Hilarius item, cum id agit ut ea defendat quas a Semi- 
 arianis Ancyrae vel Sirmii lata essent, inter alia quae recta 
 confiterentur, hoc esse testatur, " Non creatura est Filius 
 genitus, sed a natura Patris indiscreta substantia est." 
 de Syn. 27. 
 
Critic 0- Theologicce. 83 
 
 Idem probatur, ni fallor, ex iis ipsis apud Epiphanium 
 scriptis Semi-arianorum, quibus motus credit Petavius, 
 illos haereticos " ex u%ia Patris " Filio denegasse. Subti- 
 lius aliquanto disputat, Semi-arianos tradidisse argutias 
 quasdamdediversis.ut autumabant, actionibus(e'i'ep7eta?) 
 divinis, quorum una esset actio •yevv^Tiici) seu generativa, 
 alia KTta-TiKr] seu creatrix ; unde colligerunt Filium esse, 
 non ex usia, sed per actionem illam generativam, i^ 
 o/jLoioTrjToi;, ex similitudine Patris. At certe ea quae 
 plane confitentur Semi-ariani in hac Confessione sua plus 
 valent quam vult Petavius, et " ex tisia " non obscure sig- 
 nificant ; vlbv ofioiov, dicunt, Kai Kar ovaiav eic tov -rrarpb'}, 
 Hcer. 73, p. 825. b. m; rj cro^ix tov cro(j}ov vib';, ovaia ovaia'i, 
 p. 853. c. Kar oucriau vlou tov ©eov koX Trarpo?. p. 854. c. 
 i^ovaifi ofJ,ov Kal ova-i'i iraTpo^ fjiovoyevov'i v'lov. p. 858. d. 
 Vid. quoque vocabulum 7j^?jo-W9 ibid, et Athan. de Synod. 
 41, ut alia, qucC iidem proferunt, praetereamus. 
 
 Quod quidem in Collatione ilia quoque patet, inter 
 Semi-arianos et Anomceos, Constantinopoli coram Con- 
 stantio an. 360 habita, cum Semi-ariani, teste Theodoreto, 
 non gravate confessi sunt etiam homousion illud Catholi- 
 corum, idcirco, quia jam confiterentur "ex usia." Cum 
 enim Anomcei homousion condemnatum vellent, Silvanus 
 Tarsus, Semi-arianorum vir primarius, " Si Deus Verbum 
 non est ex nihilo," respondit, " neque creatum, neque 
 alterius usice, homousius igitur est Deo qui ipsum genuit, 
 utpote Deus ex Deo, et lumen ex lumine, eandemque cum 
 Genitore naturam habet." Hist. ii. 23. Quo in loco, ut 
 inillo Athanasii,notandum est,Theodoretum,cum videtur 
 ipsum Nicsenorum Anathematismum citare, tamen omit- 
 
84 Dissei'tatmnculcs qucedam 
 
 tere verba " ex alia hypostasi," tanquam supervacanea, 
 cum " ex alia usia," jam memorasset. 
 
 Hoc autem Petavio et Bullo concedendum est, Semir 
 arianos temporis progressu propius accessisse ad Catho- 
 licam fidem ; ita ut non jure possimus illorum proferre 
 confessionem an. 358, qua probemus quid an. 325 de Filii 
 generatione sensissent. Quippe exgremio Eusebianorum 
 oriebatur schola qusedam et moribus et doctrina gravior, 
 laudata autem ab Athanasio et Hilario ; quam postea, 
 Damaso Pontifice, relicta tandem hasreticorum factione, 
 ad fidem Petri magna ex parte constat confugisse. Qui 
 homines quanquam "exusia" confessisintnondumCatho- 
 lici, non ideo Eusebii illi duo idem tenuisse censendi 
 sunt, neque Asterius, neque caeteri, qui ipso Patrum 
 Nicajnorum tempore, tametsi hasretici, a simplici Arian- 
 orum vesania refugerunt. Esto igitur in dubio, ut Bulli 
 causam oremus ultro,utrum Semi-ariani Nicseni "exusia" 
 recepissent an non ; tamen certumne est eos contra rece- 
 pisse " ex hypostasi ? " Minime sane ; nam ipse Petavius, 
 qui illis " ex usia " abjudicat, non voluit iisdem cum 
 Bullo tribuere " ex hypostasi." Quae cum ita sint, historia 
 controversiae tandem relicta, ut Bullo minus commoda, 
 ad testes veniendum est. 
 
 Ex his testibus Gelasius est auctoritate tenui, Anasta- 
 sius posterioris aevi. Quod autem ex Amphilochio addu- 
 citur, satis habiturum esset ponderis, nisi Basilius, eidem 
 conjunctissimus, idem testimonium, idque expressius, 
 dedisset. In Basilium igitur, magnum certe auctorem, 
 tota i-es recidit ; et profecto si unius viri testimonio con- 
 cedenda est diremptio quasstionis hujus, Basilium pro- 
 
Critico-Theologicce. 85 
 
 tinus sequamur; hypostasin et iisiain inter se differre, 
 dimissis argumentis, plena voce profiteamur. Sed 
 nimirum uni viro, quanquam gravissimo, aliis adver- 
 santibus testibus, certe non est confidendum. 
 
 Primum illud est, ut supra commonstravimus, Athana- 
 sium et Hilarium, non quidem data opera, sed in disputa- 
 tionis cursu, ita de hypostasi et usia esse locutos, ut signi- 
 ficarent vocabula ea unam rem, non duas, voluisse in 
 Anathematismo. Nam commutant ilia inter se; hyposta- 
 sin omittunt ; omissa autem, tamen Anathematismum 
 tanquam omnibus numeris absolutum aestimant. Prse- 
 terea Hilarius in Fragm. ii. 27, cum velit Anathematismi 
 verba latine vertere, " ex altera substantia vel essentia " 
 scribit. Cujus simile fortasse est illud Eusebii in Epis- 
 tola sua, " ex alia hypostasi et usia." c. 7. 
 
 Haec sint prseludia qutedam, namque Athanasius, in 
 Epistola sua ad Afros, a.d vocem ipsam paene definiendam 
 ex proposito aggreditur ; " Hypostasis est tisia, neque aliam 
 habet significationem, quam hoc ipsum quod est. Quod 
 Hieremias vocat existentiam, cum dicit," etc. § 4. Quam- 
 vis autem alibi loquitur de tribus hypostasibus, aliud illud 
 est ; nam quia hypostasis, numerali diserte addito, vult 
 persona, non inde continue perspicuum est quid tum velit, 
 cum in singulari stat et in alio verborum contextu repe- 
 ritur. Ego hoc verissimum esse puto, quando trium 
 mentio est hypostasium, hypostasin pei'sonam velle ; sed in 
 Anathematismo Nicseno non legimus " tres hypostases," 
 sed " hypostasin vel usiam ;" quemadmodum autem Atha- 
 nasius, alibi de tribus hypostasibus locutus, tamen hypo- 
 stasin in singulari sumptam usiam interpretatur (vid. e. g. 
 
86 Dissertatiunndce qucedam 
 
 Oral. iii. 66, iv. i, f. 33 fin) ita Patres quoque Nicseni, 
 "hypostasin" proferentes et usiam adjicientes, vocabula 
 duo inter se non opposita, sed apposita voluerunt. 
 
 Non minus aperte, nee minore auctoritate loquitur 
 Hieronymus : " Tota saseularium litterarum sehola nihil 
 aliud hypostasim nisi usiam novit." Ep. xv. 4. Quid quod 
 de tribus hypostasibus disputans in eadem Epistola, libe- 
 riora haec profert, quae non protulisset utique, si Patribus 
 Nicsenis hypostasis " persona " sonuisset. " Si jubetis, 
 condatur nova post Nicsenam fides ; et similibus verbis 
 cum Arianis confiteamur orthodoxi." Certe si Basilius 
 validus est testis ex una parte, non minus ex altera 
 gravis est Athanasius, vehemens Hieronymus. 
 
 Basilius porro, non Csesariensis, sed Semi-arianus ex 
 Ancyra, et alii ejus congregales, idem testantur apud 
 Epiphanium : " Hanc hypostasin Patres usiam vocarunt." 
 Hcer. 73, 12 fin. Cui suffragatur confessio ilia quam 
 Epistolse Sardicensi assutam invenimus : " unam esse 
 hypostasin, quam ipsi hseretici usiam appellant." Theod. 
 Hist. ii. 6. 
 
 Sed occurretur forsitan, Hieronymum, Occidentalem 
 virum, Basilium et Georgium Semi-arianos, non satis 
 fidos in hac re esse auctores, sed prout sua ipsorum aut 
 veritatis traditio, aut heereticus error ferebat, asseveran- 
 tius quam consultius de sensu hypostasi esse testatos. 
 Esto ; at Magnus Basilius contra habuit ille quoque 
 suos amicos, traditionem suam ; si enim Occidens unam 
 hypostasin prsedicaverat, tres usias Semi-ariani, ita Orien- 
 tales contra strenuos fuisse constat in trium hypostasium, 
 unius usice confessione. 
 
Critico-Theologiccs. 87 
 
 Prasterea Socrates auctor est, disceptatum fuisse Alex- 
 andri£e de hypostasi paulo ante Concilium Nicsenum, 
 de qua tamen "ne verbum quidem fecit Concilium 
 illud." Hist. iii. 7, id quod aliter se habet, si inter hypo- 
 stasin et usiam a Concilio distinctum est. 
 
 Concilium denique Alexandrinum an. 362 habitum, 
 cum decerneret integrum esse hypostasin vel pro usia vel 
 pro persona adhibffl'i, non solum eo ipso significavit, 
 vocabulum illud adhuc relictum esse, ut aiunt, in Eccle- 
 sia, sed id apertissme declarat in Epistola sua. Si enim 
 hypostasi sensum suum jam imposuisset Concilium Nicse- 
 num, quid reliquum erat Alexandrinis nisi eum profiteri ? 
 Cujus argument! vim ita intelligit Bullus, ut confugiat ad 
 conjecturam, innovatum fuisse in "veteri vocabuli usu " 
 illo ipso Concilii Sardicensis tempore, reclamantibus et 
 Socrate, qui ilium usum ante Concilium Nicsenum collo- 
 cat, Hist. iii. 4, 5 et tabula Sardicensi, in qua unius 
 hypostasis doctrina ex traditione Catholica repetitur. 
 
 Ea quae adduximus sseculi quarti sunt testimonia ; 
 neque aliud sonant, etsi rariora, quse de eodem vocabulo 
 in sseculis Ante-nicsenis traduntur. Socrates hie audien- 
 dus est : " Qui Grsecam inter Grsecos philosophiam tradide- 
 runt, usiam quidem pluribus modis definierunt ; hypostasis 
 vero nullam prorsus mentionem fecerunt. Irenasus quidam 
 Grammaticus, in Lexico per ordinem litterarum digesto, 
 quod Atticistes inscribitur, banc vocem barbaram esse 
 affirmat. Neque enim apud quenquam veterum scriptorum 
 eam reperiri ; ac sicubi fortasse reperiatur, non eo sensu, 
 quo nunc sumitur, usurpari. Etenim apud Sophoclem in 
 Phcenice ea vox insidias significat; apud Menandrum 
 
88 Dissertatiunculcs qucsdam 
 
 vero condimenta, perinde ac siquis fsecem vini in dolio 
 subsidentem appellet hypostasin. Verum licet ab antiquis 
 philosophis base vox usurpata non fuerit, sciendum est 
 tamen, i-ecentiores ea frequenter usos fuisse pro usia." 
 Hist. iii. 7. Ex Ante-nicaenis, plurimus est Origenes in 
 vocabulo hypostasis ; idque, contextu verborum interprete- 
 ut significetur '' persona." Loquitur porro de tribus 
 hypostasibus ; ut Dionysius quoque, ejus discipulus; et 
 Eusebius, ita tamen ut hypostasin cum usia confundat ; 
 item Athanasius, ut supra dictum est, (Orig. in Joan. 
 ii. 6, Dionys. ap. Basil, de Sp. S. n. 72. Euseb. ap. Socr. 
 i. 23. Athan. In illud Ovmia, 6) ; de duabus Patris et 
 Filii, Origenes, Ammonius, Alexander, (Origen. in Cels. 
 viii. 2. Ammon.^ ap. Caten. in Joan. x. 30. Alex. ap. 
 Theod. i. 3, p. 740.) Quare videtur ilia vox in Ecclesia 
 catholica prius scholas cujusdam esse propria, nempe 
 Alexandrinse : post autem exortas hsereses, ne verborum 
 ambiguitas fidelibus fraudi esset, ab Ecclesia ipsa ex 
 scholis in suos usus esse conversa. Profecto, quod alte 
 in mentibus Catholicorum jam inde ab Apostolis insedit, 
 Tria revera esse in Una Divinitate, id, cum a malesana 
 philosophia periclitabatur, placuit Ecclesise, Dei monitu, 
 per vocabulum hypostasis exprimi. Qua in re cum Bullo 
 et Marano consentio plane ; nisi quod M2.ra.n\jishypostasin 
 " summo consensu " receptam esse putat ab Oriente a 
 
 ' Hunc autem, cujus mult£e in catenis ad N. T. (ad S. Joannem prse- 
 sertim) occurrunt symbola;, non esse Ammonium ilium sjeculi tertii, sed 
 alium quendam sa:culi quinti, ecclesite Alexandiina; presbyterum et 
 oeconomum, post Combefisium auguratur Fabricius, Bibl. Grcec. t. v. pp. 
 714, 722, ed. 1796. 
 
Critico- Theologicce. 89 
 
 Noeto vel saltern Sabellio exorto, Bullus autem " apud 
 Catholicos Dionysii setate ratum et fixum illud fuisse, 
 tres esse in divinis hypostases." 
 
 Inquirendum est denique, cur, unam rem prae oculis 
 habentes, duobus vocabulis usia et hypostasi in Anathema- 
 tismo suo usi sint Nicani Patres. Respondet Coustan- 
 tius, hypostasin primo scriptam ab illis fuisse, deinde 
 usiam provida mente adjectam, ne scilicet hypostasin 
 prave verterint Sabelliani, quasi voluerit persona. Credi- 
 derim prasterea hypostasin priorem ideo habuisse locum, 
 quia Concilio CEcumenico, sub Latinorum magisterio 
 habito, vocabulum substantia, seu hypostasis, quasi nativum 
 fuerit et solemne. Quin Damasus, quinquaginta post 
 annos, loquitur de Spiritu Sancto tanquam ejusdem 
 hypostasis et usias cum Patre et Filio. Theod. Hist. ii. 17 ; 
 longe aliter atque Concilium CEcumenicum secundum, 
 a quo, absentibus quippe Latinis, tres hypostases com- 
 memorantur. Neque alius fuit nisi Hosius, ex praesuli- 
 bus scilicet Latinis, (qui ipse Pontificis fuerat legatus 
 Nicsese,) qui controversiam de substantia sive hypostasi, in 
 Alexandriam induxerit. Sardicse quoque, quanquam 
 hypostasis pro usia in Epistolam Synodalem non induce- 
 batur, tamen ex historia Concilii constat, Hosium ibi 
 restitisse iis, quibuscum magna ex parte consentiebat. 
 Hoc porro in controversia fortasse erat sseculo tertio 
 inter Dionysios duos, Pontificem Romanum et Alexan- 
 drinum Prsesulem, (ut visum est Coustantio, dissenti- 
 entibus autem Marano et Routhio) : cum Alexandrinus 
 tres esse hypostases confirmabat, Pontifex autem tres 
 divulsas (ae/ie/sto'/iei'a?) i.e. tres substantias condemnabat, 
 
 7 
 
QO Dissertatiunculce qucedam 
 
 quasi tritheismum sapuerint ; Alexandrinus autem 
 regerebat, " Si eo quod tres sunt hypostases, divulsas esse 
 dicunt, tres sunt, etiamsi nolint ; aliter, Divinam Trini- 
 tatem prorsus e medio tollant." ap. Basil, de Sp. S. 72. 
 Quid quod Occidentalium usus in Athanasio cernitur, 
 semel vel iterum hospite Pontificis Romani ; qui, cum 
 Origines, Dionysius, Ammonius, Alexander, populares 
 sui, duo et tres hypostases confitentur, ita tamen ipse 
 variat vocabuli sensum, modo unam, modo tres docens 
 hypostases in Divinitate, ut videatur prope in se ostendere 
 illam loquendi libertatem, quam in Concilio Alexandrino 
 Catholicis asseruit. 
 
 Quae si recta se habeant, intelligi potest quare, in tri- 
 bus illis Confessionibus Semi-arianorum, omittatur " ex 
 usia;" quia scilicet mittebantur ad Latinos, quos ut 
 conciliarent, utebantur hseretici illo vocabulo, quod in 
 auribus Latinorum clarius soniturum esset ,* quemad- 
 modum Athanasius contra, ut vidimus, in Epistola sua de 
 Deer. Concil. Nic. scribens ad Grsecos, omittit hypostasin, 
 usiam retinet. Neque absimili ratione, quenladmodum 
 Semi-ariani voluerunt prsetensa hypostasi Occidentalibus 
 blandiri, ita Acaciani contra an. 359, jam ex Constantii 
 favore audaces, illud idem vocabulum, non aliud, Arimini 
 ab Occidentalibus repudiatum voluerunt ; ut conspici 
 potest ex illo symbolo, quod, conscriptum Nicse in 
 Thracia, non solum usiam, ut in aliis confessionibus 
 Arianorum, sed hypostasin etiam omittit ; ea scilicet mente 
 ut Latinis necesse esset, non solum grsecum " homousion," 
 sed latinum " unius substantise " rejicere. 
 
 Jam vero, si usitatum est philosophorum scholis, illam 
 
Critico- Theologiccs. 91 
 
 magis probabilem judicari hypothesin, quae ad universa 
 facta vel phaenomena, de quibus agit, facillime accommo- 
 datur, quid nobis ea quae jam dicta sunt perpendentibus 
 restat, nisi ut concludamus, vocabulis hypostasi et usia 
 Anathematismi Nicseni unam rem, non duas significari ? 
 
 Disputationum harum editioni Romanse subnotantur 
 haac : — 
 
 Nihil Obstat — Paulus CuUen Censor Theol. Deputatus. 
 Nihil Obstat — Joannes Perrone S. J. Censor Theol. Deputatus. 
 Imprimatur — Fr. Dom. Buttaoni Ord. Freed. S. P. A. Magister. 
 Imprimatur — Joseph Canali Patriarch. Constantinopolit. Vicesgerens. 
 
II. 
 
 ON THE TEXT OF THE SEVEN EPISTLES OF 
 ST. IGNATIUS. 
 
 (Begun in Notes of the date of 1828, completed in 1870.) 
 
 (93) 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE SEVEN EPISTLES 
 OF ST. IGNATIUS. 
 
 IN my Essay on the theology of St. Ignatius (Essays, 
 vol. i.), it was assumed that the controversy of the 
 seventeenth century, in which Pearson bore so dis- 
 tinguished a part, had issued in a plain proof of the 
 substantial genuineness of the text of the Medicean 
 and Colbertine MSS. And it was inferred from this 
 as a premiss, that apostolic Christianity was of a 
 distinctly dogmatic character, it being impossible for 
 those who resisted this inference to succeed in explain- 
 ing away the text of Ignatius, as those MSS. contain 
 it, and only open to them to take refuge in a denial 
 of the premiss, that is, of the genuineness of that text. 
 Then it was added as to such denial, " It is a curious 
 speculation whether, in the progress of controversy, 
 divines, who are determined at all risks not to admit 
 the Church system, will not fall back upon it ; — stranger 
 things have happened." 
 
 So I wrote in 1838, and what I then anticipated has 
 actually taken place since, though not in the way that I 
 anticipated. I did not fancy that the controversy would 
 
 (95) 
 
96 On the Text of the 
 
 have been revived on grounds both new, and certainly at 
 first sight plausible, as has been the case. Those new 
 grounds do not change my own judgment on the matter 
 in dispute ; but they have a real claim to be taken into 
 consideration. This I now propose to do. 
 
 In the year 1845, then, the late Dr. Cureton gave to the 
 world, from a Nitrian MS. of the seventh century, a 
 Syriac version of three out of the seven Epistles enume- 
 rated by Eusebius, viz., those to St. Polycarp, to the 
 Romans, and to the Ephesians ; and in this ancient version 
 various characteristic passages, as they are found in the 
 Greek, are absent, and among them some of those on which 
 I have insisted in my Essay. Dr. Cureton claims for this 
 Syriac version (Preface, p. xi.) to be the nearest represen- 
 tative of "what Ignatius himself wrote;" and in this claim 
 he is supported by various critics of great consideration. 
 Nor are the reasons which he and they assign for their 
 judgment of slight account, nor indeed do they admit of 
 a summary refutation in our present partial knowledge of 
 the facts of the case. Before it is possible to close the con- 
 troversy thus reopened, the Syriac version of the remaining 
 Epistles has to be discovered ; or again, it should become 
 clear that there never was any Syriac version of them at 
 all ; nor is anything yet known of the history of this new 
 MS., of its derivation, or of the circumstances under which 
 the version it contains was made, such as might explain 
 what may be called the dumb fact of its existence. 
 
 One important exception to this remark must be men- 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 97 
 
 tioned ; a second Nitrian MS. has also been discovered, 
 containing one of the same three Epistles as are con- 
 tained in the first, viz., the Epistle to Polycarp; and this 
 MS. is of even an earlier date, viz., about A.D. 530 — 540, 
 and with only so much difference of text from that of a.d. 
 600 — 700, as serves to shovi^ that the later MS. of the two 
 was not copied from the earlier, and thereby to throw back 
 the date of the versien itself at least to the fifth century. 
 The value, however, of this fact, in relation to the ques- 
 tion before us, is not great, both because the Epistle to 
 Polycarp anyhow contains little of a dogmatic character, 
 and because, as regards this Epistle, the newly-discovered 
 Syriac differs very little from the hitherto received Greek. 
 Of course the coincidence of those MSS., two Syriac and 
 one Greek, in one text, is a most satisfactory guarantee of 
 the genuineness of that text ; but it does not touch the 
 difficulty, which lies in the important differences existing 
 between the Syriac and Greek texts of the other two 
 Epistles, to the Romans and to the Ephesians. In speak- 
 ing of the agreement of the Syriac and Greek texts of the 
 Epistle to Polycarp, I must not forget to mention that 
 the two last chapters of the Greek are omitted in the 
 Syriac ; but these two chapters refer to what may be 
 called personal matters, are of the nature of a postscript, 
 and may have been really such, and thus may have been 
 preserved in some copies, omitted in others, as the case 
 might be, without prejudice to their genuineness. Yet 
 the omission is not without its importance, as it shows 
 that the Syriac copyist had no scruple in curtailing the 
 text he was engaged upon. 
 
98 On the Text of the 
 
 Putting aside then the Epistle to St. Polycarp, we come 
 to the real question ; that is, what is the force-and value 
 of the suspicion cast on the Greek text of the Epistles to 
 the Romans and to the Ephesians, so long received, at 
 least in English schools, by the fact of the omission of 
 important parts of them both in the Syriac MSS. ; a 
 suspicion directly attaching to those two, but indirectly 
 of course affecting the other four also, from the proba- 
 bility that, were the Syriac of these four forthcoming (if 
 Syriac there ever was), parallel omissions would occur in 
 them also, as compared with their text as it stands in the 
 received Greek. It must be added, that the very circum- 
 stance that only three Epistles have been found in Syriac, 
 is with some critics a reason for thinking that three only 
 were written by Ignatius, or at least only three preserved, 
 though Eusebius speaks in his day of there being seven. 
 
 Premising that after all the question, as I have now 
 stated it, is not, in a doctrinal point of view, of extreme 
 importance, inasmuch as the text of the two Epistles, as 
 it is found in the Syriac, retains quite enough of dogmatic 
 teaching, on the Incarnation and the Episcopal regime, 
 to answer the purpose for which I have in my Essay used 
 the Greek text, I proceed to state the arguments as they 
 occur to me, in favour of the genuineness of the latter, 
 that is, of the Greek, as contained in those Medicean and 
 Colbertine MSS. which were brought to light by the 
 industry of Isaac Voss and Ruinart. 
 
 2. 
 I have been speaking as if there were only one Greek 
 
. Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 99 
 
 text of the Epistles, but, as is well known, there are in 
 fact two, and those two very different from each other. 
 This at first sight would seem to be an additional diffi- 
 culty, or rather an argument in favour of those who are 
 suspicious of the received Greek, since, if there are three 
 texts extant of one and the same collection of Epistles, 
 differing from each other, there are, on the face of the 
 matter, two chances to one against the correctness of 
 any one of them. However, this prima facie difficulty 
 does not hold in the particular case, as a few words will 
 show. 
 
 First, the Greek text, as first published by Valentinus 
 Pacasus in 1557 (in company with sundry spurious 
 Epistles, of which I need not speak here), is very much 
 longer than the Medicean, first published in 1646. Also 
 it bears the marks of a doctrinal terminology, which in 
 the fourth century would be called Arian ; the Medicean 
 or shorter edition, on the contrary, is strictly orthodox, 
 as also is the Syriac, that is, so far as it contains pas- 
 sages of a doctrinal character. 
 
 Next, the relation of the longer edition to the shorter 
 is this ;— not that the two are absolutely divergent from 
 each other, whether in structure or in subject-matter, but 
 that the longer is a sort of paraphrastic enlargement of 
 the shorter or Medicean. It has been usual to call the 
 longer the " Interpolated Edition ; " but, thought there 
 are passages in it, which, if the edition does not repre- 
 sent the true Ignatian text, (as I think it does not,) are 
 rightly called interpolations, yet that word is far from 
 conveying a just idea of the relation of the longer on the 
 
loO On the Text of the 
 
 whole to the shorter and orthodox. The longer Epistles 
 are a continuous paraphrase or amplification of the 
 shorter, unless indeed we please to say that the : horter 
 were intended by their editor to be a compendium or 
 abstract of the longer. Anyhow the two editions thus 
 stand related to each other ; they carry on one and the 
 same succession of topics in each Epistle from begin- 
 ning to end, with a continual, either enlargement or 
 abbreviation of the one by the other, as we may see 
 reason to determine. In both there are the same two 
 prominent subjects — viz., our Lord's two natures, and 
 the authority and sacramental virtue of the Episcopal 
 rule. In the latter of these doctrines both editions speak 
 alike ; in the former, as I have already said, the shorter or 
 Medicean edition is orthodox, but the longer edition 
 Arianizes. 
 
 3-- 
 
 The intimate connection of the two editions is obvious 
 at first sight, and need not be proved. What I have to 
 show is, that the longer is a paraphrase of the shorter, 
 not the shorter an abridgment of the longer. 
 
 Here, my first remark is this ; that there is a grave 
 conciseness in the shorter, which is far more natural in 
 an old man going to martyrdom than the florid rhetoric 
 of the longer, which savours of easy circumstances, 
 plenty of time for words, and a temperament less stern, 
 and a state of feeling less concentrated, than is 
 generated by chronic peril and prospective suffering. 
 
 Again, it is never difficult to dilute a vigorous and 
 sententious document, but seldom possible to condense 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. loi 
 
 into a series of terse enunciations in logical sequence a 
 composition which is verbose and ornate. Let us com- 
 pare together several corresponding passages of these 
 editions;— they will decide the point at once. I will 
 put into italics those clauses of the longer, which form 
 the whole text of the shorter. 
 
 I. First, from the Epistle to the Trallians, c. ii. 
 
 » 
 The shorter Edition. 
 
 " Flee therefore the evil scions, which bear a deadly 
 fruit ; of which, if a man taste, he presently dies. These 
 are not the plants of the Father. For, had they been, 
 they would have shown as branches of the Cross, and their 
 fruit would have been incorruptible ; by which (Cross) in 
 His Passion He invites you, who are His members." 
 
 The longer Edition. 
 
 "Avoid those evil scions of his [the evil one], Simon, 
 his first-born son, and Menander, and Basilides, and his 
 whole crew of evil ; the man- worshippers, whom also the 
 prophet Jeremias calls cursed. Flee also the unclean 
 Nicolaitans (without any right to Nicolas's name) the 
 pleasure-lovers, the slanderers. Flee also the brood of 
 the wicked one, Theodotus and Cleobulus, which bear a 
 deadly fruit; of which, if a man taste, he presently dies, 
 not the temporal death, but the eternal. These are not 
 plants of the Father, but a cursed brood ; and ' let every 
 plant,' the Lord says, ' which My Father hath not planted, 
 be rooted up.' For, had they been branches of the 
 Father, they would not have been enemies of the Cross of 
 
I02 On the Text of the 
 
 Christ, but of those who ' slew the Lord of glory.' But 
 now, by denying the Cross, and being ashamed of the 
 passion, they shelter the transgression of the Jews, those 
 God-opposers, those Lord-slayers ; for it would not be 
 enough to say, prophet-slayers. And you Christ invites 
 to His own incorruption, through His passion, and resur- 
 rection, who are His members." 
 
 2. So again, from the Epistle to the Ephesians, c. g. 
 
 The shorter Edition. 
 
 " I have known of some, who passed by from thence, 
 as having an evil teaching ; whom you have not allowed 
 to cast the seeds of it into you, closing your ears, so as 
 not to admit the sowing, as being stones of the Father's 
 Temple, prepared to be built up by God the Father." 
 
 The longer Edition. 
 
 " I have known of some who passed through you, as having 
 an evil teaching of a malevolent and wicked spirit ; to 
 whom you have not given an opening to sow the cockle, so 
 as not to admit the error which was preached by them; 
 being persuaded that that people-misleading spirit speaks, 
 not the things of Christ, but his own, for he utters lies. 
 But the Holy Spirit speaks, not what is His own, but what 
 is Christ's, and not from Himself, but from the Lord, as 
 again the Lord preached to us what was from the Father. 
 For He says, ' The word which you hear is not Mine, but 
 the Father's who sent Me,' and concerning the Holy Ghost 
 He says, 'He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever 
 He may hear from Me.' And concerning Himself He says 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 103 
 
 to the Father, ' I have glorified Thee on the earth ; the 
 work which Thou gavest Me, I have finished ; I have 
 manifested Thy name to men ; ' and concerning the Holy 
 Ghost, ' He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine.' 
 But the deceiving spirit heralds himself, speaks his own ; 
 for he is a self-pleaser. He glorifies himself, for he is full 
 of arrogance. He is a lying, deceitful, wheedling, flat- 
 tering, underhand, •rambling, trifling, inconsistent, talka- 
 tive, quibbling, startled thing, from whose force Jesus 
 Christ will deliver you, who has founded you on the rock, 
 as chosen stones, for the divine building of the Father." 
 3. Once more, from the Epistle to the Smyrnseans, c. 6. 
 
 The shorter Edition. 
 
 " Let no one deceive himself. Heavenly things, and 
 the glory of the Angels, and Rulers, whether visible or 
 invisible, if they do not believe in the blood of Christ, 
 even to them there is judgment. 'He who receives, let 
 him receive.' Let no man's place puff him up. For 
 faith and charity are all in all, of which nothing has pre- 
 cedence in judgment. But consider those who hold other 
 opinions as regards the grace of Jesus Christ, which has 
 come to us, how contrary they are to the mind of God. 
 Charity is not their concern, nor the widow, nor the 
 orphan, nor the afflicted, nor the prisoner or liberated, 
 nor the hungry or thirsty." 
 
 The longer Edition. 
 
 "Let no one deceive himself. Unless he believe that 
 Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and confess Christ's 
 
I04 On the Text of the 
 
 Cross, suffering, and hlooi which He poured out for the 
 world's salvation, he ^hall not obtain everlasting life, be 
 he king, or priest, or ruler, or private man, or lord, or 
 slave, or man, or woman. ' He that receives, let him receive.' 
 ' He that hears, let him hear.' Let not place, or rank, or 
 wealth, puff up any one. Let not dishonour and poverty 
 abase any one. For faith towards God, and hope in 
 Christ, the enjoyment of goods in expectancy, and love 
 towards God and one's fellow, are all in all. For ' thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy 
 neighbour as thyself.' And the Lord says, ' This is life 
 eternal to know the only True God, and whom He hath 
 sent, Jesus Christ.' And ' a new commandment I give 
 to you, that ye love one another.' ' On these two com- 
 mandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.' 
 Consider then those who hold other opinions, how they lay 
 it down as a principle that the Father of Christ cannot 
 be known, and how they bear a faithless hatred towards 
 each other. Charity is not their concern ; they make no 
 account of the promises we are expecting ; they reckon 
 on the present as if lasting ; they neglect the command- 
 ments ; they overlook the widow and orphan, they spurn 
 the afflicted, they mock the prisoner ." 
 
 Such a contrast, though not everywhere to the same 
 extent, runs from first to last between the two editions ; 
 showing us, first their intimate connection, next, surely 
 without need of formal proof, that the shorter is the 
 basis of the longer, not the longer of the shorter. 
 
 A third hypothesis, indeed, might be made, to the 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 105 
 
 effect that they both come from some lost original ; but 
 to substantiate this, passages ought to be producible 
 from the shorter edition which are not in the longer ; 
 whereas the longer may be said to gather up all that is 
 in the shorter, and merely to add to it.- 
 
 I shall take it for granted then that the writer of the 
 longer Epistles had the shorter before him, when he 
 wrote ; and, on thi# assumption, several important con- 
 clusions follow : — I, That the shorter edition is prior in 
 date to the longer. 2, That the writer of the longer con- 
 sidered the shorter to be the genuine work of Ignatius, 
 for otherwise it would not have been worth his while to 
 paraphrase and arrange it. 3, That this recognition of 
 the shorter work at the date of the longer is of a very 
 peculiar kind, having a breadth and force in it rarely 
 found in the case of testimonies to authorship ; for it is 
 a testimony, not merely to a title or a heading, to its 
 subject or its drift, or to particular passages in it, and 
 nothing besides, but, being a paraphrase, it is testimony 
 travelling along the entire text, and identifying and 
 guaranteeing every part of it. 
 
 The testimony then borne by the paraphrastic edition 
 to the genuineness of the shorter Epistles being so special, 
 it becomes of great importance to ascertain its date. 
 
 First, however, I will give two additional reasons in 
 
 behalf of the chronological priority of the shorter edition. 
 
 I. That it is anterior in point of time to the longer is 
 
 8 
 
io6 On the Text of the 
 
 proved by the scantiness of quotations from the New 
 Testament in the shorter, and the profusion of them 
 which is found in the longer, as the above parallel in- 
 stances are sufficient to show. It is only in keeping 
 with the date of Ignatius, that he should make few allu- 
 sions to the Gospels and Epistles. The writers of these 
 were almost or quite his contemporaries, and their friends 
 were his friends. He knew them, or at least remembered 
 them, rather by their conversations than by theirwritings. 
 He would obviously be guided in his pastoral instructions 
 rather by the lessons which they had once for all en- 
 graven on his heart, than by a reference pro re natd to 
 chapter and verse of the documents which they had been 
 inspired to give to the world. And he wrote to those who 
 in like manner would in his person contemplate the first 
 preachers of Christianity, more directly and intimately 
 than in books which, if they had ever seen, they had seen 
 but occasionally and by accident. It would have been 
 unnatural in him, writing to them, to have thought of 
 enforcing his words by New Testament texts. In accor- 
 dance with this anticipation, we find in the Epistle of St. 
 Clement to the Corinthians, hardly a single reference to 
 any book of the New Testament, though his whole com- 
 position is redolent of St. Paul's spirit. The case is the 
 same with the so-called Barnabas and Hermas. It is 
 true that the Epistle of St. Polycarp, on the other hand, 
 written shortly after the death of Ignatius, contains 
 frequent references to both Epistles and Gospels : but 
 then it must be recollected that the writer is not only 
 the specimen of a new generation and a new usage, 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 107 
 
 but wrote at home, among his books, not, as Ignatius, 
 a prisoner, chained to a rude soldier, and carried about 
 from place to place, from Antioch to Philippi, Dyrrha- 
 chium, and Rome. It is difficult to suppose that Ignatius 
 could have had at his fingers' ends the multitude of 
 Scripture passages which ilow so readily from the pen of the 
 author of the longer Epistles. There are in them as many 
 as ninety texts from the New Testament, and taken from 
 as many as eighteen out of its twenty-seven books. In 
 the shorter edition there are altogether only six of such 
 quotations, and these consisting of but a few words 
 each. If this absence of Scripture texts be a fair test 
 of antiquity, we cannot well assign too early a date to 
 the shorter edition. It will be prior to St. Polycarp. 
 
 2. A second reason for the priority of the shorter 
 Epistles may be added, not so strong, yet not without 
 force. I shall presently have occasion to insist upon the 
 Arianisms of the longer; here, I will consider these 
 Arianisms simply as phrases at variance with the phrases 
 in the shorter, and I cannot but think that, at least in 
 some cases, they are not mere fortuitous differences 
 from the shorter text, but deliberate emendations and 
 managements of it. Suppose, for instance, that in an 
 anonymous Anglican sermon, which we fell in with in 
 MS., we read, " His sacred Majesty is king by divine 
 right, for every magistrate, even in a republic, is from 
 God," we might fairly consider that the writer was of a 
 date later than that of Elizabeth or James, because he 
 recognised the then court doctrine of the Right Divine 
 of kings by the very circumstance of going on to explain 
 
io8 On the Text of the 
 
 it away; whereas no such inference could be drawn 
 about the date of the sermon, supposing we merely read 
 in it, " His sacred Majesty reigns in the hearts of his 
 people," or, " All magistrates are ordained by God, and 
 the king is the greatest of them." In like manner 
 the theological statements in the longer edition of St. 
 Ignatius imply in their language, more or less, a con- 
 sciousness of an existing text, such as the shorter, which 
 they are intended to correct or to complete. 
 
 For instance : in the Epistle to the Romans, in the 
 shorter edition, Ignatius salutes the Roman Church " in 
 the Name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father; " in 
 the longer, " in the name of God Almighty and of Jesus 
 Christ His Son." — Init. 
 
 To the Magnesians : in the shorter we read, "Jesus 
 Christ, who was with the Father before the ages, and 
 appeared in the end of time;" in the longer, "who, 
 being begotten with the Father before age (or time) was 
 the Word God, Only-begotten Son, and at the consum- 
 mation of the ages continues the same." — C. 6. 
 
 And the Epistle to the Symrnaeans begins, in the 
 shorter, " I glorify Jesus Christ, our God ; " in the 
 longer, " I glorify the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 And so to the Ephesians: in the shorter, "There is 
 one Physician, fleshly and spiritual, generate and in- 
 generate, God come in flesh, true life in death, from 
 Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible." 
 But in the longer : " Our Physician is the One True God, 
 the Ingenerate and unapproachable, the Lord of all, and 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatms. 109 
 
 Father and Generator of the Only-begotten. Also we 
 have a Physician, our Lord God Jesus Christ, the Only- 
 begotten Son and Word before all ages, and at last man 
 also of Mary the Virgin, for ' the Word became flesh,' 
 the incorporeal in a body, the immortal in a mortal 
 body, the life in corruption," etc., etc. 
 
 Whatever be the force of this second argument, 
 enough has been s5.id without it to show that the longer 
 edition recognises the shorter, and thereby, as I have 
 said, recognises it as the writing of St. Ignatius. 
 
 It becomes of great importance then, I repeat, to as- 
 certain the dale of the longer Epistles ; for at that date, 
 whenever it was, the shorter Epistles were both extant 
 as we have them now, and were considered, at least in 
 certain literary and theological circles, to be genuine. 
 To that inquiry I proceed. 
 
 5- 
 Nor is it a difficult one, if we take the right means for 
 pursuing it. Some critics indeed have recourse to a 
 method highly uncritical, determining the date of the 
 writer by the date of the authors who happen to mention 
 him. If the longer Epistles are first quoted in the sixth 
 or seventh century, that according to them is to be con- 
 sidered about the date at which they were written. On 
 this principle the history of Paterculus must be consi- 
 dered a production of the sixth century, because Priscian, 
 I believe, is the first and only of the ancients who speaks 
 of it. Of course we are sometimes obliged to pursue 
 such unsatisfactory modes of inquiry, because there 
 
no On. the Text of the 
 
 are no other available ; but this is not the case with the 
 longer Epistles ascribed to St. Ignatius : they bear on 
 themselves the evidence of their date, and, though it is 
 always desirable to add external evidence to internal, we 
 have no need to ask of others what we can ascertain for 
 ourselves. 
 
 These Epistles, I have said, are characterised by 
 Arian phrases : let us determine then the date at which 
 Arianism ceased to exist in the East of Christendom, 
 its native seat, and we have the latest date which we 
 can fix for these Epistles. 
 
 First, what was Arianism ? It was the doctrine, that 
 our Lord, though rightly called God, as being the God 
 of the mediatoi-ial system and of the New Covenant, was 
 not the God of the universe ; that He was a being sepa- 
 rate from God, and therefore, though the sublimest of 
 creatures, super-angelic, only-begotten, still necessarily 
 with a beginning of existence, and with the duties of a 
 minister and subject of His Father, not co-eternal and 
 co-equal with Him. To express and maintain this 
 doctrine, they brought together various terms, separately 
 orthodox, and casually used by one or other of the 
 Fathers before them ; in themselves capable of a good 
 sense, but involving a false doctrine in their combination. 
 Now these watchwords of the heresy are found in the 
 longer Epistles, and are sure evidence of the religious 
 opinions of their paraphrast and editor. 
 
 I. For instance : Ingenitus (a7ew7;To?), " Ingenerate," 
 was the philosophical designation of the First Cause, 
 originally perhaps under the notion that all things 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 1 1 1 
 
 emanated from Him as a parent, and He from no one. 
 It was applied by the Arians exclusively to the Father, 
 by way of insinuating that the Son was not eternal. 
 Hence in the passage quoted above, it was predicated of 
 the Father, in contrast to the Son, that He is " the only 
 Trite God, Ingenerate, and Unapproachable." " God of the 
 Universe," or, "Lord of all things," is another specific 
 title of the Father, ^n the Arian Creed, and accordingly 
 the passage in question proceeds, " Unapproachable, Lord 
 of the Universe." In the Epistle to the Philadelphians, 
 c. 4, " There is one Ingenerate, the God and Father ; and 
 one only-begotten Son, the Word God, who is also man." 
 And so in Trail., c. 4, it is made a mark of heresy to hold that 
 "Christ was ingenerate." Vid.alsoMajD'w.,c.7; Smyrn. ,c.S. 
 2. Another mark of Arianism was to insist on " the 
 generation of the Son before all ages," which is of course 
 a revealed truth, but was used by the Arians as a denial 
 of His co-eternity with the Father, the "ages" being 
 creatures of God, priority to which did not involve eternity 
 a parte ante. Again, as generation in their mouths implied 
 a beginning of existence, they preferred to say that our 
 Lord "was begotten before all time," to saying "was 
 before all time." Hence it is, that in another passage 
 above quoted, the larger edition gives, " Jesus Christ, 
 who was begotten before time with the Father, the Word 
 God, the only-begotten Son," etc., while the shorter 
 reads, " who was with the Father before the ages." — 
 Magn., c. 7. And so in like manner Eph., c.i8, in the 
 shorter, runs, " Our God, Jesus Christ, was borne in 
 the womb by Mary, according to the economy of God," 
 
112 On the Text of the 
 
 etc. ; but in the longer, " The Son of God, who was be- 
 gotten before the ages, and has constituted all things by 
 the mind of the Father." 
 
 3. This last clause brings us to another characteristic 
 of the Arian system. It inculcated that our Lord was 
 made by God in order to be His instrument in creating 
 all things, and that He acted according to His Father's 
 will, mind, or design ; whereas the orthodox held that 
 our Lord was Himself the very will, mind, design, Word, 
 and Wisdom of God, and God acted according to His 
 own Mind or Design in acting by Him. Hence, while 
 in the shorter edition Ignatius says to the Ephesians, 
 c. 3, " I exhort you to concur in the mind of God ; for 
 Jesus, our inseparable Life, is the Father's Mind," he is 
 made to say in the longer, " for Jesus Christ does all 
 things according to the mind of the Father." 
 
 4. Another Arianism in the longer Epistles is derived 
 from Philo and the Platonists ; viz., that our Lord is a 
 priest, not as incarnate, but as the Word of God before 
 all ages. In Magn., c. 4, He is spoken of as "the true 
 and first Bishop, and the only Priest by nature ; " whereas 
 Catholics hold that He is Priest by office, as Mediator. 
 So again, ibid., c. 7. " Come together as one man to the 
 Temple of God, as for one Altar, for one Jesus Christ, 
 the High Priest of the Ingenerate God." And in Smyrn., 
 c. g, " Christ Jesus, the First-begotten, and the Father's 
 only Priest by nature." 
 
 5. Another Arianism occurs in Magn. 8, where "His 
 Eternal Word " is omitted, and instead of it is inserted 
 " the generated substance of a divine energy," words 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 1 1 3 
 
 which, after the Nicene Council, were a denial of the 
 " consubstantial." 
 
 6. It was the doctrine of the Arians, ^tius, and 
 Eunomius, a.d. 354, that the Almighty could be per- 
 fectly known and comprehended by us. " God knows 
 not His own substance," they said, " more than we do. 
 What He knows of it, that you will find without any 
 distinction in us." Now the writer of the longer Epistles 
 makes Ignatius say, " Consider those who are heterodox, 
 how they are peremptory in saying that the Father of 
 the Christ cannot be known." — Smyrn., c. 6, perhaps 
 with an allusion to Acts xvii. 23. 
 
 7. Lastly, in the longer edition there seems to be a 
 denial of our Lord's human soul, another doctrine of 
 Arianism. The writer says, " He assumed a body." — 
 Trail., c. g. " Truly Mary gave birth to a body, which 
 had God for its inhabitant." — Ibid., c. 10. " He made 
 Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin." — Ibid., vid. 
 also Smyrn., c. 2, and Phil., c. 6, where the writer seems 
 to appropriate to himself the proposition " The God 
 Word dwells in a human body. He the Word being in 
 it, as a soul embodied, because that God, and not a 
 human soul, dwells in it." 
 
 I should not have thought it necessary thus formally 
 to draw out the proof of what seems to me so plain on 
 the surface of the longer Epistles, had not great autho- 
 rities disputed the fact. Such is Cardinal Baronius, 
 who living before the discovery of the shorter Epistles, 
 believed that the longer were written by St. Ignatius. 
 "Ignatii esse germanas, easdemque sincerissimas, nemo 
 
114 On the Text of the 
 
 jure potest dubitare." Still more remarkable is the judg- 
 ment of Father Morinus, who, writing after the discovery 
 of the shorter edition, not only doubts of its genuineness 
 (which is quite explicable), but actually prefers the 
 larger to it ; " Antiqua Ignatiarum Epistolarum editio," 
 he says, " genuinum textum nobis exhibet, nova vero 
 mancum et interpolatum." — Apud Pearson. There are 
 cases where conclusions are imperious, and the most 
 authoritative denial of them goes for nothing ; such is 
 that of the spuriousness of the longer edition. 
 
 But if, as is very clear, the longer edition is the work 
 of Arian hands, we can determine at once its date. Arian- 
 ism, more than other great heresies, is circumscribed and 
 known in its duration. It had a hold upon the Eastern 
 Church and the Greek language from the beginning to 
 the end of the fourth century. It is not known there, in 
 idea or in phraseology, before the second decade of that 
 century, and it came to an end with the end of it. The 
 longer Epistles then are the production of that century ;. 
 and probably about the year 354,^ for then it was, accord- 
 ing to Athanasius, that the Arians began to appeal to 
 the Fathers, (note on the author's "Arians," i., 3 fin.). 
 The shorter Epistles therefore were in existence in the 
 middle of the fourth century, and were received, at least 
 in some places, as the genuine work of St. Ignatius, that 
 is, received as such only fourteen years after the death 
 
 ^ In the title of the longer Epistles, Ignatius iacalled Bishop of " Antioch 
 Theopolis." As this title was given to Antioch under the reign of 
 Justinian, the existing MS. of the longer Epistles must have been made 
 from a copy not earlier than that date. 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 1 1 5 
 
 of Eusebius. They easily might be, and perhaps were, 
 superseded by the longer, in the course of time, in cen- 
 turies during which criticism was unknown as a science, 
 and the peculiarities of a dead heresy forgotten. 
 
 6. 
 
 There are good reasons then for considering that the 
 short Epistles, substantially as we have them, were ex- 
 tant, and received as genuine, at least in the first half 
 of the fourth century. This I have argued from the 
 testimony borne to them by the paraphrastic edition of 
 them which was made in the middle of it ; now let us see 
 whether any other testimonj' is producible in their behalf. 
 
 Eusebius, writing in the first years of the fourth cen- 
 tury, enumerates Ignatius's seven Epistles, and quotes 
 passages from them. He seems to have known them 
 well ; and those which he knew so well, evidently were re- 
 ceived by him as genuine, and undoubtedly were genuine, 
 for he was too learned a man to be deceived in this 
 matter. And there was this guarantee of their genuine- 
 ness, special to them, that upon Ignatius's martyrdom, 
 St. Polycarp collected together those which he could 
 obtain, and sent them to the Church of Philippi, with 
 a letter, still extant, in which he stated what he was 
 doing. Polycarp was martyred in (say) A.D. 166 ; 
 Eusebius was born about a.d. 264, leaving an interval 
 between the two of about a hundred years for a forgery. 
 Eusebius knew nothing of garbled copies of them. We 
 must reasonably believe then that those Epistles of which 
 he spoke were copies, substantially faithful, of what 
 
1 1 6 On the Text of the 
 
 Ignatius really wrote and Polycarp edited. Moreover, 
 in that interval references are made to them by Irenseus 
 (a.d. i8o), and Origen (a.d. 230), those references being 
 found in the text of the short Epistles. And the question 
 is whether the Epistles which we now have, as they stand 
 in the shorter edition, guaranteed as they are by the longer 
 and interpolated, are those true ones of which Eusebius 
 speaks, and from which Irena;us and Origen quote, or 
 whether in the thirty or forty years between Eusebius 
 and the Arian interpolator, orthodox garblings had been 
 made in the Epistles, and those so skilful as to deceive 
 the interpolator, himself an adept and a judge in forgeries, 
 into the persuasion that the work, which he thought it 
 important to deface with Arianisms, was the genuine 
 work of the primitive martyr. Such a supposition has 
 been actually made and defended ; viz., that, as the 
 editor of the longer edition, after (say) 354, encrusted the 
 shorter with Arianisms, so the editor of the shorter had 
 already, before 354, made insertions in favour of ortho- 
 doxy, in the original document, such as Eusebius pos- 
 sessed it forty years before, and that the brief Syriac 
 text of the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, as 
 lately discovered, is the veiy and only text, which Euse- 
 bius had in his hands, and which Ignatius wrote. 
 
 Let this hypothesis be a reserved point, on which I 
 will speak presently ; meanwhile, as I am here gathering 
 together the external evidence in favour of the genuine- 
 ness of the shorter edition, I add, first, that Athanasius, 
 writing in 359, quotes an important passage from the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, as it stands, not of course in 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 1 1 7 
 
 the longer, but neither as in the Syriac (for it is omitted 
 there), but as we now find it in the shorter, without 
 any suspicion of its not being the genuine writing of 
 Ignatius. 
 
 Nor is Athanasius the only post-Nicene Father who 
 thus bears witness to the genuineness of the shorter 
 Epistles. Passages are quoted as Ignatius's, by Chry- 
 sostom one, by Jerome two, by Theodoret nine ; and all 
 are found in the shorter Epistles, none of them agreeing 
 (at least in their doctrinal expressions) with the longer, 
 which those Fathers either did not know of, or simply 
 put aside as one out of various forgeries, of which the 
 Arians had the discredit. 
 
 It may be added that Dr. Cureton has published be- 
 tween twenty and thirty extracts from Ignatius's Epistles 
 as in the works of Syrian theologians, all of which are 
 found in the short Epistles, not in the longer, not in the 
 Syriac Epistles. 
 
 These Epistles then, substantially such as they are 
 found in their short Medicean and Colbertine form, had 
 possession of the Eastern Church, as if really written 
 by Ignatius, from 359, twenty years after the death of 
 Eusebius ; again, the real Epistles of St. Ignatius were 
 extant, and known to ecclesiastical writers from the time 
 of Polycarp to that of Eusebius' history ; and the sole 
 question, I repeat, is whether those which were received 
 as genuine from the year 354 or 359, and which we 
 have now, the shorter Epistles, were those genuine ones 
 which Eusebius used in his History a.d. 310, and which 
 Polycarp had edited ; — that is, whether there was a sub- 
 
1 1 8 On the Text of the 
 
 stitution or an extensive garbling and depravation of 
 them, in the interest of orthodoxy, in the first half of 
 the fourth century, between 310 and 354 or 359. To 
 this question I now direct my attention. 
 
 7- 
 
 The question to be answered is this, whether the seven 
 Epistles, as they were found in the shorter edition, and 
 were received as St. Ignatius's by the interpolating Arians 
 in the fourth century, and by Athanasius, Jerome, and 
 Theodoret, are substantially those very Epistles which 
 the holy martyr, going to martyrdom, actually wrote ; or, 
 on the other hand, are forged, garbled, and corrupted by 
 the orthodox, and in no true sense his writing. And 
 the obvious mode of answering it, is, as in the case of 
 the longer and Arianised edition, by a reference to the 
 internal characters which the short Epistles present to 
 our notice. 
 
 It is not at all easy to succeed in a forgery, or in 
 altering and garbling on a large scale. A man must 
 have much acuteness, much learning, and much wariness 
 to carry through such an enterprise without detection. 
 At least he must be very clever and very ingenious, to 
 be able to maintain the genuineness of a spurious docu- 
 ment, against the criticism of a learned and inquisitive 
 age. In such a composition we may be certain there 
 will be blots of some kind or other, doctrinal incongrui- 
 ties, confusion of times or persons, or mis-statement of 
 facts, which extraordinary astuteness cannot altogether 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatuis. 1 1 9 
 
 guard against, which ordinary sharpness will be sure to 
 detect. 
 
 The authors and the champions of supposititious works 
 in ancient times do not seem to have been alive to this ; 
 — they were not commonly learned or able men, and in 
 consequence their detection at the present time is easy. 
 Nor, at first sight, is there any reason why the inter- 
 polator of these shorter Epistles, if they are interpolated, 
 should be better provided for his task than his fellows. 
 The works, for instance, attributed to the Areopagite, 
 have been rightly rejected as spurious, not to say heretical, 
 in spite of the sanction of ages, as soon as a sufficient 
 knowledge of theology was brought to bear upon them. 
 So again as regards certain works attributed to Dionysius 
 of Alexandria, to Hippolytus, and to Methodius ; these 
 have been received as genuine by great divines, but that 
 was only till the history of dogma and of the rites and 
 discipline of the Church was properly studied. Let us 
 see then how much can be brought from the learning of 
 this day against the short Epistles, as they are contained 
 in the Medicean and Colbertine MSS. 
 
 It has been imagined, as I have said, that, as interpo- 
 lations in an Arian sense were made during the Arian 
 controversy, by the Arian party, so prior interpolations 
 were made by the orthodox during the same controversy 
 on the side of oi'thodoxy, and that the shorter Epistles 
 represent these orthodox corrections and additions. More- 
 over, this was done, as it would seem, in the interval be- 
 tween Eusebius and the Arian interpolators, so that up to 
 Eusebius (say) a.d. 310 the real Ignatius would have 
 
1 20 On the Text of the 
 
 held his ground, and that after (say) a.d. 354 or 359 
 down to the present time, the world has had nothing 
 better than first the orthodox or Nicene Ignatius, and 
 then the Arian Ignatius following close upon the ortho- 
 dox, neither of them the real Ignatius. Let us see if 
 this hypothesis will stand. 
 
 I. We know the Arian Ignatius, by the definite Arian- 
 isms which are found in the longer edition, as I have 
 shown above, such as '' before all worlds," " ingenerate," 
 " God of the universe," etc. ; now are there any parallel 
 (what may be called) Athanasianisms in the shorter edi- 
 tion, which may be evidence of an orthodoxised Ignatius? 
 I will venture to say there are none at all. The chief 
 mark of Nicene orthodoxy is the word " consubstantial " 
 (homoiision) ; does this term occur in the shorter Epistles? 
 It does occur in the spurious Areopagite, in the spurious 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, in the spurious Methodius ; it 
 does not occur in these shorter Epistles. Another Nicene 
 symbol is " from the substance ; " the Arians introduce "a 
 generated substance " into the longer Epistles, but " from 
 the substance " is not in the shorter. Another mark of 
 the Nicene era is the use of the word hypostasis, or 
 Person ; this again is found in the pseudo-Areopagite, 
 but not in the shorter Epistles. That animus then of 
 partisanship, which we find in the language of the longer 
 Epistles on the Arian side, is wanting in the shorter 
 Epistles in favour of orthodoxy. 
 
 2. What was still more likely than the introduction of 
 the orthodox symbols, was some expressions in repro- 
 bation, direct or indirect, of the formal Arian symbols 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 1 2 1 
 
 condemned in the creed of Nicata; but not a word is 
 to be found levelled against " those poisonous shoots of 
 the evil one," as a forger might have made Ignatius say, 
 who assert that the Son of God was "out of nothing," 
 or " of another substance not divine," or " once He was 
 not," or " was of an alterable nature." Just those 
 heresies are mentioned which were in existence at the 
 end of the first century, and no other. It was playing 
 with edged tools in an impostor thus to manipulate 
 heresies, at a day when little or anything was known of 
 the history of heresies, their authors, tenets, localities, 
 fortunes, and duration ; he might escape detection in the 
 fourth century, but he would not escape detection now, 
 if there was anything to detect. 
 
 3. One passage indeed there is, anti-Arian in doctrine, 
 though not in its phraseology, which furnishes a good 
 instance of the maxim " exceptio probat regulam." A 
 serious controversy has long been carried on upon the 
 words " not proceeding from Silence (Sige)" in the shorter 
 edition in Magn., c. 8, predicated of " the Eternal Word " 
 by the writer, in the sense that He was not like human 
 voices, an utterance breaking in upon a state of stillness, 
 but one that had no beginning. The larger edition simply 
 leaves the passage out, and naturally, for its doctrine is 
 inconsistent with Arianism ; but its presence in the shorter 
 has been noted as a sign that, whereas Sige was one of 
 the Valentinian ^ons, therefore the author wrote after the 
 rise of Valentinus, that is, after the date of Ignatius. This 
 was the only point discoverable in the text of the shorter 
 Epistleswhich really had to be reconciled with themainte- 
 
 9 
 
1 2 2 On the Text of the 
 
 nance of their genuineness. " Illud non negavei'im," says 
 Voss, "si locus hie sit sanus, et hsec desumpta sint ex 
 hseresi Valentiniana, actum videri de EpistoHs Ignatianis." 
 Accordingly Pearson devotes as many as forty-six folio 
 columns of his great work to solve the apparent difficulty, at 
 the end of v^^hich he says, " Quatuor assertiones attuli,omnes 
 exploratse veritatis, ita tamen comparatse, ut si vel una 
 earum vera sit, ea unica omnem argumenti adversariorum 
 vim elidat". — P. 390. And after Pearson, Bull devotes 
 another series of twenty columns to complete the ex- 
 planation. In our time the difficulty has solved itself; 
 and consistently with the arguments of those Anglican 
 divines. From the newly discovered work on Heresies, 
 commonly attributed to Hippolytus, we find that, before 
 Valentinus, the doctrine of Sige was taught by Simon 
 Magus and Menander, in the first century, that is, prior 
 to the date when St. Ignatius wrote his Epistles. Accord- 
 ingly, M. Bunsen, a fierce adversary, of course, of the 
 genuineness of the shorter Epistles, says candidly, "We 
 must certainly ascribe to pure Simonianism, that is, to 
 the Simonian heresy unmixed with Valentiriianism, the 
 system of Gnostic evolutions, of which Sige, Silence, is 
 a primitive element. . . . Ignatius, who certainly may 
 have read 'the Great Announcement' [of Menander] as 
 well as he read St. John, might have alluded to it in a 
 letter to the Magnesians, if he ever wrote it." — HippoL, 
 vol. i., p. 356. 
 
 4. It may be objected that the strong and abrupt asser- 
 tions of our Lord's divinity have the appearance of being 
 directed against Arianism ; as when the writer speaks of 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 123 
 
 " the Blood of God " {Eph. c. i, Rom. c. 7), and of " Jesus 
 Christ our God, conceived in the womb of Mary" {ibid. 
 c. 18, Smyrn. c. i-io, Rom. init. c. 3). But it must be 
 recollected that the Arians freely gave our Lord the divine 
 name and authority, and made a boast of doing so, as we 
 see by the longer Epistles (vid. Eph. 7, 19, Trail, g, Rom. 
 init. 6, Phil. c. 6, Smyrn. c. 3, Pol. c. 3, etc.) ; it is la 
 Croze's notion that even " theotocos " is of Arian origin ; 
 while doing this they reserved the high prerogatives of 
 being " God of the Universe," " Ingenerate," " Self-exist- 
 ing," " Eternal," to the Father. As to the abruptness, or 
 harshness, of the language in which the shorter Epistles 
 ascribe divinity to our Lord, it is only what occurs 
 again and again in Scripture, if Middleton's canons are 
 well founded— vid. Eph. v. 5, 2 Thess. i. 12, Tit. ii. 13, 
 2 Pet. i. I, Jud. 4. 
 
 5. So much on the theology of the shorter Epistles ; 
 as to the emphatic language in which they enforce the 
 episcopal rule, startling as it is at first sight, it admits 
 of an easy explanation. It must be recollected that 
 Ignatius witnessed and took part in the establishment of 
 diocesan Episcopacy, and in consequence it is as natural 
 that his letters should be full of it at the date when they 
 were written, as that Pastorals now should insist on the 
 Immaculate Conception, or protest against mixed educa- 
 tion. It was the subject of the day. Hitherto Bishops 
 often lived in community, the Apostles exercising a 
 jurisdiction over the whole Church. As time went on, 
 local jurisdiction came into use. In his last years St. 
 Paul placed local ordinaries in Crete and Ephesus, and 
 
124 On the Text of the 
 
 St. John in other cities of Asia Minor, if the seven 
 Angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse are Bishops. 
 He too was now gone, and doubtless the loss of an 
 apostolic presence would at first be grievously felt in 
 the neighbourhoods which had hitherto been blessed 
 with it. The Greek cities of Asia Minor, in consequence, 
 would be the very places above others where a reaction- 
 ary disorder was most likely to show itself. Even he, 
 at the end of life, had found the prestige of his name 
 insufficient to cope with the self-will of Diotrephes. He 
 left to his successors a double conflict ; as against the 
 Ebionite and Gnostic heretics in defence of the Incar- 
 nation, so against the opponents of ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline. And of these two tasks the latter was the more 
 arduous, for it was not so much the enforcement of a 
 tradition, as the carrying out of a development. Hence 
 it is that Ignatius appeals to his own authority, and 
 claims a divine mission in enforcing the claims of the 
 hierarchy. " I cried out, while I was with you," he 
 writes to the Philadelphians, " I spake with a loud voice, 
 ' Give heed to the Bishop, to the Presbytery, and the 
 Deacons.' Now some suspected that I spoke this as 
 knowing beforehand the division of some. But He is 
 my witness, for whom I am in bonds, that I knew it not 
 from flesh of man ; but the Spirit proclaimed, saying, 
 ' Apart from the Bishop do nothing,' " etc.— Phil., c. 7. 
 Here the well-known words of St. Jerome are in point. 
 "Presbyter and Bishop," he says, "are the same; and 
 ere yet, at the instigation of the devil, there were 
 parties in religion, and it was said among the people, 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 125 
 
 ' I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' the 
 Church was governed by the common counsel of Pres- 
 byters ; but when each began to account his converts 
 as his own people, and not Christ's, then it was decreed 
 through the whole world that one of the Presbyters 
 should be elected and put over the rest, to whom the 
 whole care of the Church should belong, and that thus 
 the elements of sdhism should be removed." ' 
 
 6. While speaking of the internal character of the 
 shorter Epistles, I will make an additional remark on a 
 point of some obscurity, though on the whole corro- 
 borative, of their genuineness. Ignatius writes in them 
 to six Churches — five of them are Eastern. He warns 
 each of them against heretics, and exhorts them to 
 unity ; sometimes even he mentions by name the Bishop 
 of the Church which he is addressing, and in every case 
 commends him to its obedience. But in the case of 
 the sixth, the Roman Church, he does nothing of the 
 kind. He does not say a word about heresy or schism ; 
 he does not refer to its Bishop, or take him (as it were) 
 under his wing. He hardly does more than ask the 
 Romans for their pi-ayers, and he entreats them not to 
 interpose and to prevent his martyrdom. Instead of 
 exhorting them, as he does the other Churches, he says, 
 " I make no commands to you, as though / were Peter 
 and Paul ; " and he salutes them as " the Church, which 
 has in dignity the first seat of the city of the Romans, 
 all-godly, all-gracious, all-blessed," etc., passages which 
 
 1 Ad Tit. i. 5. 
 
126 On the Text of the 
 
 remind us of St. Irenseus's well-known reference to the 
 " greatest, most ancient, most conspicuous Church 
 founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glo- 
 rious Apostles Peter and Paul," and to its "potentior" 
 or " potior " " principalitas ". 
 
 How is all this to be accounted for ? We evidently 
 find the writer in a different position of mind, when he 
 addresses the Roman Church, from that in which he 
 addresses others. Would any one so write in the fourth 
 century? At that time there were serious jealousies 
 between Rome and the East, the continuation of those 
 which show themselves in earlier centuries in the history 
 of Polycrates, Firmilian, and Dionysius. A partisan of 
 Rome in the fourth century would not have been so 
 indirect and implicit in his deference to that Church, but 
 would have introduced the doctrine of Roman supremacy 
 with the energy of the contemporary Popes. And an 
 Oriental, however orthodox, would together with St. 
 Basil have been sore at their supercilious indifference, 
 or, with St. Meletius, at their interference in the dioceses 
 of Asia. 
 
 So much at first sight ; Pearson, however, reviews 
 the internal characters of the shorter Epistles more care- 
 fully, and I will translate some of his remarks. 
 
 " It is simply incredible," he says, " that an impostor, 
 who lived at the end of the third or beginning of the 
 fourth century, should forge Epistles for Ignatius, with- 
 out betraying himself by some peculiarity or other of 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 127 
 
 his own age, without allusion to any post-Ignatian rite 
 whatever, or later heresy, or any teaching alien to the 
 mind of the Apostles, or any doctrine borrowed from 
 the schools of Plato, which others were so prompt in 
 professing, or any departure from primitive simplicity — 
 Epistles, on the contrary, which correspond so uniformly 
 to what might be expected of so great a martyr, and 
 which bring out "so vividly the tokens of his spiritual 
 gifts. I say emphatically, that there is nothing dis- 
 coverable in these Epistles, known to Eusebius, which 
 savours of the age suggested by Daille, or by Blondel, 
 or by Salmasius ; nothing of the then existing heresies, 
 nothing of manners or institutions of Christians, then 
 materially changed from what they had been, or of later 
 rites, or ecclesiastical usages, such as led to the detec- 
 tion of the pretended Areopagite. On the contrary, 
 everything in them is strictly conformable to the age 
 immediately following the Apostolic, and very different 
 
 from an impostor's age 
 
 " As to Bishops, he calls them simply by the name of 
 their office or order ; he gives them no extraordinary 
 title ; not that of ' high priests,' ' priests,' or ' rulers,' as 
 they were afterwards called. (The ' Priests ' in the 
 Epistle to the Philadelphians are, he says, Jewish priests, 
 p. 414.) Nor does Ignatius make mention of episcopal 
 throne, of ordination, election, or succession, of pre- 
 rogatives of particular sees, or of appeal to any particular 
 Church to the exclusion of other Churches, or of precepts 
 of obedience, except indeed such as were necessary to 
 avoid schism, and to preserve unity. He does not lower 
 
128 On the Text of the 
 
 Presbyters, but always associates them with Bishops, 
 declares their dignity and authority, and gives them the 
 most honourable titles. He touches upon no heresies, 
 but those of Ebion and the Docetse, which, as Theodoret, 
 Jerome, and Epiphanius teach us, were actually pre- 
 valent in Asia in Ignatius's day 
 
 " He teaches nothing about festivals, or stated times 
 of fasting, or of the mode of celebrating Easter, or of 
 the observance of Pentecost or the Sabbath, or of any 
 other rite of which the antiquity is controverted. Such 
 are of frequent occurrence both in the interpolated 
 Epistles, and in the other spurious ones — not in these. 
 Moreover, he speaks of gifts as then ordinarily found in 
 the Church, and of the Holy Ghost speaking sometimes 
 to the writer, which later writers are not accustomed to 
 do. He is very sparing in his quotations from Scripture. 
 He everywhere follows St. Paul's Epistles, which were 
 from the first freely received by all the Churches ; but 
 he quotes the Gospels rarely, which were received and 
 discriminated from spurious writings at a later date, 
 while in the second and third century they were in 
 common use among ecclesiastical writers. 
 
 " Moreover, the style of these Epistles is one of the 
 most striking evidences of their primitive origin. There 
 is nothing from foreign sources, from Gentile learning ; 
 whereas later writers introduced into Christian teaching 
 the sentiments, not to say the dogmas, of the Greeks." — 
 Vind. Ign., pp. 358-360. 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 129 
 
 Such being the general state of the evidence, external 
 and internal, in behalf of the genuineness of the shorter 
 or Medicean, Greek text of St. Ignatius's Epistles, we 
 are brought at length to the question which has led to 
 the foregoing remarks, and which, after those remarks, 
 is not difficult to Setermine ; viz., how far that text is 
 compromised by the still shorter Syriac text, which has 
 been lately found, of three out of the seven Epistles which 
 were known to Eusebius. I answer as follows : 
 
 I. Three out of the seven Epistles have been found 
 among the Nitrian MSS. — viz., in MS. ii. (Cureton) those 
 to Polycarp, to the Romans, and to the Ephesians ; again 
 in MS. i. the Epistle to Polycarp. Now we cannot fairly 
 argue, as some have argued, from the fact of there being 
 in MS. ii. only three Epistles, that therefore the remain- 
 ing four named by Eusebius, (to the Magnesians, to the 
 Trallians, to the Smyrnaeans, and to the Philadelphians,) 
 were not written by Ignatius, or have been lost, and that 
 the Medicean Greek of them is spurious ; for, if the Medi- 
 cean MS. is not to be trusted because it contains four 
 Epistles which are not in the Nitrian MS. ii., then the 
 Nitrian MS. ii. is not to be trusted, because it contains 
 two Epistles which are not in the Nitrian MS. i. Ig- 
 natius's Epistles then remain seven as far as the Nitrian 
 MSS. are concerned, for the simple reason that those 
 MSS. cannot destroy the authority of the Medicean on 
 that point, without at the same time implicitly destroy- 
 ing their own. 
 
130 On the Text of the 
 
 2. Again : there are .two copies in the Syriac of the 
 Epistle to Polycarp, and they agree together in their text. 
 This agreement of two MSS. may seem formidable to the 
 solitary Medicean Greek; — so it would be supposing the 
 Greek materially differed from them ; but it so happens 
 that its text, except in a few words, is identical with the 
 text of the Syriac. Thus, in the only instance in which 
 the Syi"iac text seems to have authority as being that of 
 two independent MSS., it does but confirm the trust- 
 worthiness of the Medicean Greek. 
 
 3. Further : in those cases, on the other hand, in which 
 the Syriac edition differs from the Greek, viz., as regards 
 the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, in which 
 it omits passages contained in the Greek, in those 
 cases it differs also from other Syriac editions, not 
 indeed extant, or known to be extant, but which appear 
 once to have existed, because extracts are made from them 
 by writers whose works are contained in Syriac in these 
 same Nitrian MSS. These writers, viz., Severus, Timo- 
 theus, and others, quote Ignatius as he stands in the Medi- 
 cean Greek, not as in the Nitrian Syriac. For instance, 
 the celebrated passage in Ephes. c. 7 : " There is one Phy- 
 sician," as is quoted above, p. 108, which is garbled in the 
 longer or Arian Epistles, pp. 108, log, and omitted in the 
 Syriac, is found, just as in the Medicean MS., in the 
 Monophysite work, in MS. vi., and in the work against 
 Julian, MS. viii., and in MS. ix. Again, the striking 
 passage from the same Epistle, contained in the Medi- 
 cean, " Our God, Jesus the Christ," etc., c. 18, vid. 
 supr. p. Ill, which is omitted in the Nitrian text, is 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 131 
 
 contained in the MS. v. Again : " Suffer me to copy 
 the Passion of my God," contained in the Medicean 
 {Rom. c. 6), omitted in the Nitrian, is quoted by Severus 
 in MS. i., by Timotheus in MS. v., and by the anony- 
 mous writer in MS. vii. And further : in these and 
 other Syriac MSS., as was implied above, p. 117, pas- 
 sages are quoted from the Epistles to the Magnesians, 
 Trallians, Smyrnseans, and Philadelphians, showing that 
 all seven, and (as far as the quotations go) all of them 
 as in the Medicean text, musthave been at one time extant 
 in Syriac, perhaps are extant still, though, as yet, only 
 three have been discovered in that language. 
 
 4. Moreover, as was said above, Athanasius, Jerome, 
 and Theodoi-et, as well as the above Monophysite writers 
 in Syriac, when they quote Ignatius, quote him as we 
 read him in the Medicean Greek ; instead of favouring the 
 Nitrian version of him. 
 
 5. Nor were the Arians acquainted with the Nitrian 
 Ignatius any better than Athanasius and the other 
 Catholics, or than Severus, Timotheus, and the Mono- 
 physites ; — else why did not the interpolator use the 
 Nitrian ? Why the Medicean ? He creates for himself 
 a superfluous difficulty, in selecting the Medicean text for 
 the basis of his edition. It would have been a far easier 
 task to garble the Nitrian text, which has less specially 
 doctrinal in it, than to alter and deform the Medicean, 
 which has much ; yet he follows the Medicean. 
 
 6. Moreover, Eusebius and Jerome both inform us, that 
 Ignatius wrote his Epistles to warn his brethren " against 
 the heresies, which were springing up and prevailing.". — 
 
1 3 2 On the Text of the 
 
 Eus. Hist. iii. 36. Now there is hardly one allusion to 
 false doctrine in the Syriac ; whereas there is much on the 
 subject in the Medicean. The Syriac textthen was not the 
 same as that which Eusebius and Jerome knew ; on the 
 other hand, the Medicean does answer to it. 
 
 7. Such then is at present the position of the Nitrian 
 MSS. of St. Ignatius. They are without history, without 
 vouchers, without location, without con-elations ; they do 
 not tell their own tale, and there is no one to tell their 
 tale for them. 
 
 10. 
 
 If, under the circumstances, I am called to do so 
 hypothetically, I should observe as follows : — Nothing, as 
 we all know, is more common in literature, than for an 
 author to introduce into his work large extracts from 
 the works of others. This is the very characteristic of 
 literary history, as we see in Athenaeus, Eusebius, and 
 Photius in ancient times, and in Assemanni's Bibliotheca 
 Orientalis, or Bayle's Dictionary in modern. Such works 
 not only embody large fragments of former writers, but 
 often are the very instruments by which those fragments 
 are conveyed and authenticated to later times. Some- 
 times these are appended to some abstract of the whole to 
 which the}' belong ; sometimes they are such as to hang 
 together as a whole ; sometimes they have with them the 
 opening prefaces or salutations and the formal termina- 
 tions which belong to them. Then, as time goes on, if 
 it is worth while, those passages which are ascribed to 
 one and the same author are brought together from the 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 133 
 
 various works in which they have been preserved, and 
 are edited as his "opera quae supersunt." Lectionaries 
 and Catenas are similar receptacles of such large por- 
 tions of ancient works. Such again in modern times 
 are those selections, which are commonly entitled the 
 " spirit," or the " beauties," the " wit and wisdom " of 
 some popular or valuable writer. Sometimes, on the 
 other hand, such qpllections are fortuitous. Before the 
 use of printing, the industrious transcriber went on copy- 
 ing whatever came to hand, not on any logical principle, 
 but in order anyhow to preserve what otherwise would 
 be lost. Thus No. ii. of these Nitrian MSS. begins 
 with an anonymous fragment of a letter of consolation 
 on the death of a child, — then come the three fragmen- 
 tary Epistles of St. Ignatius, — and afterwards a letter 
 of St. Gregory Nazianzen, sermons of Mar Jacob, and 
 other writings, 
 
 This being borne in mind, it is not unnatural to con- 
 jecture that the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians 
 in the extant MS. were taken as they stood in some 
 lectionary or other collection of ecclesiastical authors. 
 Their headings were preserved on principle, in the books 
 from which they were copied ; as now in the Catholic 
 Church, though only small portions of Prophets and 
 Apostles are found in the Breviary, never are the titles 
 and opening words omitted, whether in the Ordo de 
 Tempore itself, or in its actual recitation. 
 
 In like manner, though Eusebius does not extract the 
 whole of the celebrated Letter of the Gallic Churches 
 concerning their martyrs in a.d. 177, still he gives the 
 
134 On the Text of the 
 
 formal heading. And so in his quotation from the 
 work of Apollinaris against the Cataphrygians, and 
 from the Letter of the Antiochene Council against Paul 
 of Samosata, Hist., v. i. i6, vii. 30. Thus it is that I 
 would account for the preservation of the initial saluta- 
 tions in the Nitrian text of Ignatius. As to the absence 
 of any decided internal indications of its fragmentary , 
 character, this might be admitted to be a difficulty, 
 were not the holy Bishop's style abrupt and sententious 
 in the Medicean also ; and it is scarcely possible to say 
 what is completeness and what is not, in compositions 
 which are neither argumentative nor narrative in their 
 character. 
 
 Pearson's proof then of the genuineness of the Medi- 
 cean text of St. Ignatius's Epistles does not seem to me 
 to be affected by the discovery in our day of the Nitrian 
 MSS. In saying this, of course I am contending, as 
 Pearson contended, for its substantial genuineness, not 
 for the fidelity of every word or clause in it. 
 
 Postscript. 
 
 The above remarks upon the genuineness of the Igna- 
 tian Epistles have been drawn up from notes which I 
 made as long ago as the year 1828, except, of course, 
 the first and last portions, which are on the subject of 
 the Syriac text of the three which were published in 
 1845 by Dr. Cureton. 
 
 Since finishing them for the press, I have read the 
 observations on Dr. Cureton's discovery by the learned Dr. 
 
Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 135 
 
 Hefele, now Bishop of Rotenburg, in the Prolegomena 
 to his edition of the ApostoHcal Fathers. 
 
 He confirms what I have myself suggested in explana- 
 tion of the Syriac text, as it stands in the Nitrian MSS., 
 maintaining it to be " non nisi epitomen Ignatiarum epis- 
 tolarum a monacho quodam Syriaco in proprios usus 
 pios seu asceticos confectam." — Ixi. Also, in direct 
 opposition to Dr. Qureton, he insists that the continuity 
 of context is less close in the Syriac than in the Greek, 
 referring in proof to as many as thirteen passages in the 
 three Epistles. The apparent argument from Dr. 
 Cureton's new (third) MS. he meets by considering it 
 of one family with the former two. He refers, moreover, 
 to an Armenian version published by Dr. Petermann in 
 1849, which on the whole agrees with the Medicean, 
 but was made, as the latter considers, from the true 
 -Syiiac, not a fragmentary edition, such as Dr. Cureton's, 
 but from a translation of the whole and complete Greek, 
 such as the Medicean represents. The learned writers 
 Denzinger and Uhlhorn, the latter a Lutheran, have 
 written powerfully on the same side. 
 
III. 
 
 CAUSES OF THE RISE AND SUCCESSES 
 OF ARIANISM. 
 
 {February, 1872.) 
 
 10 
 
CAUSES OF ARIANISM. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 I. Circumstances of the time . . . . . . . .141 
 
 i. Tradition of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity . . . 149 
 
 3. The Tradition how far complete 158 
 
 4. The Tradition how far incomplete ...... 164 
 
 5. First, the Principatus of the Father 167 
 
 6. Its uses in spite of its abuse 180 
 
 7. Secondly, the Syncatabasis of the Son 192 
 
 8. The Temporal Procession 196 
 
 9. The Primogenitus 199 
 
 10. Unadvisable terms or phrases on the subject . . . 208 
 
 11. Thirdly, the Temporal Gennesis 227 
 
 12. The Alexandrian School 237 
 
 13. The Asiatic Writers . . 242 
 
 14. The Western Writers .... .... 265 
 
 15. Conclusion 298 
 
 (139) 
 
CAUSES OF THE RISE AND SUCCESSES OF 
 ARIANISM. 
 
 § I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIME FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 SUCCESS OF THE HERESY. 
 
 ON reading the history of Arianism the question 
 naturally suggests itself how it came to start 
 into existence so suddenly, and to spread with such 
 rapidity. And a sadder reflection occurs to the 
 Catholic student, as if the Christian body, so long 
 and variously tried by persecution, deserved or pi-omised 
 better, than that its new prosperity should be marred by 
 so deadly a heresy, and that, in every part of the orbis ter- 
 rarum, conterminously with the Church herself. It was 
 not so with other heresies; Sabellianism,Novatianism,and 
 Pelagianism were at least as plausible systems of doctrine, 
 and had as able teachers ; but they had no great historical 
 career, as Arianism had. In " The Arians of the Fourth 
 Century " I did not attempt any solution of this difficulty, 
 though I was not ignorant of the works of Mosheim and 
 
 (141) 
 
142 Causes of the Rise and 
 
 other learned Germans, who had taken the subject in hand. 
 Here I propose to inquire into it ; and, in doing so, I shall 
 at the same time be virtually satisfying an engagement, 
 to which I pledged myself long ago, and which I have 
 never been able to fulfil, viz., to draw up some sort of 
 introduction to the Treatises of Athanasius which I trans- 
 lated for the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and in the 
 course of which the Four Dissertations occur in English, 
 with which I have commenced my present Volume. I 
 shall not be saying much that has not been said before, but 
 I shall be saying it in my own way. 
 
 Now first of all, before entering upon the real doctrinal 
 difficulty, let it be observed, that the long and stubborn 
 struggle in the Empire for and against Arianism, which 
 is so deplorable a phenomenon in the midst of the con- 
 temporaneous triumph of Christianity over Paganism, is 
 nothing less than one passage in the history of the per- 
 petual conflict, which ever has been waged, and which ever 
 will be waged, between the Church and the secular power; 
 and was that particular stage of it, which followed in 
 natural course on the termination of the persecutions — 
 the secular power, when foiled in its efforts to subdue the 
 Church from without, next attempting, by entering her 
 pale, to master her from within. It was a new thing in 
 Greece and Rome that religion should be independent 
 of state authority, and the same principle of Government 
 which led the emperors to denounce Christianity, while 
 they were pagans, led them to dictate to its bishops, when 
 they had become Christians. Accordingly, a second con- 
 
Successes of Ariamsnt. 143 
 
 flict was inevitable, whatever might be the shape which 
 it assumed, or the issue upon which it turned. In any 
 case it would be fierce and world-wide. 
 
 Next, that it would be a doctrinal controversy, and on 
 one or other of the highest points of theology, nay, and 
 relating to the Object of worship, was probable from the 
 history of the preceding centuries. Christianity was not 
 a mere sentiment or opinion ; it was a faith. Its Founder 
 said that He came " to bear witness to the Truth." St. 
 Paul bids us " keep the deposit ; " and St. John cautions us 
 against the " spirit of error." The force of these announce- 
 ments and warnings is illustrated in Christian history from 
 the date of the Apostles to that of Athanasius : — all along 
 there had been doctrinal controversies, especially concern- 
 ing the Divine Nature, followed up by divisions, impeach- 
 ments, appeals, trials, and anathemas. Arianism was but 
 the continuation of a series ; and, if it was more formidable 
 and eventful than Paulinism or Montanism, this was be- 
 cause it had so large a field to act upon, and so few ex- 
 ternal hindrances to impede its course. Had the empire 
 become Christian in the time of Noetus, he too might 
 have filled the world with the exploits of his own heresy, 
 as Arius did afterwards. 
 
 It was natural then that the first age of the emancipa- 
 ted Church, even more than the ages that followed, should 
 be a time of eager, perilous, and wide-spread controversy ; 
 nor need such a phenomenon really perplex us, as if the 
 brave martyrs and confessors of the Dioclesian era had 
 the evil destiny of giving birth to a generation of misbe- 
 lievers ; for the Arianism of the fourth century was not 
 
144 Ciraimstances of the times 
 
 a popular heresy.' The laity, as a whole, revolted from 
 it in every part of Christendom. It was an epidemic of 
 the schools and of theologians, and to them it was mainly 
 confined. It did not spread among the parish priests 
 and their flocks, or the great body of the monks ; though, 
 as time went on, it gained a certain portion of some of 
 the larger towns, and some monastic communities. The 
 classes which had furnished martyrs in the persecutions 
 were in no sense the seat of the heresy. 
 
 Nor indeed were all the theological schools involved in 
 this spiritual malady; it was the more intellectual of them 
 which wererecipientsof its poison. Western Christendom, 
 at that early date, was far behind the Eastinacuteness and 
 learning. Of course there were schools in Gaul, Rome, 
 and Carthage, not to mention other places ; Tertullian 
 and Hippolytus are the evidence of it 4 but, whatever 
 was the intellectual proficiency of individuals belonging 
 to these in the fourth century, it was not at hand to save 
 Liberius from the imputation of subscribing a Semi-Arian 
 confession, nor was it any aid to his Legates at the 
 Council of Aries ; and the incapacity, which made so 
 many Western bishops at Ariminum unwilling victims 
 of the heresy, would also save them from being, had they 
 been so inclined, its intelligent and active propagators. 
 
 It was in the East especially, and, to speak more dis- 
 tinctly, in Asia, that its head-quarters were to be found; 
 and Asia, with Antioch as its metropolis, had a culture 
 
 ' Vide Appendix, Note 5, to " The Arians of the Fourth Century," 
 ed. 3. 
 
favotirable to Arianism. 145 
 
 which the other parts of Christendom had not. Alexandria, 
 which had so firm a tradition and grasp of orthodoxy, was 
 but one city situated at the extremity of the Empire, com- 
 manding only the narrow valley of the Nile, and cut off by 
 deserts and by the broad sea from the rest of the Roman 
 world. Antioch, on the contrary, was but the chief of 
 many flourishing seats of learning, and, by means of the 
 public roads, was in^asy communication with the whole of 
 Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor, not to speak of Thrace 
 and Greece. Moreover, its separate Churches, enjoying an 
 autonomy which the Egyptian Churches had not, exercised 
 a freedom of thought, and had a practice in conti'oversy, 
 peculiar to themselves ; and, preferring the study of the 
 literal to that of the allegorical sense of scripture, were 
 indisposed to submit either to the authorities or to the 
 proofs on which orthodoxy, such as the Alexandrian, 
 rested the sacred docti'ine in dispute. The schools of 
 Asia, then, when once they became advocates of a theo- 
 logical opinion, had far larger resources for its propagation 
 than Gaul or Africa, and far greater influence than Egypt. 
 Nor was this all ; they managed to create for themselves 
 a special controversial advantage, when they undertook 
 the cause of Arius against Egypt, the only zealous cham- 
 pion of orthodoxy. They threw their main force, not 
 against the orthodox doctrine which was the i-eal subject 
 in dispute, but against the symbol of the homoiision, and 
 the conduct of Athanasius. They made the controversy 
 appear a mere question of ecclesiastical expedience, and 
 of ecclesiastical persons and parties. Thus they repre- 
 sented it to the Catholic West. What did the West know 
 
1 46 Circumstances of the times 
 
 about either the one or the other ? All they knew was 
 that they had hardly begun to enjoy the peace for which 
 they had so long been praying, when suddenly they were 
 all at war again. When then they seemed to side with 
 the Eusebian party, they were in truth doing little more 
 than making Athanasius a convenient scapegoat for rid- 
 ding themselves of troubles which they saw no other way 
 out of, not dreaming of tampering with a prime article of 
 the Creed, but expressing their disapprobation of one 
 whom they were taught to believe a restless, violent, 
 party- spirited man, and of his arbitrary formula. 
 
 And of this view there might be many honest supporters 
 in the East as well as in the West ; for it carried them 
 back to an historical question interesting to themselves 
 personally. The question of the /fowo«sjoM was not to them 
 new ; it was a party question between Antioch and Alex- 
 andria. Its adoption at Nicsea was the reversal of an act 
 of the forefathers of the Asiatics in the great Council of 
 Antioch sixty years before. It had in that Council been 
 proposed as a test of orthodoxy, and put aside. It had been 
 put aside, although already used by Alexandrian theolo- 
 gians. But at Nicffia, where the Alexandrian Athanasius 
 conducted the controversy, it had been recalled, it had been 
 definitely adopted; Why was a term to be had in honour 
 in 325, which had been put aside in 264 or 272 as male 
 sonans and dangerous ? We cannot be surprised then that 
 the homoilsion, which perplexed the Western bishops, 
 should have irritated the Orientals; the only wonder is, that 
 East andWest had concurred in accepting it at Nicaea. The 
 Acts of the Council there held are not extant, and we are 
 
favourable to Arianism. 14.7 
 
 left to determine this point by conjecture. Perhaps the 
 horror which we know seized its Fathers at hearing the 
 blasphemies of Arius, induced them to accept what they 
 found to be the only effectual test against him and his party. 
 Then, after the Council, there would be a reaction in their 
 view of the matter, and the Arians, being a sharp-witted 
 set, would not be slow to take advantage of it. And, with 
 reference to such a reaction, it must be borne in mind, 
 that Ecumenical Councils were at that time a novelty 
 in the Church ; and that their sovereign authority and 
 the immutability of their decisions were points not 
 familiar to the apprehension of every bishop. This shows 
 itself in the subsequent events of the fourth century. 
 
 Also, it would appear that, out of the Eusebian 
 Councils which followed the Nicene, two only, or rather 
 one, actually absolved Arius. Of course I do not say that 
 those various Councils were clear of heterodoxy : how 
 their members came to consent to such heterodoxy is the 
 question, into which I have in the following pages to 
 inquire ; but whatever their shortcomings, Arians they 
 certainly were not. The proper Arian party did not 
 show itself in the Councils till thirty years after the 
 Nicene, under the name of Anomceans, Aetius and Eu- 
 nomius being its leaders ; the Eusebian Councils in the 
 interval were for the most part composed of Semi-Arians. 
 
 This then at first sight as to the successes of Arianism 
 in the East and West upon its start in the fourth century : 
 as to the hold which it got upon the Civil Power, we must 
 bear in mind that the bishops had become at that time an 
 order and a magistracy in the state. They were on terms 
 
148 Circumstances of the times. 
 
 of intimacy with the Emperors, and if in the Asiatic 
 provinces they were infected, as they certainly were, with 
 the heterodox views of the Antiochene school, they would 
 communicate the heresy in turn to the civil authorities. 
 Athanasius had not the like opportunity of indoctrinating 
 those authorities in the truth. When indeed in his exile 
 he was thrown upon the wide world, then he came across 
 both Constans and the junior Constantine, and at once he 
 availed himself of his good fortune by disposing both of 
 them in favour of the orthodox cause. But he had no 
 access to the presence of emperors when he was at home. 
 The Imperial Court took up its abode from time to time in 
 the great cities of the East ; in Thessalonica, Constan- 
 tinople, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Hierapolis, Ancyra, Caesarea, 
 Antioch : — I do not think it once went to Alexandria. It 
 must be added that to statesmen, lawyers, and military 
 chiefs, who had lately been Pagans, a religious teaching 
 such as Arianism, which was clear and intelligible, was 
 more acceptable than doctrines which described the 
 Divine Being in language, self-contradictory in its letter^ 
 and which exacted a belief in truths which were 
 absolutely above their comprehension. The same con- 
 sideration will account for the Arianism of the converted 
 Goths, Vandals and Lombards. 
 
 Now I proceed to the doctrinal inquiry. 
 
149 
 
 § 2. THE TRADITION OF THE DOGMA OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 It was the doctrine of Arius that our Lord was a pure 
 creature, made out of nothing, Hable to fall, the Son 
 of God by adoption not by nature, and called God in 
 Scripture, not as being really such, but only in name. 
 At the same time he v/ould not have denied that the 
 Son and the Holy Ghost were creatures transcendently 
 near to God, and immeasurably distant from the rest of 
 creation. 
 
 Now by contrast, how does the teaching of the Fathers 
 who preceded Arius, stand relatively to such a represen- 
 tation of the Christian Creed? Is it such, or how far is 
 it such, as to bear Arius out in so representing it? This 
 is the first point to inquire about. 
 
 First of all, the teaching of the Fathers was necessarily 
 directed by the form of Baptism, as given by our Lord 
 Himself to His disciples after His resurrection. To 
 become one of His disciples was, according to His own 
 words, to be baptised "into the Name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" that is, into the 
 profession, into the service, of a Triad. Such was our 
 Lord's injunction: and ever since, before Arianism and 
 after, down to this day, the initial lesson in religion taught 
 to every Christian, on his being made a Christian, is that 
 he thereby belongs to a certain Three, whatever more, or 
 whether anything more, is revealed to us in Christianity 
 about that Three. 
 
1 50 Tradition of the dogma 
 
 The doctrine then of a Supreme Triad is the elementary 
 truth of Christianity; and accordingly, as might have been 
 expected, its recognition is a sort of key-note, on which 
 centre the thoughts and language of all theologians, from 
 which they start, with which they end. 
 
 I propose to show in this Section how the Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers understood this sacred truth, in contrast to the 
 understanding of Arius, availing myself for that purpose 
 of the careful and accurate collection of Testimonies 
 published by Dr. Burton.^ 
 
 1. First, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, when at the 
 stake, offered up a prayer to God, which ended thus : 
 "I glorify Thee, through the Eternal High Priest, Jesus 
 Christ, Thy beloved Son {irailoi), through whom be 
 glory to Thee, with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now 
 and for ever." 
 
 Here the Three are mentioned, as in the baptismal form ; 
 as many as Three, and no more than Three, with the 
 expression of a still closer association of the Three, one 
 with another, than is signified in that form, viz. as 
 contained in the words, "through," "with," and "in." 
 
 2. And this is only one out of several forms of doxology, 
 of the same, or of an earlier date, all connected with the 
 same Triad, and with that Triad only, one of which is 
 attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch, one to St. Clement 
 of Rome. Also an evening hymn, apparently of the same 
 date, concludes with a doxology to " Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit of God," countenancing what I said above, that the 
 
 1 Burton's " Theological Works," vol. ii. 1837. 
 
of the Holy Trinity. 
 
 1^1 
 
 wording of the form of Baptism implied a profession of 
 service to the Saci-ed Triad in those who were submitted 
 to the rite. 
 
 3. And so also the forms of Creed, still extant, of the 
 early centuries. They are all expansions of the baptis- 
 mal formula, thereby marking that formula to imply, not 
 only worship and service, but faith also, directed towards 
 the Heavenly Threa 
 
 4. In like manner St. Justin: — "We worship the Framer 
 of this Universe, and Jesus Christ, our Teacher in these 
 things, having learned that He is the Son of the true God, 
 having Him in the second place, and the Prophetic Spirit 
 in the third rank." 
 
 5. Athenagoras. "Who would not be astonished to hear 
 us called atheists, speaking as we do of the Father as God, 
 and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost ; showing both 
 their power {^vvayav) in unity, and their distinction in 
 order ? " In some sense then, he, as believing in one 
 God, must have considered Them One. 
 
 Again, expressly : — "The Father and the Son are One : 
 the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the 
 unity and power of the Spirit." 
 
 Again : — " We speak of God, and of the Son, His Word, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, which are united in power, — the 
 Father, the Son, and the Spirit ; for the Son is the Mind, 
 Word, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an off- 
 streaming, as light from fire." 
 
 Once more, Athenagoras speaks of "the knowledge of 
 God, and of the Word that is from Him, that is, what the 
 unity is of the Son (TratSo?) with the Father, what the 
 
1 5 2 Tradition of the dogma 
 
 fellowship of the Father with the Son, what the Spirit 
 is, what the uniting of so many," viz. Three, " and what 
 division in their uniting, — the Spirit, the Son {-rraiho';), 
 the Father ". 
 
 In this last passage, Athenagoras justifies our saying 
 that the baptismal form, simple as is its wording, did 
 suggest to the early Christians difficulties and ques- 
 tions, as yet open, and necessitated a theory of doctrine; 
 for it was impossible to go on using words without an in- 
 sight into their meaning, such as those words in them- 
 selves did not supply. Arians would feel this as strongly 
 as Catholics. Next, Athenagoras, in what he says about 
 their meaning, moves in the Catholic direction. He 
 speaks of a iistinotion or division in unity, as a point to 
 be explained ; but, if by unity was meant merely a moral 
 unity, or unity of thought, sentiment, or action, what 
 need was there of any explanation ? as if the distinction 
 existing between separate beings could possibly be com- 
 promised by such a unity ! And, in like manner, a unity, 
 other than moral and seemingly metaphysical, is implied 
 in a former passage, where he speaks of the Son as the 
 Father's " Mind, Word, and Wisdom ". 
 
 6. Next, St. Theophilus of Antioch speaks expressly 
 of a " Triad, God, His Word and His Wisdom " ; the 
 term " Triad " is also used by Clement of Alexandria, 
 Origen, Hippolytus and Methodius ; as " Trinitas " is 
 used by Tertullian and Novatian. 
 
 7. S*^. Irenseus speaks of " the Spirit operating, the 
 Son ministering, and the Father approving," in the salva- 
 tion of man : of " the Father approving and commanding. 
 
of the Holy Trinity. 153 
 
 the Son executing and framing, the Spirit supplying 
 nourishment and increase," in man's original formation. 
 He says that " the Father is above all things and the 
 head of Christ ; the Word is through all, and the head 
 of the Church ; the Spirit is in us all, and is the living 
 water." 
 
 8. Clement of Alexandria says, " One is the Father 
 of the Universe, one is the Word of the Universe, and 
 one is the Holy Ghost and the same everywhere." He 
 speaks of "the power of God the Father, the blood of 
 God the Son (TratSos), and the dew of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 9. Tertullian says that we should pray not less than 
 three times a day, being " debtors of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost ; " " that all Three are one by unity of sub- 
 stance, and the Unity is developed into a Trinity, Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost;" that They are Three, "not in con- 
 dition, but in degree, not in substance, but in form, not in 
 power, but in aspect ; and are of one substance, condition, 
 and power; " that "the Spirit is not from other source 
 (aliunde) than from the Father through the Son ; " that 
 " the Spirit is the third.from God and the Son, as the fruit 
 from the shrub is third from the root, and the rill from 
 the stream is third from the spring; " that "the words 
 [of Scripture] which are spoken to the Father concerning 
 the Son, or to the Son concerning the Father, or to the 
 Spirit, constitute each Person in His own characteristic 
 [proprietate] ; " that " we never suffer ' Two Gods ' or 
 ' Two Lords ' to pass our lips, though the Father is God, 
 the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and Each is 
 
 God ; " that " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are undivided 
 
 II 
 
154 Tradition of the dogma 
 
 from Each Other;" that "the union of the Father in 
 the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes Three 
 co-inherents (co-haerentes) the one from the other." 
 
 Certainly, if the questions suggested by Athenagoras 
 need an answer, Tertullian has supplied one in bountiful 
 measure. He almost develops the baptismal formula 
 into the Athanasian Creed. 
 
 10. St. Hippolytus says, that " even though a man 
 would not, he must necessarily confess God the Father 
 Almighty, and Christ Jesus, God, the Son of God, who 
 became man, to whom the Father has subjected all things 
 except Himself and the Holy Ghost, and that these are 
 thus Three ; " that "God's power [or Essence, Swa/it?] is 
 one, and as regards that power, God is One, but, as 
 regards the [revealed] Economy the manifestation is 
 triple;" that "we contemplate the Incarnate Word, 
 conceive of the Father through Him, believe in the 
 Son, worship the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Again, he says, " I do not say two Gods, but One, and 
 Two Persons, and a Third, the Economy, the grace of the 
 Holy Ghost. The Father is one ; there are two Persons, 
 for there is also the Son, and the third is the Holy Ghost." 
 And "We cannot hold one God, unless we really believe in 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." And " Through the 
 Trinity the Father is glorified ; for the Father willed, the 
 Son made, the Holy Ghost manifested." And " The self- 
 existing (6 wv) Father is above all, the Son through all, 
 and the Holy Ghost in all." And again, " The Jews 
 glorified the Father, but not thankfully, for they did not 
 acknowledge the Son ; the disciples knew the Son, but not 
 
of the Holy Trinity. 155 
 
 in the Holy Ghost, and therefore denied Him." Lastly, 
 " To the Son be glory and power with the Father and 
 Holy Ghost, in the Holy Church, both now^and for ever- 
 more." 
 
 11. Origen speaks thus, in the Latin translation, as 
 regai-ds the Son's co-eternity ; — what he says will be 
 confirmed, infr. p. 165, by a passage preserved to us by 
 Athanasius. " Wlfen I speak of the Omnipotence of 
 God, of His invisibility and eternity, my words are lofty; 
 when I speak of'the co-eternity of His Only-begotten 
 Son and His other mysteries, my words are lofty ; when 
 I discuss the mightiness of the Holy Ghost, my words 
 are lofty : — as to These only is it allowed to us to use 
 lofty words. After these Three, henceforth speak 
 nothing loftily, for all things are mean and low, com- 
 pared with the loftiness of this Trinity. Let not then 
 your lofty words be many, except concerning Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost." 
 
 12. St. Cyprian says, " It is written of the Father 
 and the Son and the Holy Ghost, ' And these Three are 
 One.'" 
 
 13. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his Creed :^ — 
 " There is One God, Father of the Living Word, .... 
 of an Only-begotten Son : . . Our Lord, Sole from Sole, 
 God from God .... and one Holy Ghost, having His 
 being from God, and manifested through the Son to men, 
 
 ^ For some reason Burton does not quote this testimony, which 
 St. Gregory Nyssen says was preserved in his day in Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus's church, and in his handwriting. Vid. Lumper, 
 t, xiii. p. 287. 
 
156 Tradition of the dogma 
 
 the Image of the Son ... in whom is manifested God 
 the Father, who is over all and in all, and God the Son 
 who is through all, a perfect Triad, not separated, nor 
 dissociated, in glory, eternity, and reign." 
 
 14. St. Dionysius of Alexandria : — " Neither is the 
 Father estranged from the Son, nor is the Son set apart 
 from the Father ; and in Their Hands is the Spirit, who 
 neither of Him who sends nor of Him who conveys can 
 be deprived. How then, while I make use of these 
 Names, can I conceive that they are divided at all or 
 separated from Each Other?" Again: "We expand 
 the Monad into the indivisible Triad, and again we con- 
 centrate the completed Triad into the Monad." 
 
 15. And Pope St. Dionysius : " We must neither 
 divide the Wonderful and Divine Monad into three 
 divinities, nor destroy the dignity and exceeding great- 
 ness of the Lord by thinking Him a creature : but we 
 must have faith in God the Father Almighty, and in 
 Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost." And 
 again he speaks in reprobation of those who " in some 
 sort preach three Gods, dividing the Holy Monad into 
 three hypostases, foreign from each other, and altogether 
 separate ; for of necessity with the God of the Universe 
 the Divine Word is one, and in God must the Holy 
 Ghost reside and dwell." 
 
 16. And so the Creed ascribed by the Semi-Arians to 
 Lucian their master. Speaking of the baptismal words, 
 he says: — "The Name of the Father is truly Father, and 
 of the Son truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost truly Holy 
 Ghost ; the Names not being given without meaning or 
 
of the Holy Trinity. 157 
 
 effect, but denoting accurately the proper hypostasis, 
 rank, and glory of Each that is named, so that They 
 are Three in- hypostasis, but in agreement one." 
 
 17. Lastly Eusebius : — " The number Trine was the 
 first to be a type of righteousness by introducing 
 equality: as having a beginning, a middle, and an 
 ending, equal to each other. And these three are an 
 emblem of the hidden, all-holy, sovereign Triad, which, 
 belonging to that Nature which is unoriginate and 
 ingenerate, of all generated substances whatsoever 
 contains the seeds, reasons and causes." — Dc Laud. 
 Const, p. 510. 
 
158 The Explicit Tradition of the dogma 
 
 § 3. THE EXPLICIT TRADITION OF THE DOGMA ALL BUT 
 COMPLETE. 
 
 I. Such being the chain of testimonies in the early 
 centuries concerning the Divine Triad, so far is clear at 
 once, and has to be noted first of all, that it is impossible 
 to view historical Christianity apart from the doctrine of a 
 Trinity. Putting aside the question of the truth or the 
 admissibility of the Arian tenet, — before pronouncing 
 upon Arianism, — so far is undeniable, (as even those have 
 admitted who were the enemies of dogmatic formulas,) 
 that some doctrine or other of a Trinity lies at the very 
 root of the Christian conception of the Supreme Being, 
 and of His worship and service; that, whereas the Object 
 of our faith and devotion is One, still His ineffable Oneness 
 is inseparably associated with the presence of a Triad ; 
 that we cannot contemplate the Divine Nature in the light , 
 of revelation, without contemplating in connexion with 
 it, Three Powers, Principles, Agents, Manifestations, — or, 
 according to the Catholic dogma. Persons. I have been 
 referring to the principal historical witnesses of the second 
 and third centuries, witnesses summoned from every part 
 of Christendom, — from Rome, Lyons, Carthage, Alex- 
 andria, Samaria, Antioch, Smyrna. Faithful to the bap- 
 tismal form, which indeed by itself is conclusive of the 
 point I am insisting on, they all speak of a Trinity, and, 
 under the same three names used in that form, as their 
 broad view, from first to last, they speak of the special 
 
all but complete. 1 59 
 
 theistic teaching, which the gospel substituted for the 
 polytheism of the Empire. Three and Three only : nor 
 is there any string of testimonies producible from those 
 early centuries in a contrary sense, though there were 
 individuals, such as Theodotus, Noetus, Sabellius and 
 Paulus, who, differing from each other, differed from the 
 main tradition. The Three Persons are absolutely sepa- 
 rated off, as unapproachable, incommunicable, in reference 
 to the created universe, distinct from it in the ideas 
 which They suggest, as the Object of exclusive venera- 
 tion, a veneration which is equivalent to divine worship. 
 Whether the celebrated passage in St. John's Epistle be 
 genuine or not, it is felicitously descriptive of the Ante- 
 Nicene tradition, when it designates them as the "Three 
 that bear witness in heaven." There is but one passage 
 of an early Father, as far as I know, which is an ex- 
 ception to this rule : I refer to the well-known words of 
 St. Justin, which include under the objects of religious 
 honour, not only the Heavenly Three, but also the good 
 Angels. 
 
 2. So much in the first place : next, there is in the fore- 
 going testimonies much more than a recognition of some 
 or other kind of Triad to be associated by us with the 
 idea of the Divine Being. Some of the passages quoted 
 are fuller in their statements than others; but those that 
 say less do not contradict those that say more ; their 
 difference from those which are more explicit is only one 
 of defect ; they are all consistent with each other, except 
 so far as the Catholic dogma itself of Three in One as 
 now held, may seem self-contradictory, as relating to 
 
1 60 The Explicit Tradition of the dogma 
 
 truths utterly beyond our comprehension. These passages 
 coalesce and form one whole, and a whole in agreement 
 with the subsequent teaching on the subject of the fourth 
 and fifth centuries ; and their doctrine, thus taken as a 
 whole, will be found to contain these four main points: — 
 (i) Each of the Three Divine Persons is distinct from 
 each ; (2) Each is God ; (3) One proceeds from Another 
 in succession ; (4) Each is in the Other Two. In other 
 words, this primitive ecclesiastical tradition concerning 
 the Divine Being includes the doctrines of the Trinity, 
 of the Unity, of the Monarchia or Principatus, and of the 
 Circumincessio or Co-inherence. To take these four 
 points separately : — 
 
 (i) The Trinitas, or Divine Triad ; viz. that there is 
 a transcendent Three, fulfilling or realising the idea of 
 God. Thus, in the foregoing passages, Theophilus, 
 Origen, and many others use this word " Triad ; " 
 Athenagoras speaks of the " division in Their union, and 
 Their distinction in order ; " Clement says :— -" There is 
 one Father, one Word, one Holy Ghost." Tertullian 
 and Hippolytus speak of "Three Persons; " Gregory of 
 a " Perfect Triad, not separated, nor dissociated, in glory, 
 eternity, and reign ; " Dionysius, of our " expanding the 
 Monad into the indivisible Triad." 
 
 (2) The Unitas ; viz., that Each is God, and the One 
 God. Athenagoras says : — " The Father is God, the Son 
 is God, and the Holy Ghost." Clement speaks of "God 
 the Father, God the Son." Tertullian says, "The Father 
 is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost God ; Each 
 is God." Gregory that "the Son is All-God {6\o^) from 
 
all btd complete. 1 6 1 
 
 All-God ; " Dionysius, " We concentrate the completed 
 Triad into the Monad." 
 
 (3) The Monarchia ; that is, that of the Three the 
 Father is emphatically, (and with a singular distinction 
 from the Other Two, as the 'jrrijr) ^eoTi^ro?,) spoken of as 
 God. Thus St. Justin and St. Clement speak of Him as 
 the God of the Universe ; thus Athenagoras speaks of 
 " God, His Son and) Word, and His Spirit ; " Irenaeus of 
 " God and His Hands ; " Theophilus of " God, His Word, 
 and His Wisdom ; " and Pope Dionysius of God the 
 Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus His Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost ; as does the Primitive Creed. But, as such 
 enunciations might seem to separate the First from the 
 Second and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity, they are 
 explained by 
 
 (4) The Circumincessio ; or intimate co-inherence of 
 Each Person in the Other Two. Thus Athenagoras : — 
 " The Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, 
 by the unity and power of the Spirit ; " Tertullian, " Not 
 that we can number Two Gods or Two Lords, although 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Each is God. " 
 And he speaks of their being "Three Co-inherents. " 
 The Alexandrian Dionysius says : — " The Father is not 
 divided from the Son, nor the Son apart from the Father, 
 and in their Hands is the Spirit." Pope Dionysius : — 
 " We must not preach Three Gods, dividing the Holy 
 Monad into three hypostases, foreign from each other, 
 and altogether separate : for of necessity with the God 
 of the Universe the Divine Word is One, and in God 
 must the Holy Ghost reside and dwell." 
 
1 62 The Explicit Traditio7i of the dogma 
 
 Looking then at the Hterature of Christianity from the 
 time of St. John to the time of St. Athanasius, as a 
 whole,— as a whole, because proceeding from a whole, that 
 is, from that one great all-encompassing religious asso- 
 ciation called the Catholic Church, which was found 
 wherever Christianity was found, and represents Chris- 
 tianity historically, — one, however divided by time and 
 place, by reason of the mutual recognition and active 
 intercommunion of its portions, and of their common 
 claims to an apostolical tradition of doctrine, to an ab- 
 solute agreement together in faith and morals, and to a 
 divine authority to teach and to denounce dissentients, — 
 I say, looking at the Christian literature as a whole, in 
 which what one writer says may be fairly interpreted, 
 explained, and supplemented by what others say, we may 
 reasonably pronounce, that there was during the second 
 and third centuries a profession and teaching concerning 
 the Holy Trinity, not vague and cloudy, but of a certain 
 determinate character : — moreover, that this teaching was 
 to the effect that God was to be worshipped in Three 
 distinct Persons (that is, that there was a divine Triad, of 
 whom severally the personal pronoun could be used) , Each 
 of whom was the One Indivisible God, Each dwelt in 
 Each, Each was really distinct from Each, Each was 
 united to Each by definite correlations ; — moreover, that 
 such a teaching was contradictory and destructive of the 
 Arian hypothesis, which considered the Son of God, and 
 a, fortiori the Holy Ghost, to be simply and absolutely 
 creatures of God, who once did not exist, however exalted 
 it might assert them to be in nature and by grace. 
 
all but complete. 163 
 
 So much I take for granted on starting ; and then 
 the question follows, which is my proper subject. If 
 the case is as I have stated it, how came it about, that 
 in the face of a tradition of doctrine so strong and so 
 clear, Arianism had such sudden, rapid, and wide-spread 
 successes ? 
 
1 64 The Explicit Tradition of the dogma. 
 
 § 4. THE EXPLICIT TRADITION OF THE DOGMA, LEAVING 
 THREE OPPORTUNITIES TO AN HERETICAL PERVERSION. 
 
 I am proposing to answer the question how it was 
 that the heresy of Arius could obtain, as it did, an as- 
 cendency in Christendom so sudden, so triumphant, in 
 the face of a universal tradition of doctrine so fatal to the 
 very elements of its teaching ; and, in doing so, I must 
 first make an explanation, which will take from the 
 problem a good deal of its difficulty. It was not then 
 Arianism proper, such as I have described it, which had 
 such successes, but that special form of the heresy which 
 was called Semi- Arianism. It was Semi-Arianism which 
 the Eusebian party professed, which their Councils put 
 forth, which the Imperial Court patronised, and into 
 which Liberius and so many bishops of East and West 
 were dragooned or betrayed ; a form of error not less un- 
 christian, but far less revolting than the original heresy. 
 On the other hand, the tradition of East and West, which, 
 as I have shown, was so strong against Arianism, had 
 not the same force, it must be candidly admitted, when 
 directed against the Semi-Arian tenets, being compara- 
 tively deficient in its enunciation of those particular 
 points of the Catholic dogma which the Semi-Arians 
 denied. This correction in the description to be given 
 of the antagonist facts, which constitute the phenomenon 
 to be accounted for, is of great importance, — in truth, 
 going far to destroy its paradoxical character. 
 
leaving three opportunities to heresy. 165 
 
 What Arius professed has been stated above ; as to the 
 Semi-Arians, they, with Arius, denied that the Son was 
 the Supreme God, and that He had been from eternity ; 
 but they considered Him born of the Divine Substance 
 before all time, and not a creature ; and, though not equal 
 to God in nature, as being a Son, and a distinct Being 
 from Him, still ineffably near to Him — the transcendent 
 mirror of His perfections, and the God of the mediatorial 
 kingdom, nay, of the created Universe, as the Vice-gerent 
 of His Father. This is what they maintained ; — the 
 more tangible points of their divergence from the 
 Catholic dogma lying in their denial of our Lord's 
 co-equality and co-eternity with the Father. Now it 
 was in these very two points, that the Catholic tradition, 
 as stated above, was weakest, especially as regards the 
 co-eternity. 
 
 I do not say that those two points of doctrine, which 
 are necessary to the Catholic dogma of the Holy Trinity, 
 are not also explicity stated by this or that Ante-Nicene 
 Father. Forinstance, Origen declares distinctly the Son's 
 co-eternity, when he says : " He who dares to say ' Once 
 the Son existed not,' is saying ' Once Wisdom was not ; '" 
 and when TertuUian says that "the Father is God, the 
 Son God, and the Holy Ghost God," he implies the co- 
 equality. Doubtless ; but still I think I shall be able to 
 show, that not only by simple omissions, but by positive 
 statements, certain Ante-Nicene writers did accidentally 
 give occasion, or at least a shelter, to the Semi-Arianism 
 of the fourth century, and, while showing this, I shall at 
 the same time be able either to exculpate or to excuse 
 
1 66 The Explicit Tradition of the dogma. 
 
 those writers, in their involuntary co-operation in a great 
 calamity. 
 
 I have to shov^r, then, how this calamity came about ; 
 and I shall assign three reasons for it, drawn from the 
 writings of the Fathers of the Ante-Nicene period. The 
 first will be their true doctrine of the Principatus of the 
 Father : the second the true doctrine of the Syncatabasis 
 or Condescensio of the Son ; and the third that of the 
 Temporal Gennesis. 
 
The Principatus of the Father. 167 
 
 § 5. THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY OPENED TO THE HERESY, 
 THE PRINCIPATUS OF THE FATHER. 
 
 The Principatus of the Father is a great Catholic truth, 
 and was taught in the Church after the Nicene Council 
 as well as before it ; but, on the other hand, it might 
 easilj' be perverted into a shape favourable to Semi- 
 Arianism. This danger is so obvious, that I shall have 
 chiefly to employ myself in this Section in defending the 
 doctrine, not in showing its capability of pervei'sion. 
 Let us consider the place it holds in the Catholic system. 
 
 No subject was more constantly and directly before the 
 Christian intellect in the first centuries of the Church than 
 the doctrine of the Monarchia} That there was but one 
 First Principle of all things was a fundamental doctrine 
 of all Catholics, orthodox and heterodox alike ; and it 
 was the starting-point of heterodox as well as of 
 orthodox speculation. To the orthodox believer, however, 
 it brought with it a perplexity, which it did not occasion 
 to the adherents of those shallow systems which led to 
 heresy. Christianity began its teaching by denouncing 
 polytheism as absurd and wicked ; but the retort on the 
 part of the polytheist was obvious : — Christianity taught 
 a Divine Trinity : how was this consistent with its pro- 
 fession of a Monarchy ? on the other hand, if there was 
 
 ' Vid. references in Suicer »« voc. and in Forbes's Instrnci. Hist. i. i8 
 and 33, 
 
1 68 The first opening to the heresy, 
 
 a Divine Monarchia, how was not Sabellius right in deny- 
 ing the distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence ? 
 or, if not SabelHus, then Arius, who degraded Son and 
 Spirit to the condition of creatures ? Polytheists, Sabel- 
 Hans, Arians, it might be objected, had more to say for 
 themselves in this matter than CathoUcs. 
 
 CathoUc theologians met this difficulty, both before 
 and after the Nicene Council, by insisting on the unity 
 of origin, which they taught as existing in the Divine 
 Triad, the Son and Spirit having a communicated divinity 
 from the Father, and a personal unity with Him ; the 
 Three Persons being internal to the Divine Essence, 
 unlike the polytheism of the Greeks and Romans, the 
 tritheism of Marcion and the Manichees, and the Archical 
 Hypostases of Plotinus. Thus Hippolytus says : " I 
 say, ' Another,' not two Gods, but as light from light, as 
 water from a spring, or a ray from the sun." And 
 Hilary, in the fourth century, confirms him, saying, 
 " The Father does not lose His attribute of being the One 
 God, because the Son also is God, for the Son is God 
 from God, One from One, there-fore One God, because God 
 from Himself." De Trin. iv. 15. And Athanasius, " We 
 preserve One Origin of Divinity, and not two Origins, 
 whence there is properly a Monarchy." Orat. iv. i. 
 
 It was for the same reason that the Father was called 
 God absolutely, while the Second and Third Persons 
 were designated by Their personal names of "the Son," 
 or "the Word," and "the Holy Ghost;" viz. because 
 they are to be regarded, not as separated from, but as 
 inherent in the Father. 
 
the Principatus of the Father. 169 
 
 In this enunciation of the august Mystery they were 
 supported by the usage of Scripture, and by the nature 
 of the case ; since the very notion of a Father carries with it 
 a claim to priority and precedence in the order of our ideas, 
 even when in no other respect he has any superiority over 
 those on whom he has this claim. There is One God then, 
 they would say, "not only because the Three Persons are 
 in one usia, or substance (though this reason is good too), 
 but because the Second and Third stand to the First in the 
 relation of derivation, and therefore are included in their 
 Origin as soon as named ; so that, in confessing One 
 Father or Origin, we are not omitting, but including, those 
 Persons whom the very name of the One Father or Origin 
 necessarily implies." At the same time it is plain, that 
 this method of viewing the Unity as centred in its Origin, 
 and the Monarchia as equivalent to the Monas, might be 
 perverted into a Semi- Arian denial of the proper divinity of 
 Son and Spirit, if ever They were supposed, by reason of 
 Their derivation, to be emanations, and therefore external 
 to the Essence of the Father. 
 
 Nor is this all that has to be said upon this point. 
 St. John translates our Lord's words (for the vernacular 
 in which He spoke can only be conjectured), "I and the 
 Father are one," by the neuter " Unum ; " and he him- 
 self, if the passage be his, says : "These Three are one 
 (unum)." In like manner Tertullian says: "They are 
 all one (unum), by unity of substance." Other Fathers 
 say the same. But this use of the neuter had this incon- 
 venience, that it seemed to imply a fourth reality in the 
 
 Divine Being, over and above the Three Persons, of which 
 
 12 
 
1 70 The first opening to the heresy, 
 
 the Three Persons partook; as if the Divine Unity were a 
 physical whole; or, if not that, a logical species, which 
 implies Tritheism. This is what the Antiochene Fathers, 
 in the case of Paulus, seem to have feared would follow 
 from the use of the word homousion, which in consequence 
 they put aside; and we may understand their feeling on 
 the subject, from the harshness with which Eusebius's 
 statement falls upon the ear, when, in the passage quoted 
 above, p. 157, he speaks of the Triad as attached or be- 
 longing to {i^TipT7]/j,ei>r)) One Divine Nature. 
 
 It might seem safer then, as avoiding the chance of 
 misapprehension, to substitute "unus" for " unum," as 
 Augustine has done, and other Fathers, and the Athana- 
 sian and other Creeds ; " unus " expressing any one or 
 other of the Three Persons, since Each of Them (no matter 
 which of Them is taken) is the One God.^ But at an 
 earlier date, especially before the Nicene Council, though 
 after it also, the chance of mistake was avoided by con- 
 templating the tisia or substance of divinity as it resided 
 in the Father, and considering the Person of the Father 
 as symbolical of the unity of substance in the Three, there 
 being no real distinction in fact between the Father's sub- 
 stance and Pei-son; — I say the First Person, and not the 
 Second or Third, both because Hehad the priority of order 
 as being the Father, and also because the Divine Father 
 was already known to the Jews, not to say to the heathen. 
 Thus, instead of saying "Father, Son, and Spirit, are one 
 
 ^ Hilary,. in the fourth century, refuses to admit " unus ; " " ut unum 
 in fide nostra sint uterque, non unus." De Trin. i. 17. 
 
the Principatus of the Father. 1 7 1 
 
 substance (unum)," they would say " In one God and 
 Father are the Son and Spirit ; " the words " One Father " 
 standing not only for the Person of the Father, but con- 
 noting that sole Divine substance which is one with His 
 Person. Thus Pope Dionysius, after insisting on the 
 Divine Monarchia, says, "The God of the Universe and 
 the Divine Word are One, and the Holy Ghost must repose 
 and dwell in God ; thus in One, as in a summit, I mean 
 the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be 
 gathered up and brought together." Here " the God of 
 the Universe " is not a Fourth, but stands for " the Father," 
 and is equivalent to the One Divine Substance as well as 
 to the First Divine Person, and in Him the Triad of Per- 
 sons is summed up as One. And thus Eusebius's language 
 of the e^r]pT7)fj,ev7] rpta? is by anticipation corrected, not, 
 however, in Augustine's way, by saying that the Three 
 Persons are the " Unus Deus," where " unus " is used 
 indefinitely, but by saying definitely that the Father is 
 the " Unus Deus," with the explanation or understanding 
 that the Son and Spirit are in Him. Thus, Epiphanius, 
 illustrating the more ancient mode of securing the Unity 
 through the Monarchia, says, " The Son glorified the 
 Father, that the glory due to the Father might be re- 
 ferred on by the Son to the One Unity. " Hcer. Ixix. 53. 
 I know all this will appear to many men very subtle 
 writing ; but they must please to recollect that, when we 
 are treating of matters which we only know in part, our 
 language necessarily seems subtle to those who are deter- 
 mined to know nothing unless the)^ know everything ; 
 and that to those who only know Euclid, the reasonings 
 
172 The first opening to the heresy, 
 
 and formulse of the higher mathematics are so subtle as to 
 be simply unintelligible. The subtlety of inquiry which is 
 demanded by this high theological dogma is the conse- 
 quence of the fundamental mystery that the Three Persons 
 are Each really identical with the One Divine Essence, 
 that is, Each really and entirely God, yet Each really 
 distinct from the other.^ However it is plain that to 
 view the Person of the Father as the same as the Divine 
 Essence, and to refer the Son and the Spirit to Him as 
 the representative of that Divine Essence, was to ascribe 
 a Monarchia or Principatus to the Father in a very em- 
 phatic way, and a sort of subordination to the Son and 
 the Spirit, which, scriptural though it was, became a 
 handle to Semi-Arianism, or even a suggestion of it. 
 Therefore, I believe it was that, after the experience of 
 that heresy, instead of TertuUian's " The Three are Unum," 
 which was inconvenient on the one side, was substituted 
 by St. Augustine, not " The Three are summed up in 
 the First of them," which was inconvenient on the 
 other, but the phrase " The Three are Unus," in which 
 " unus " stands indeterminately for Either of the Three, 
 somewhat in the sense of an individuum vagum. 
 
 The word " subordination," which I used just now, is 
 a word of Bishop Bull's, and leads me to refer to the 
 chapter of his " Defensio Fidei Nicsenas," in which he 
 treats professedly " De Subordinatione Filii." It is by 
 this aspect of the Sonship that he would account, and 
 
 1 " Non omittendum personas tres, etsi invicera reipsa distant, re tamen 
 idem esse cum essentia, et ab ea nonnisi ratione discrepare." Petav. 
 De. Trin. iii. 11, 7. 
 
the Principatus of the Father. 173 
 
 rightly, for various passages in the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
 which have been considered to savour of Semi-Arianism. 
 His explanation of the " subordinatio " is as follows : — 
 
 " Naturam perfectionesque divinas Patri Filioque 
 competere et non collateraliter aut co-ordinate, sed sub- 
 ordinate, hoc est, Filium eandem quidem naturam 
 divinam cum Patre communem habere, sed a Patre com- 
 municatam, ita sciticet ut Pater solus naturam illam 
 divinam a se habeat, sive a nullo alio, Filius autem a 
 Patre." Hence, " Deum Patrem, etiam secundum 
 divinitatem Filio majorem esse, nempe non natura 
 quidem aut perfectione aliqua essentiali, quae in Patre 
 sit et non in Filio, sed auctoritate sua sola, hoc est, 
 origine, quoniam a Patre est Filius, non a Filio Pater." 
 
 Bull, in spite of his acuteness and learning, seems to 
 have worded this sentence incautiously. He says rightly 
 that the Father is not "natura," but "auctoritate sola," 
 greater than the Son ; but if so, why does he say that 
 the Father is "etiam secundum divinitatem Filio major"? 
 whereas the Athanasian Creed says distinctly of the Son, 
 " asqualis Patri secundum divinitatem," and again, " Patris 
 et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas," which does 
 not admit of more or less. I consider that what Bull 
 really meant to say in the foregoing passage was that it 
 was a subordination which was interior to the Divine 
 Essence and "secundum filietatem." 
 
 In thus speaking then Bull is unjust to his own mean- 
 ing ; when we consider what he really would say, we shall 
 find nothing to criticise in it. I understand his meaning 
 to be,that,without derogating from the absolute co-equality 
 
174 The first opening to the heresy, 
 
 of the Three Persons in the Divine Essence, each of these 
 being in Himself the one, same, and sole God, inthe fulness 
 of His being and attributes, nevertheless there is an aspect 
 in which God the Father is personally greater than God 
 the Son, and that the very idea of fatherhood implies a 
 priority to sonship in dignity and order. This also is 
 the doctrine of Petavius, as of all Catholic divines ; viz. 
 "Patrem ita dici majorem Filio, qua Filius est, vel qua 
 genitus est, ut non major eodem dicatur qua Deus est, vel 
 secundum naturam et essentiam . . . Filietas ipsa Pater- 
 nitate quodammodo minor dicitur, vel Filius, qua Filius, 
 Patre, ut Pater est, minor dicitur, quoniam origine est 
 posterior, non autem ut Deus, hoc est, ratione divinitatis, 
 nisiquatenusproprietatehsecafficitur." De Trin. ii. 2, 15. 
 
 In like manner Thomassin and Maran speak of the 
 Second Person as being the lesser " in quibusdam adjunc- 
 tis," of a "gradatio Personarum," of a "discrimen or- 
 dinis," of (in Tertullian's words) a " decursus Personarum 
 per gradus," of an "ordinis ratio," nay even of a " minis- 
 tratio," or "subjectio" of the Son. 
 
 For myself, returning to Bull, I would rather avoid his 
 word " subordination " in its application to our Lord, since, 
 however grammatically exact, in its effect it is misleading, 
 and I am able to do so by attaching the term discriminative 
 of the Father and the Son in this aspect, not to the latter, 
 but to the former, in keeping with St. Hilary's felicitous 
 paradox, that "The Father is the greater without the Son 
 being the lesser;" vid. Hil. de Trin. ix. 56, p. 1022. There- 
 fore instead of the "subordinatio Filii," let us speak of 
 the "Principatus Patris." 
 
the Principahts of the Father. 175 
 
 I have fully allowed that the Principatus in the Ante- 
 Nicene times was one of those doctrines which gave a 
 shelter to the Semi-Arian heresy which came afterwards; 
 and I think I have shown, even in the instance of a clear- 
 headed divine like Bull, who desires with his whole heart 
 to believe with Athanasius, that it is easy so to hold it as 
 to be on the verge of heresy. However, I still consider it 
 as an important dactrine, and valuable now not less than 
 when it was more insisted on. It is remarkable that the 
 great Fathers of the fourth century, with their full expe- 
 rience of Arianism, nevertheless continued to enunciate 
 it. What Basil and Gregory did, we, under the guidance 
 and correction of the Church, may safely do also ; and if 
 safely, profitably. There cannot be clearer evidence how 
 little the rise of Arianism indisposed them towards the 
 doctrine of the Principatus, than their unanimous inter- 
 pretation of our Lord's words in John xiv., " My Father is 
 greater than I," of our Lord's Divine Nature. These 
 words, from their context, would certainly seem to be 
 spoken of His humanity. He says, " If ye loved Me, ye 
 would rejoice because I said, / go to the Father, /oj- My 
 Father is greater than I. " In His Divine Nature He was 
 not " going " to Him, but as man ; therefore the Father's 
 superiority to Him must be spoken of Him as man. But 
 in spite of the direct sense of the words, they are inter- 
 preted of our Lord's divinity by almost a consensus Patrum 
 in the fourth and fifth centuries ; as Petavius enumerates, 
 by Alexander and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory, Chry- 
 sostom, Cyril, and John of Damascus among the Greeks ; 
 and by Hilary, Augustine and others among the Latins; 
 
176 The first opening to the heresy, 
 
 though some of them, especially Augustine, interpret 
 them also of our Lord's human nature. 
 
 And not only as regards a particular text, but in the 
 staple of their teaching they enforce the Principatus of 
 the Father as pointedly as any Ante-Nicene writer. 
 
 Thus, if Hippolytus says, " The Father willed, the 
 Son executed," Athanasius responds, " Men were made 
 through the Word when the Father willed ; " and, " The 
 works, when He willed. He framed through the Word. " 
 Orat. i. 29, 63. 
 
 Again, if Hippolytus says, " The Father bids [ivriWe- 
 rai), the Word acknowledges," and " He who commands 
 (KeXevcov) is the Father, He who gives ear (v-TraKovei) is 
 the Son ;" and if St. Irenaeus asks, " Whom else did He 
 enjoin ?" (prsecepit) and speaks of the Father being "well 
 pleased and commanding" (/eeXevoi/ros), and of the Son 
 "doing and framing; "—St. Cyril of Jerusalem replies, 
 " The Father ha.de{ivTeWo/ji,evov) and the Son constructed 
 all things at His fiat (vevfiari,) ," Cat. xi. 23; and St. 
 Hilary says, that " the Son was sm6/sc< by the compliance 
 of obedience (subditus per obedientise sequelam)," de Syn. 
 51 ; and St. Athanasius, " A Word there must be whom 
 God bids {ivTeXKeraC) ," Deer, g; and St. Phoebadius, 
 "The Son is subject to the Father, on the ground of their 
 being Father and Son," contr. Ar. 15, ap. Galland. t. 5. 
 
 In like manner St. Justin says, on the one hand, that 
 ' ' The Lord ministered (vTrrjperovvra) to the Father of all ; " 
 andOrigen, "The Word became minister (uTri^peT?;?) ;" and 
 Theophilus designates him as vwovpyo^ ; but, on the other 
 hand, Athanasius says, ' ' Let the Word work the materials, 
 
the Principatus of the Father. 177 
 
 being hidden and working under God " (irpoa-TarTo/Mevot; 
 Kot vTTovpycov), Orat. ii. 22 ; and Cyril of Jerusalem speaks 
 of Him as "obedient" {einreidrjs:), Cat. x. 5; and St. 
 Hilary, after naming His " subjection," de Syn. 51, adds 
 (as also more iuWy, ibid, yg), that His " subjectio " is 
 " naturae pietas," not " creationis infirmitas." 
 
 Clement again, ere yet an heretical spirit had wrested 
 words, and the ortkodox had become suspicious of them, 
 had said that "the Son's Nature is the closest to the sole 
 Almighty ; " but Alexander, in the very heat of the Arian 
 controversy, could also speak of there being between the 
 Father and the universe a " mediating, only-begotten 
 Nature, by whom all things were created," ap Theod. 
 Hist. i. 4. 
 
 I will add three longer passages from Fathers still 
 later than the above, of special authority, and inde- 
 pendent one of another. 
 
 I. St. Gregory Nazianzen : — " If, when we say that the 
 Father, in being the cause (tw am'«) of the Son, is greater 
 than the Son, they assume the proposition, ' The being a 
 cause belongs to a being's nature,' and then conclude that 
 that ' greater' belongs to the Father's nature, they seem 
 to be damaging their own reasoning rather than that of 
 their opponents. . . . For we grant that it is the nature 
 of a cause to be greater, but they infer that that is greater 
 in its nature, which is a cause." Orat. xxix. 15. And 
 " If the Father were called ' greater,' and not also called 
 ' equal,' perhaps there would be some force in what they 
 allege ; but if we find clearly both ' equal' and ' greater,' 
 what will the good men say ? ... Is it not plain that 
 
I yS The first opening to the heresy, 
 
 ' greater' refers to cause, and ' equal ' to nature ? " Orat. 
 XXX. 7. 
 
 2. St. Ambrose : — "The Son cannot do anything but 
 what He has learned from the Father, because He is the 
 everlastingly abiding Word of God ; nor at any time is 
 the Father divided from the Son's working, and what the 
 Son works, He knows that the Father wills, and what 
 the Father wills that the Son knows how to work." de 
 Sp. S. ii. 12, 11. 135. 
 
 3. And St. Augustine : — " When there are two men, 
 father and son, if the son is obedient to the father, and 
 when there is reason , asks his father, thanks his father, and 
 is sent some whither by his father, on which he declares 
 that he has not come to do his own will, but the will of 
 him by whom he is sent, now does it follow from hence, 
 that he is not of the same substance with his father ? 
 Why, then, when you read such things of the Son of 
 God, do you at once rush into so great a sacrilege of 
 heart and word, as to believe and profess that the Son 
 of God is not one and the same substance with the 
 Father ? " contr. Maxim, ii. 3, p. 708. 
 
 Though Augustine in this extract lays down with much 
 distinctness the doctrine of the Principatus, yet the ten- 
 dency of his theology — certainly that of the times that 
 followed — was to throw that doctrine into the background. 
 The abuse of it by the Arians is a full explanation of this 
 neglect of it. However, what St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, 
 and St. Basil taught, never can be put aside. It is as true 
 now as when those great Fathers enunciated it ; and if 
 true, it cannot be ignored without some detriment to the 
 fulness and the symmetry of the Catholic dogma. 
 
the Principatus of the Fat hen 179 
 
 One obvious use of it is to facilitate to the imagination 
 the descent of the Divine Nature to the human, as re- 
 vealed in the doctrine of the Incarnation ; the Eternal 
 Son of God becoming by a second birth the Son of God 
 in time, is a line of thought which preserves to us the 
 continuity of idea in the Divine Revelation ; whereas, if 
 we say abruptly that the Supreme Being became the 
 Son of Mary, thisf however true when taken by itself, 
 still by reason of the infinite distance between God and 
 man, acts in the direction of the Nestorian error of a 
 Christ with two Persons, as certainly as the doctrine of 
 the Principatus, when taken by itself, favours the Arian 
 error of a merely human Christ. The Principatus then 
 is the formal safeguard of the Faith against Nestorianism. 
 And (if the thought is not too bold) I may suggest, in 
 coincidence with what I have been saying, that the 
 heresy of Nestorius did, in matter of fact, immediately 
 spring into existence upon this reaction ; and St. Augus- 
 tine, to whom we owe so much for what he has written 
 on the Holy Trinity, lived long enough to be invited on 
 his death-bed to the Ephesian Council summoned by 
 St. Cyril for the condemnation of the Nestorian teaching. 
 
i8o Uses of the Principatus 
 
 § 6. USES OF THE PRINCIPATUS IN SPITE OF ITS 
 HERETICAL ABUSE. 
 
 I have ventured to say that the view of our Lord as 
 not only God, but definitely and directly as in the Divine 
 Unity the Son of God, is a point of theology of great 
 moment in the doctrine of His incarnation. I will now 
 give distinctly my reasons for saying so, and will begin 
 with a reference to Thomassin's treatment of the subject 
 in his de Incarnatione Verbi, 1. ii. c. i, pp. 89, &c. I have 
 done my best to abridge and reduce it without injury to 
 the sense, but, long as it is, still the importance of the 
 subject and the depth and force of his remarks would, I 
 think, be my justification for the following extracts, even 
 had I made them longer. 
 
 I. "This," he says, "first of all must be laid down, 
 that it belongs to the Father to be without birth, but to 
 the Son to be born. Now innascibility is a principle of 
 concealment, but birth of exhibition. The former with- 
 draws from sight, the latter comes forth into open day ; 
 the one retires into itself, lives to itself, and has no out- 
 ward start ; the other flows forth and extends itself, and is 
 diffused far and wide. It corresponds then to the idea of 
 the Father, as being ingenerate, to be self-collected, re- 
 mote, unapproachable, invisible, and in consequence to be 
 utterly alien to an incarnation. But to the Son, considered 
 as once for all born, and ever coming to the birth, and 
 starting into view, it especially belongs to display Him- 
 
in spite of its abuse. i8i 
 
 self, to be prodigal of Himself, to bestow Himself as an 
 object for sight and enjoyment, because in the fact of 
 being born He has burst forth into this corresponding 
 act of self-diffusion. 
 
 " Next, however, whereas the nature of Father and Son 
 is one, therefore equally inaccessible andincomprehensible 
 and invisible is in His nature the Son as the Father. 
 Accordingly, we ard'here considering a personal property, 
 not a natural. For it is especially congenial to the Divine 
 Nature to be good, beneficent, and indulgent ; and for 
 these qualities thei'e is no opening at all without a certain 
 manifestation of their hiding-place, and outpouring of His 
 condescending Majesty. Wherefore, since the Maj esty and 
 Goodness of God, in the very bosom of His Nature, look 
 different ways, and by the one He retires into Himself, and 
 by the other He pours Himself out, it is by the different 
 properties of the Divine Persons that this contrariety is 
 solved, and the ingenerate Father secures the majesty and 
 invisibility of the Godhead in its secret place; while the 
 Son, who issues thence, manifests Its goodness and sheds 
 abroad Its beneficence. And hence, further, as might be 
 proved from Irenasus and other Fathers, not to speak of the 
 Platonists, the Father is the Son's incomprehensibility 
 and invisibility, and the Son is the Father's comprehen- 
 sibility and visibility; the Son's Nature is perceived to be 
 invisible and incomprehensible in the Father, and the 
 Father's Nature to be most bountiful and self-com- 
 municating in the Son, who, as possessor of a generate 
 and communicated divinity (Deitate genita et donata), 
 rejoices to give what He has received. 
 
1 82 Uses of the Principatus 
 
 " Moreover, since the Incarnation involves some sort of 
 injury (injuriam) to the Godhead, nay even a self-empty- 
 ing, there is a propriety in the Son's sustaining this rather 
 than the Father, for the Father is the invisible safeguard 
 of Divinity, in that He is its Origin and Fount; and the 
 Son is the principle of Its effusion, nay, the expenditure 
 and emptying out of Itself, saving always that the Father's 
 inviolability is the Son's, and the Son's munificence is 
 the Father's too. 
 
 "Again, as the Incarnation, so previous to it the divine 
 adumbrations made to prophets or to patriarchs, would 
 have been strange in the Father, while they were glorious 
 in the Son; for the Godhead in its own Fount is most 
 pure from all humiliation, all the dust of creation, all con- 
 tagion of foreign natures any whatever; on the other hand, 
 in its Stream, though it is entire, and all and everything 
 that it is in the Fount, it is less strange that it should 
 extravagate and intermingle with the creatures, and (as 
 it were) be, so to say, soiled by its own beneficence. 
 
 "And hence again it is that the Scripture speaks of the 
 Father as invisible, and of the Son as the Image of the 
 Invisible God ; and says both that God can be seen, and 
 that He cannot. The teaching of the Fathers reconciles 
 the contrariety at once. Invisibility is reserved to the 
 Father, visibility (whether by angelic adumbrations or 
 by an incarnation) is undertaken by the Son. 
 
 "Once more. Why was it that the early heretics in- 
 vented their Eons, and, beyond them all, their First and 
 Inaccessible God, and made the God of Moses, or the 
 Creator, an inferior being? Because they preferred 
 
in spite of its abuse. 183 
 
 shattering the Divine Nature to viewing it in a plurality 
 of Persons. For the prerogatives which they assigned to 
 their supreme invisible God, these belong to the Father; 
 those which they withheld from Him as unsuitable, are 
 opportune in the Son, viewed as wounding Himself for 
 our needs and our infirmities. Thus Irenasus, Clement, 
 Tertullian, and others, by discriminating the Divine 
 Persons, made profision for the Divine Unity. 
 
 2. "And secondly, the Father undertakes no work out- 
 side Himself, except through the Son; for the Son is 
 the first and the whole outcoming of the Father, as 
 issuing forth from the depth of His isolation. Therefore, 
 if He creates the earth, through the Son He creates ; if He 
 governs it, when created, through the Son He governs it; 
 if He restores it, when ruined, through the Son He re- 
 stores it. Between the first Fount of Divinity and the 
 far-off creature the Son intervenes; what the Father is 
 within, that is the Son without ; what the Father 
 covers, the Son discovers; what the One is potentially, 
 the other is in act ; and therefore, of the Father, in the 
 silence of His repose, the Son is the active and effective 
 Image; so that it is congruous that to the Son should 
 be committed the whole- administration of the external 
 creation, whether for framing, or ruling, or reforming it. 
 
 " Beyond a shadow of doubt does the Scripture declare 
 that the Son is both consubstantial with the Father, yet 
 His Image and Manifestation, and does all things at the 
 mandate of the Father, and by the Father's authority has 
 framed the earth, put on flesh, undei'gone the Cross. Nor 
 can the Father, in that He is the Still Fountain-head, and 
 
184 Uses of the Principahis 
 
 the potential pi'inciple, and the Silence, do all these 
 things except through the Son, that is, through the 
 motive power, through action and life. 
 
 "As, then, the Son cannot of Himself do anything, 
 because He cannot, except from the immobility and 
 potentiality of the Father, start into motion and act, so 
 neither can the Father do anything except with the Son 
 and through the Son, inasmuch as what is in rest and in 
 potentia cannot go abroad, except by action and motion. 
 At the same time, what the Father does, though it be 
 through the Son, is His own, since from Him the Son 
 Himself has being. 
 
 " All these remarks come to the same point, viz. that 
 the Father works all His works, gives all His gifts to us, 
 through the Son. 'This,' says St. Cyril- of Alexandria, 
 ' is a kind of subjection, because the Son seems to lie 
 under the Father's will.' " 
 
 Thus Thomassin, in illustration of the help given us 
 towards realising the Incarnation, by what is mercifully 
 revealed to us of the Person who became incarnate; for 
 which knowledge we ought ever to be thankful. And 
 now, under shelter of the teaching of eo eminent a 
 theologian, I shall venture to quote some I'emarks of my 
 own on our Lord as Son or Word, in further illustration 
 of the Principatus, as they are contained in two sermons 
 published by me many j'ears ago : — 
 
 " It is a point of doctrine necessary to insist upon, that, 
 while our Lord is God, He is also the Son of God, or 
 rather, that He is God because He is the Son of God. We 
 are apt, at first hearing, to say that He is God, though He 
 
in spite of its abuse. 185 
 
 is the Son of God, marvelling at the mystery. But what 
 to man is a mystery, to God is a cause. He is God, not 
 though, but because He is the Son of God. Though we 
 could not presume to reason of ourselves that He that is 
 begotten of God is God, as if it became us to reason at all 
 about such ineffable things, yet, by the light of Scripture, 
 we may thus reason. This is what makes the doctrine of 
 our Lord's Eternal Sonship of such supreme importance, 
 viz. that He is God because He is begotten of God ; and 
 they who gave up the latter truth, are in the way to give 
 up, or will be found already to have given up, the former. 
 The great safeguard to the doctrine of our Lord's 
 Divinity is the doctrine that He is Son or Word of the 
 Father : we realise that He is God, only when we 
 acknowledge Him to be by nature and in eternity Son. 
 " Nay, our Lord's Sonship is not only the guarantee to 
 us of His Divinity, but also the condition of His incarna- 
 tion. As our Lord was God, because He was the Son, so 
 on the other hand, because He was the Son, therefore is 
 He man : — it belonged to the Son to have the Father's 
 perfections, it became the Son to assume a servant's form. 
 We must beware of supposing' that the Persons of the 
 Ever-blessed Trinity differ from each other only in this, 
 that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the 
 Father. They differ in this besides, that the Father is 
 the Father, and the Son is the Son. While They are 
 one in substance. Each has distinct characteristics which 
 the Other has not. Thus we may see a fitness in the Son's 
 taking flesh, now that that sacred truth is revealed, and 
 may thereby understand better what He says of Himself 
 
 13 
 
1 86 Uses of the Principatus 
 
 in the Gospels. The Son of God became the Son a second 
 time, though not a second Son, by becoming man. He 
 was a Son both before His incarnation, and, by a second 
 mystery, after it. From eternity He had been the 
 Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father ; and, when 
 He came on earth, this essential relation to the Father 
 remained unaltered. Still He was a Son, when in the 
 form of a servant, — still performing the will of the Father, 
 as His Father's Word and Wisdom, manifesting His 
 Father's glory and accomplishing His Father's purposes. 
 " For instance, take the following passages of Scrip- 
 ture : — 'I can do nothing of myself;' 'He that sent 
 Me is with Me ; ' ' The Father hath not left Me alone ; ' 
 ' My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ; ' ' As the 
 Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to 
 have life in Himself; ' ' Whatsoever I speak, even as the 
 Father said unto Me, so I speak ; ' ' I am in the Father, 
 and the Father in Me.' Now, it is true, these passages 
 may allowably be understood of our Lord's human nature ; 
 but surely, if we confine them to this interpretation, we 
 run the risk of viewing Him as two separate beings, not 
 as one Person ; or again,' of gradually forgetting and ex- 
 plaining away the ■ doctrine of His Divinity altogether. 
 If we speak as if our Lord had a human personality, then, 
 since He has a personality as God, He is not one Person, 
 and if He has not, He is not God. Such passages then as 
 the foregoing would seem to speak neither of His human 
 nature simply, nor of His Divine, but of both together ; 
 that is, they speak of Him who, being the Son of God, is 
 also man. He who spoke was one really existing Person, 
 
in spite of its abuse. 187 
 
 and He, that one living and almighty Son, both God and 
 man, was the brightness of God's glory and His Power, 
 and wrought what His Father willed, and was in the 
 Father and the Father in Him, not only in heaven, but 
 on earth. In heaven He was this, and did this, as God ; 
 and on earth He was this, and did this, in that manhood 
 which He assumed ; but whether in heaven or on earth, 
 still as the Son. ItVas therefore true of Him altogether, 
 when He spoke, that He was not .alone, nor spoke or 
 wrought of Himself, but where He was, there was the 
 Father ; and whoso had seen Him, the Son, had seen 
 the Father, whether we think of Him as God or as man. 
 " Again, we read in Scripture of His being sent by the 
 Father, addressing the Father, interceding with Him for 
 His disciples, and declaring to them that His Father is 
 greater than He. In what sense says and does He all 
 this? Some will be apt to say that He spake only in 
 His human nature ; words which are perplexing to the 
 mind that tries really to contemplate Him as Scripture 
 describes Him, because they seem to imply as if He were 
 speaking only under a representation, and not in His 
 Person. No ; it is truer to say that He, that One All- 
 gracious Son of God, who had been with the Father from 
 the beginning, equal in all Divine perfections, and one in 
 substance with Him, but second after Him as being the 
 Son, — as He had ever been His Word, and Wisdom, 
 and Counsel, and Will, and Power in heaven, — so after 
 His incarnation, and upon the earth, still spoke and 
 acted, after yet with the Father, as before, though in a 
 new nature, which He had put on, and in humiliation. 
 
1 88 Use-s of the Principatus 
 
 " This, then, is the point of doctrine which I had to 
 mention, that our Lord was not only God, but the Son of 
 God. We know more than that God took on Him our 
 flesh ; though all is mysterious, we have a point of 
 knowledge further and more distinct, viz. that it was 
 neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost, but the Son of 
 the Father, God the Son, God from God, and Light 
 from Light, who came down upon earth, and who thus, 
 though graciously taking on Him a new nature, remained 
 in Person, as He had been from everlasting, the Son of 
 the Father, and spoke and acted towards the Father as 
 a Son." Serni. vol. vi. 5. 
 
 The second passage runs thus : — 
 
 " Obedience belongs to a servant, but accordance, con- 
 currence, co-operation, are the characteristics of a son. In 
 His eternal union with God there wasno distinction of will 
 and work between Him and His Father; as the Father's 
 life was the Son's life, and the Father's glory the Son's 
 also, so the Son was very Word and Wisdom of the Father, 
 His Power and Co-equal Minister in all things, the same 
 and not the same as He Himself. But in the days of His 
 flesh, when He had humbled Himself to the form of a ser- 
 vant, taking on Himself a separate will and a separate 
 work, and the toil and sufferings incident to a creature, 
 then what had been mere concurrence became obedience. 
 ' Though He was a Son, yet had He experience of obedi- 
 ence.' He took on Him a lower nature, and wrought 
 in it towards a Will higher and more perfect than it. 
 Further, He learned" ' obedience ' amid ' suffering,' and 
 therefore amid temptation. Not as if He ceased to be 
 
in spite of its abuse. 189 
 
 what He had ever been, but, having clothed Himself with 
 a created essence. He made it the instrument of His 
 humiliation ; He acted in it. He obeyed and suffered 
 through it. That Eternal Power, which, till then, had 
 thought and acted as God, began to think and act as a 
 man, with all man's faculties, affections, and imperfections, 
 sin excepted. Before He came on earth. He was in- 
 finitely above hope and grief, fear and anger, pain and 
 heaviness ; but afterwards all these properties of man 
 (and many more) were His as fully as they are ours. 
 
 " If any one is tempted to consider such a subject ab- 
 stract, speculative, and unprofitable, I would observe in 
 answer, that I have taken it on the very ground of its being, 
 as I believe, especially practical. Let it not be thought a 
 strange thing to say, though I say it, that there is much 
 in the religious belief, even of the more serious part of the 
 community at present, to make observant men very anxious 
 where it will end. It would be no very difficult matter, I 
 suspect, to perplex the faith of a great many persons who 
 believe themselves to be orthodox, and indeed are so, ac- 
 cording to their light. They have been accustomed to call 
 Christ God, but that is all, — they have not considered what 
 is meant by applying that title to One who was really 
 man, and from the vague way in which they use it, they 
 would be in no small danger, if assailed by a subtle dis- 
 putant, of being robbed of the sacred truth in its substance, 
 even if they kept it in name. In truth, until we con- 
 template our Lord and Saviour, God and man, as being 
 as complete and entire in His personality as we show our- 
 selves to be to each other, — as one and the same in all His 
 
igo Uses of the Principaius 
 
 various and contrary attributes, ' the same yesterday, to- 
 day, and for ever,' we are using words which profit not. Till 
 then, we do not realise that Object of faith, which is not a 
 mere name, on which titles and properties may be affixed 
 without congruity and meaning, but one that has a personal 
 existence and an identity distinct from everything else. 
 In what true sense do we know Him, if our idea of Him 
 be not such as to take up and incorporate into itself the 
 manifold attributes and offices which we ascribe to Him? 
 What do we gain from words, however correct and abun- 
 dant, if they end with themselves, instead of lighting up 
 the image of the Incarnate Son in our hearts ? 
 
 "We have well-nigh forgotten the sacred truth, gra- 
 ciously disclosed for our support, that Christ is the Son of 
 God in His Divine Nature, as well as in His human. We 
 speak of Him in a vague way as God, which is true, but 
 not the whole truth ; and, in consequence, when we proceed 
 to consider His humiliation, we are unable to carry on the 
 notion of His personality from heaven to earth. He who 
 was but now spoken of as God, without mention of the 
 Father from whom He is,isnext described as if a creature; 
 but how do these distinct notions of Him hold together in 
 our minds ? We are able indeed to continue the idea of a 
 Son into that of a servant, though the descent was infinite, 
 and, to our reason, incomprehensible; but when we merely 
 speak, first of God, then of man, we seem to change the 
 Nature without preserving the Person. In truth, His 
 Divine Sonship is that portion of the sacred doctrine, on 
 which the mind is providentially intended to rest through- 
 out, and so to preserve for itself His identity unbroken. 
 
in spite of its abuse. 191 
 
 But, when we abandon this gracious help afforded to 
 our faith, how can we hope to gain the one true and 
 simple vision of Him ? how shall we possibly look be- 
 yond our own words, or apprehend in any sort what we 
 say? In consequence, we are often led, almost as a 
 matter of necessity, in discoursing of His words and 
 works, to distinguish between the Christ who lived on 
 earth and the Wolfl who is in the bosom of the Father, 
 speaking of His human nature and His Divine nature 
 so separately, as not to feel or understand that God is 
 man and man is God ; and thus, beginning by being 
 Sabellians, we go on to be Nestorians, and tend to be 
 at length Ebionites, and to deny Christ's Divinity 
 altogether." Sermons, vol. iii. 12. 
 
 So much on the doctrine of the Principatus, on its use 
 and abuse. It naturally introduces us to the second 
 doctrine which has to be considered, as giving a shelter 
 to Semi-Arianism, viz. the Syncatabasis or Condescensio 
 of the Son. 
 
192 The second opening to the heresy, 
 
 § 7. THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY OPENED TO THE HERESY, 
 THE SYNCATABASIS OF THE SON. 
 
 If all that was told us in Revelation about the Holy 
 Trinity was of the same character as the information con- 
 veyed in the form of baptism, if we only learned from the 
 inspired word about One Name, the Name of Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, to whom religious service was to be paid, 
 then it would be a reasonable surprise to find writers of the 
 early centuries departing from the theological tone of that 
 sacred formula, and using language derogatory to the 
 supreme dignity of the Son and Spirit. But the case is 
 otherwise ; although Scripture tells us not a little concern- 
 ing those Divine Persons, as They are in Themselves, it 
 tells us much more about Them, as They are to us, in those 
 ministrative offices towards creation, towards theUniverse 
 and towards mankind, which from the first They have 
 exercised in contrariety to our higher conceptions of Them. 
 Nor without reason ; for it is by means of Their voluntary 
 graciousness that man primarily has any knowledge of 
 Them at all ; since, except for that condescension, to use St. 
 Athanasius's word, man wouldnot have existed, man would 
 not have been redeemed or illuminated. It is reserved for 
 the close of that series of Dispensations which has inno- 
 vated upon Eternity, for God to manifest Himself as in 
 Eternity He was and ever has been, as " All in all," and 
 " as He is ; " hitherto, " Eye hath not seen, nor ear 
 
the Syncatabasis of the Son. 193 
 
 heard" what He is in Himself; and, in particular as 
 regards the Son and the Spirit, we know them mainly 
 in Their economical aspect, as our Mediator and our 
 Paraclete. 
 
 It is natural then, in spite of the baptismal formula, for 
 Christians at all times, without guarding their words, 
 to speak of the Second and Third Divine Persons as sub- 
 ordinate to the Fafher ; for that Economy is the very 
 state of things into which we are all born. St. Michael, 
 indeed, and St. Gabriel, may have had almost from the 
 first a Beatific Vision beyond all economies ; but it was 
 natural in St. Polycarp at the stake to address the Father 
 through " the eternal High Priest ; " and in St. Justin, 
 when disputing with Trypho, to speak of the " Prophetical 
 Spirit," for such are the pledged relations in which those 
 Divine Persons ai"e revealed towards us in the covenant of 
 Mercy, and no experience had yet taught Saints and 
 Martyrs that such language admitted of perversion. 
 
 Moreover, this Syncatabasis, or economy of conde- 
 scension, on the part of the Son and Spirit, took place, not 
 from the era of redemption merely, but, as I have re- 
 marked, from the beginning of all things ; and this is 
 a point which, as regards the Eternal Son, must be 
 especially insisted on here. As to the Incarnation, it 
 would have been hard, if the early Fathers might not, 
 without the risk of misconception, have spoken of our 
 Lord, in the acts of His human nature, as inferior to the 
 Father, though even in this respect they have not always 
 escaped censure ; but there is in Scripture a record of 
 acts before the Incarnation, which the Church, following 
 
1 94 The second opening to the heresy. 
 
 Scripture, has ever ascribed to Him, and which come 
 short of His Supreme Majesty, — acts which belong to 
 Him, not as man of course, nor yet simply as God, not to 
 His Divine Nature, but, as I may say, to His Person, 
 and to the special Office which it was congruous to His 
 Person to undertake, and which He did voluntarily under- 
 take, as being the Son and Word of the Father, — acts, 
 which, if it was in the divine decrees that a universe of 
 matter and spirit should be created, were ipso facto made 
 obligatory on the Creator from the very idea of creation, 
 and of necessity must proceed from Him, while they were 
 in themselves of a ministrative character.' I refer to that 
 series or that tissue (as it may be called) of acts of creation, 
 preservation, governance, correction, providence, which 
 the Ante-Nicene theologian could not avoid dwelling on, 
 and attributing to the Son, and treating as acts of minis- 
 tration, (as they really were,) and describing in terms, 
 (whether he would or no,) which heresy would pervert, 
 supposing, in the presence of idolaters and atheists, he 
 was to speak of the Supreme Being at all. Only an 
 Almighty, Ever-present Intelligence is equal ' to the 
 maintenance of this vast, minutely complex universe ; 
 its existence and continuance is His never-ceasing work ; 
 but work, as such, is ministration, as being a means to 
 
 '^ i.e. ministration to the creature; hence the Epicureans denied a 
 Providence, as implying a God laden with laborious service. But Scrip- 
 ture does not hesitate to speak of God as "carrying" His people, as the 
 eagle its young or as beasts of burden the idols, as "serving and being 
 wearied " with their sins, as "groaning " under them, as a wain overladen ; 
 Deut. xxxii. ii ; Isai. xlvi. 1-3, xliii. 24; Amos ii. 13. 
 
the Syncatabasis of the Son. 195 
 
 an end; to rule is to serve; to be the Creator is to 
 descend : and the Second Divine Person, in order to 
 create, submitted to a descent, such as was befitting in 
 a Son, and as was compatible, rigorously so, with His co- 
 equality and indivisible unity with the Father. 
 
 Nor is this all ; whatever anxious care might be taken 
 in guarding the docti'ine of His divinity, the contrast 
 between His Eterffal Sonship and this Temporal Minis- 
 tration, reasonable and intelligible as it is in itself, cannot 
 be carried out into the details which Scripture opens upon 
 our view, without affecting our imagination, as if such a 
 ministry were incompatible with Divine Attributes. I 
 mean, if St. Justin, or Clement, or Origen, spoke of our 
 Lord as the Demiurge, or the Moral Governor, or the 
 Judge, such offices indeed, though ministrative, would 
 not seem unworthy of Divine Greatness; but if, with 
 Athanasius and Augustine to corroborate them, they spoke 
 of Him as the God who appeared to the Patriarchs, as 
 the Divine Presence (for instance) or Angel who visited 
 Abraham in his tent, or who spoke to Jacob from the 
 heavenly ladder, or who called to Moses from the Burning 
 Bush, they could not escape the imputation, where critics 
 were unfair, of regarding Him as a secondary or represen- 
 tative deity, as Arius did, though they may be easily 
 defended on the score that they spoke, not of what He 
 was in His own nature, but of the mission which He 
 undertook in the economy of grace. And therefore it 
 may be quite true, without their being to blame, that 
 they have in matter of fact accidentally opened the way 
 or furnished an excuse for heresy. 
 
1 96 The Temporal Procession. 
 
 § 8. THE TEMPORAL PROCESSION.^ 
 
 I have something more to say still. In regard to 
 truths so far above us, it is impossible for us to draw the 
 line precisely between such of our Lord's acts as belong 
 immediately to His Sonship, and those which belong to 
 His office; since, even as regards our human relations, 
 we often have a difficulty in determining their limits. 
 According to our opportunities or circumstances we take 
 upon ourselves duties which are not simply obligatory 
 upon us, but are brought upon us by our position, or 
 called for by their appropriateness; and we are often 
 unable, if we attempt it, to trace up each act to its right 
 principle. Jacob toiled and endured sun and frost for 
 many years in his duties of a shepherd in Padan-aram ; 
 how many of his acts were absolutely due to Laban, on 
 the ground of his being a hired servant, and how far did 
 he give a free service either for love of Rachael, or as 
 Laban's son-in-law and representative ? Where did obli- 
 gation end, and generosity begin ? David, again, in defence 
 of his father's flock, smote the lion and the bear; how far 
 did duty compel him to that fight, and how far was it 
 spontaneous zeal? It may be difficult to decide; but 
 still the two ideas are quite distinct, service and devotion; 
 
 ^ The phrase " temporalis proccssio " is used by St. Thomas, 
 Qu. 43, art. 2, of the Son's Incarnation. It is here used analo- 
 gously for His coming to create, &c., as by Billuart de Trin. Diss, i, 
 art. i!, § 4. 
 
The Temporal Procession. 197 
 
 and we do not deny that Jacob was the son-in-law and 
 nephew of Laban, and David the son of Jesse, because 
 we fall into the error of thinking that there was a strict 
 obligation upon them personally, to show the solicitude 
 which they exercised in fact for the flocks committed to 
 their charge. 
 
 And so as regards the' acts of our Lord as recorded 
 in Scripture, and t*ie colour given to them by the early 
 Fathers. They may have attributed acts to His Nature, 
 which belonged to His Person or to His office, without 
 thereby intending to deny that He had an intrinsic 
 divinity, and had undertaken a temporal economy. He 
 was the Son of God, equal to the Father; He took works 
 upon Him beneath that Divine Majesty; they were such 
 as were not obligations of His Nature, nor of His Person, 
 but they were congruous to His Person, and they might 
 look very like what essentially belonged to Him ; but 
 after all, they were works such as God alone could under- 
 take. He was Creator, Preserver, Archetype of all things, 
 but not simply as God, but as God the Son, and further, 
 as God the Son in an office of ministration ; perhaps His 
 creative acts might be called services, as afterwards He 
 took upon Himself " the form of a servant ; " or at least 
 they might so be called by this or that early Father. 
 Such writers might be mistaken in so terming them ; 
 and there were many questions in detail which they might 
 doubt about or answer variously : — why He was called an 
 Angel ; how He was High Priest, by nature or by office; 
 in what sense He was First-born of creation ; in what 
 aspect of His Person " He cannot do anything of Him- 
 
198 The Temporal Procession. 
 
 self; " nay, even such a question as, Did the Word become 
 the Son ? which will come before us in the sequel. Errors 
 in these details, if they made them, would not prove that 
 the writers did not hold distinctly the fundamental truth 
 that the Co-eternal Word became in the beginning the 
 ministrative Word, who created and upholds all things; 
 and, if they actually did profess that He was the Creator, 
 how does it invalidate or obscure such a profession, that 
 they held also that He created at the Father's will ? No 
 creature could create, but a Son might serve. Thus the 
 Fathers of the first four centuries may have enlarged on 
 the acts natural or congruous to His Divine Person, and 
 the medieval theologians may have rather dwelt upon the 
 thought of Him in His absolute Divine Perfections as 
 co-equal with the Father; but it is as unjust to say that 
 Origen, Hippolytus, Dionysius or Methodius introduced 
 Arianism, as to say that Alexander, Athanasius and 
 Basil favoured it, merely because they, one and all, in 
 their writings contrast the Son with the God and Father 
 of all, as being the First-born in creation, or, to use the 
 Platonic term, the Prophoric Word, giving existence,, 
 life, light, order, and permanence to the whole world. 
 
 At the same time I do not deny, on the contrary I am 
 proposing to show, that this doctrine of the Syncatabasis 
 of the Son, true as it is, did, as well as the Principatus 
 of the Father, accidentally shelter and apparently 
 countenance that form of Arianism, which gained such 
 sudden and wide extension in Christendom on the 
 conversion of the Empire to Christianity. 
 
The Primogenitus. 1 99 
 
 § 9. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMOGENITUS. 
 
 Because our Lord is a Son, therefore it is that He could 
 make Himself less thanaSon ; and, unless Hehad become 
 less than a Son, we should not have learned that He 
 was a Son, for His economical descent to the creature is 
 the channel of our knowledge. This is what I have been 
 insisting on ; also, that, since His original Personality 
 thus led on to His Temporal Procession, therefore it is 
 not easy to determine when He acts as the Son, and when 
 merely as the Minister of the Father, and the Mediating 
 Power of the Universe. For instance, in treating of the 
 doctrine of the Incarnation, we find it a question in 
 controversy to determine, whether our Lord's ignorance 
 of the Day of Judgment, Mark xiii. 32, is to be predicated 
 of His Divine Person, or of His human nature, or of the 
 Mediator, as such. Again, since He came "in the form 
 of a servant," was He really made a servant ? Again, 
 since He took upon Himself a created nature, can we 
 call Him a creature ? He is a Priest, but how? as God 
 or as man ? has He, as Emmanuel, one will or two ? If, 
 then, these are questions to determine, even when we start 
 from a fact so tangible as His humanity, can we wonder 
 that there should be difficulties, and a danger of mistake, 
 when even the most saintly and most acute minds exercise 
 themselves in treating of what is beyond the phenomena 
 of human experience, viz., His Syncatabasis, or original 
 " Descent tc the creature" in order to its existence, life, 
 
200 The Doctrine of 
 
 rule, and conservation ? For instance, I should have styled 
 this Condescensio by the name of a "Mission," from the 
 analogy of the Incarnation, except that I thought it not 
 clear that " Mission" is an allowable term, theologically, 
 to apply to it, and whether it should not rather be called 
 a TT/joeXevaii; or " going forth ". Others have thought (I 
 consider erroneously) that this TrpoiXeua-Ki can be called, 
 and has in early times been called, a gennesis, or divine 
 generation. It requires experience in the history of theo- 
 logical terms to decide such questions; and we may freely 
 grant that the early writers, who could not have the 
 experience of times to them future, may have varied and 
 erred in their language about our Lord, and that, in the 
 interest of grievous heresies, without imputing to them 
 any departure from orthodoxy themselves. 
 
 To show this in detail, I cannot do better than draw out 
 the great Athanasius's account of our Lord's Syncatabasis, 
 as involved in the creation and preservation of the universe, 
 and then against his statements, so high in their authority, 
 set some of the mistakes in relation to it which are to be 
 found in the language or the thought of certain Ante- 
 Nicene writers, in spite of their general concurrence in his 
 teaching. This I now proceed to do. 
 
 That it should have been the will of God to surround 
 Himself with creatures destined to live for ever, after an 
 eternity in which He was the sole Being in existence, is a 
 mystery as great as any in religion, natural or revealed. 
 If it were possible for change to attach to the Unchange- 
 able, creation was the act in which change v/as involved; 
 
the Primogenitus. 201 
 
 and, in fact, in order to be intelligible, we are obliged to 
 speak as if He then did pass from a state of repose to an 
 age of unintermitted, everlasting action. The steps of 
 the process in which this change (so to call it) consisted, 
 as Athanasius and other Fathers describe them, are as 
 follows : — 
 
 1. First, "He spoke the word;" to whom did God 
 speak? to His Wtird and Son. "And it was done." 
 Who did it ? At the Father's bidding, the Son at once 
 brought the work into effect. 
 
 2. But word and deed are consecutive acts, whereas 
 with God they are one act. And to say that the Father 
 addressed the San is to draw a line, however fine, between 
 the Two, whereas they are transcendently one and the 
 same Being. When, then, it is said, "He spoke the 
 Word," what is meant, is " He uttered the Logos," as 
 elsewhere, " By the Word of the Lord were the heavens 
 made." His Logos is His command. His effectual, self- 
 operating command. Accordingly, it is more consistent 
 with, more conservative of, the co-equality and indivisi- 
 bility of the Father and His Word, to consider the Word 
 not addressed, but as Himself the Divine Fiat, the Hy- 
 postatic Will and Operation, the Counsel, Idea, Design, 
 Purpose, and Effective Force, the Wisdom and Power, 
 which called up the universe out of nothing. 
 
 3. This going forth of the Hypostatic Wisdom and 
 Power of God, manifesting Himself externally in creative 
 act, was the commencement of His Temporal Economy, 
 and the immediate introduction of His Syncatabasis. 
 
 4. For that first act of creation could not stand alone ; 
 
 14 
 
202 The Doctrine of 
 
 other acts necessarily followed. Creation and conservation 
 must go together. The finite could not stand of itself; 
 nay, the finite could not have borne the direct action of 
 the Infinite upon it, as it started into existence under 
 the Divine Hand, unless by the Infinite Itself it had been 
 fortified to bear Its touch ; otherwise it would have fallen 
 back into its original nothing, annihilated by the very 
 process of creation. In order, then, to give effect to His 
 work, He who was at the first instant external to it, must, 
 without a moment's delay, enter into it and give it a 
 supernatural strength by His, as it were, connatural 
 Presence {yid. supr. p. y^. 
 
 "The Word," says Athanasius, "when in the beginning 
 Heframed the creatures, condescended (cru7KaTOy8e/S77Ke) to 
 them, that it might be possible for them to come into 
 being. For they could not have endured His absolute, 
 untempered nature, and His splendour from the Father, 
 unless, condescending with the Father's love for man, He 
 had supported them, and taken hold of them, and brought 
 them into substance." Orat. ii. 64. 
 
 This was the first act of His Syncatabasis. 
 
 5. It was also the first act of grace, of a gift made to 
 the creation, over and above its own nature, and accom- 
 panying that nature from the first : — a divine quality, by 
 which the universe, in the hour of its coming into being, 
 was raised into something higher than a divine work, and 
 was in some sort adopted into a divine family and son- 
 ship, so that it was no longer a yevrjTov but a yevvrjrov, 
 and that by the entrance, presence, manifestation in it 
 of the Eternal Son. 
 
the Primogenitus. 203 
 
 " By this condescension of the Word," says Atha- 
 nasius, " the creation also is made a son through Him 
 (vtWotetrat rj KTi<7i<;)." Ibid.; vid. also Orat. i. 56, and 
 contr. Gent, 42. 
 
 6. Thus He who was the Son of God became in a 
 certain sense Son towards the creation for the sake of it 
 and in it. He was born into the universe, as afterwards 
 He was born in Mary, though not by any hypostatic 
 union with it. This birth was not a figure of His eternal 
 generation, but of His incarnation, a sort of prelude and 
 augury of it. 
 
 Thus Athanasius speaks of it: — "If," he says, "the 
 Word of God is in the world, which is a body, and has 
 taken possession of the whole and all its parts, what is 
 wonderful or absurd in our affirming that of man too " 
 (that is, in the Incarnation) "He has taken possession ? 
 . . for if it becomes Him to enter into the world and to 
 be manifested in the whole of it, also it would become 
 Him to appear in a human body, and to make it the 
 subject of His illumination and action." De Incarn. 
 V.D. 41. 
 
 7. Thus the Only-begotten of the Father imputes His 
 Divine Sonship to the universe, or rather makes the uni- 
 verse partaker of His Divine Fulness, by entering, or 
 being (as it may be called) born into it ; not, of course, as 
 if He became a mere Anima Mundi,or put Himself under 
 the laws of creation, but still by a wonderful and ador- 
 able descent, so as to be, in spite of His supreme rule, 
 the First-born of His creation and of all that is in it, 
 as He afterwards became the First-born of the pre- 
 
204 The Doctrine of 
 
 destinate, and as St. Paul says, "is formed in their 
 hearts." ^ 
 
 "The Son is called First-born," says Athanasius, 
 "not because He ranks with the creation, but in order 
 to signify the framing and adoption of all things through 
 Him (T?y9 rmv iravrmv ZrjfiLovp'^ia'; koX vioTrof^aeco^)." 
 Orat. iii. 9. 
 
 8. And, as the supernatural adoption of human nature 
 under the gospel involves a real inward sanctification, so 
 the elevation of the universe in the Divine Son includes 
 an impress of His own likeness upon it. He made Him- 
 self its Archetype, and stamped upon it the image of 
 His own Wisdom. He gave it order and beauty, life and 
 permanence, and made it reflect His own perfections. As 
 
 ^ Tlpwr6ToKos is not an exact translation of Pnmogenitus, though 
 Homer, as Petavius says, may use t(ktid (oi gigno. It is never used 
 in Scripture for " Only-begotten." We never read there of the First- 
 born of God, or of the Father ; but First-born of the creation , 
 whether the original creation or the new. The Presence of the Son 
 interpenetrates and permeates the world, though in no sense as its soul. 
 Pantheism in natural theology is the error parallel to Monophysitism. 
 in revealed. As far as I know, St. Athanasius does not use the com- 
 parison, which is found in the creed attributed to him, between the 
 compound nature of man and the mystery of the Incarnation. If our 
 Lord is not fettered by His human nature, when "made flesh," much 
 less is He subjected to His own universe by becoming, as He has 
 become, its First-born, its Archetype and Life. Athanasius protests 
 against both errors in Incarn. V.D. 17, ou yap trweSe'SeTo Tij) irdj/naTi, 
 aWa fj.aWov ai/rhs ^KptiTei tovto, k.t.A.. vid. the whole passage. At the 
 time of writing these grand orations, contr. Gent, and de Incarn., 
 Athanasius was not more than twenty-five, perhaps only twenty-one ; 
 though they have the luxuriance of youth, yet they are standard works 
 in theology. 
 
the Primogenitus. 205 
 
 He was the beginning of the creation of God, in respect 
 of time, so was He its first principle or idea in respect 
 to typical order. 
 
 " In my substance," says Athanasius, speaking in the 
 name of Wisdom, " I was with the Father; but, by a 
 .condescension {avjKara^dtret) to things made, I was 
 applying to the works My own impress, so that the 
 whole world, as bemg in one body, might be, not at 
 variance, but in concord with itself." Orat. ii. 81. 
 
 g. It follows that, while the creation was exalted into 
 sonship, the Sdn, in exalting it, was lowered. His con- 
 descension seemed to make Him one of His own works, 
 though of course the first of them ; for the greatest and 
 highest glory of creation was not what it had by nature, 
 but what it had by grace, and this was the reflection and 
 image of Him who created it. Thus, as viewed in that 
 reflection. He was a created wisdom, His real self being 
 confused, so to speak, with the reflection of Him ; as now 
 we might speak of a crucifix as "golden," "silver," or 
 ' ' ivory," and as being made, when we are not really speak- 
 ing of Him who was fixed to the Cross, but of His image. 
 
 " The Only-begotten and Auto-Wisdom of God," says 
 Athanasius, " is Creator and Framer of all things ; but, 
 in order that what came into being might not only exist, 
 but be good, it pleased God that His own Wisdom should 
 condescend to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress 
 and semblance (tvttov koX ^avraaiav) of the image of 
 Wisdom on all in common and on each, that the things 
 which were made might be manifestly wise works, and 
 worthy of God ; . . . and, whereas He is not Himself a 
 
2o6 The Doctrine of 
 
 creature, but the Creator, nevertheless, because of the 
 image of Him created in the works. He says Himself of 
 Himself, ' The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways 
 for His works.' " Orat. ii. 78. 
 
 Thus much Athanasius: — I will corroborate his 
 doctrine by various passages of Augustine, as they 
 occur for the most part in the eighth volume of the 
 Benedictine edition of His works. 
 
 He tells us that God created all things by His Word 
 and Only-begotten Son : that in the Word " are all things 
 that are created, even before they are created," and that 
 " whatever is in Him is life, and a creative life ; " that 
 " whatever God was purposed to do, was already in the 
 Word, nor would be in the things themselves, were they 
 not in the Word ; " that " all nature is corruptible, and 
 thereby tends to nothing, because it is made out of 
 nothing; " but that " as a speaker utters sounds, which 
 have a meaning from the first, so, while God created the 
 world from unformed matter. He withal created its form 
 together with it ; " that "while all nature tends to nothing, 
 as coming out of nothing, it is really good as it comes from 
 Him ; " that " its good is threefold, consisting in propor- 
 tion, beauty, and order ; " that " those things which have 
 any beauty are divine gifts; " that "the Word, who is 
 equal to God, is the Art of the Omnipotent Artificer, by 
 whom all things are made, an unchangeable and incor- 
 ruptible Wisdom, abiding in Itself, changing all things : " 
 that "He is a transcendent, living Art, possessed by the 
 Omnipotent and Wise God, full of all ideas that live and 
 are unchangeable ; " that we must distinguish between 
 
the Pritnogenitus. 207 
 
 " the two titles ' Only-begotten ' and ' First-born,' inter- 
 preting the former by the words ' In the beginning was 
 the Word,' and the latter by the Apostle's saying that 
 He is ' First-born among many brothers ; ' " that, since 
 " they were not such by nature, by believing they received 
 power ; that His Son might be Only-begotten with the 
 Father, and First-born towards us ; " pp. 81-2, 177, 501-3, 
 553-5. 850-1, &c. • 
 
 And this is precisely the doctrine of St. Thomas as 
 regards the "First-born:" — " In quantum solus est verus 
 et naturalis Dei Filius, dicitur unigenitus ; in quantum 
 per assimilationem ad ipsum alii dicuntur filii adoptivi, 
 quasi metaphorice dicitur esse primogenitus." Qu. 41, 
 art. 3 (p. 195, t. 20, ed. 1787). And what is true of the 
 new holds of the original creation. 
 
 This doctrine, expounded by St. Athanasius, confirmed 
 by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, is in tone and drift 
 very unlike Arianism, which had no sympathy with the 
 mysticism and poetry of Plato ; but it had a direct re- 
 semblance to the Semi-Arian edition of the heresy, and, 
 if put forward without its necessary safeguards and cor- 
 rections, as we find them in those great doctors, was likely 
 to open the way to it. To such instances of true doctrine 
 incautiously worded, and imperfectly explained, I shall 
 now proceed. 
 
2o8 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 § 10. UNADVISABLE TERMS AND PHRASES IN EARLY 
 WRITERS. 
 
 I am now to give instances of incorrect and unadvisable 
 terms and statements in some of the early Fathers, 
 founded upon the doctrine of the Syncatabasis, as I have 
 drawn it out, which may be taken for Semi-Arianism, and 
 gave some countenance to it, when it was openly professed. 
 And I shall arrange them under three heads, according 
 as they belong to our Lord's three titles, — the Word, 
 Wisdom, and the Son. 
 
 The Divine Word. 
 
 Our Lord, as the Word of God, is considered first, as in 
 the bosom of the Father, next, as proceeding from Him 
 to create, form, and govern the universe. This contrast 
 is sometimes expressed by the terms eVSta^ero? and 
 irpoi^opiKO';, the internal and the external Word. These 
 terms are taken from heathen philosophy; nor are they often 
 used by the Fathers, but the idea they convey has a 
 Christian meaning, and requires terms equivalent to these 
 to express it, if these, on account of their associations, are 
 inexpedient. Heathen terms are not in themselves inex- 
 pedient, since St. John uses the word " Logos," which the 
 Platonists, as well as Philo, had used before him ; and, as 
 these philosophers also use the two words, Endiathetic 
 and Prophoric, in order to denote a change of condition 
 in the Eternal Word, which Christianity also acknow- 
 ledges, it was but natural in Christian writers to follow 
 the precedent of the Apostle, and, as he designated the 
 Second Person of the Trinity the Logos, in like manner 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 209 
 
 to call him Endiathetic, viewed in His relation to God, 
 and Prophoric, viewed in His relation to creation. 
 
 The history of the words is this : — Logos, as we know, 
 stands, in Greek, both for reason and for speech ; and, 
 since the inward thought is immediately connected with ^ 
 and passes on into language, as its corresponding develop- 
 ment, it was natural to consider the mental and vocal act 
 as virtually one, as' the common term expressing them 
 suggested, as if a thought were only an inchoate word, 
 and a word only a perfected thought. Hence came the 
 Logos Endiathetic and Prophoric of the Stoics, who thus 
 both distinguished and identified thinking and speaking. 
 Still more appropriately were these terms applied by 
 the Platonists to their Divine Logos, to express his state 
 of repose and then of action. From the Platonists the 
 terms passed over to Christian writers. 
 
 It was natural that the latter should thus adopt them ; 
 still they did not commonly use them ; some of them did, 
 but others looked on them with suspicion, convenient and 
 expressive as they were, for the reason that heretical 
 authors, as well as Platonists, had used them for their 
 own purposes. The one term without the other would 
 obviously be the symbol of a heresy; the Inward Word 
 betokened Sabellianism, and the External, Arianism. 
 Both together might represent the Catholic Truth, and 
 accordingly they are used for the Divine Word as in the 
 bosom of the Father, and as manifested in creation, by 
 St. Theophilus, prior to the Nicene Council, and St. Cyril ^ 
 
 1 So I understand Petav. de Trin. vi. i, § 8. 
 
2 1 o Unadvisable Terms 
 
 of Alexandria after it ; but, on the whole, they were 
 avoided by the Fathers on account of their associations. 
 
 "Nothing essentially belonging to God could be ex- 
 ternal to God ; if, then, Catholics held their Logos to be 
 Prophoric, that was enough to prove that He was not 
 God." This is what the Arians said, whether that Ex- 
 ternal Word was a Divine action or a Divine messenger. 
 Hence it was that Catholic writers disowned the Logos 
 Prophoricus. Thus, long before the rise of Arianism, 
 Ignatius had said of our Lord, that He was "God's 
 Eternal Word, not proceeding from silence," as a sound or 
 voice does ; and Athanasius, with various other Fathers, 
 says that " He is not Prophoric, a sound of words." Arius, 
 on the other hand, assuming what Athanasius denies, says, 
 "Manywords does God speak; which ofthem istheSon?" 
 To obviate this inference, the Fathers spoke of the Word as 
 a substance, hypostasis, or nature. ' /2? Ik Xojlkov \0709, 
 says Athanasius, ovtw? ef v'jroardcrea)<; vtroaTaTo^, koI i^ 
 ovaLat; ovai,a)ST}<; /cal evovaio^, xal i^ ovto<; wv. Or at. iv. I. 
 
 Logos was not the only term, which, from its properly 
 denoting an attribute or act, was denied by the Arians, 
 except in a figurative sense, to the Divine Son. Some 
 Latin writers translated it by " Sermo;" which carries 
 with it an idea of imperfection and complexity, since con- 
 versation or talking is made up of parts, and has no de- 
 terminate limits. Tertullian feeling this, though he uses 
 "Sermo" himself, observes, " Ergo das aliquam substan- 
 tiam esse sermonem ? Plane." adv. Prax. 7. Hence, 
 in contrast, Augustine says of the more usual title, "Ver- 
 bum," and in opposition to Arius, as above quoted, " Unus 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 2 1 1 
 
 est Deus, Unum Verbum habet ; in Uno Verbo omnia 
 continet." In Joan. Tract. 22. 
 
 There are other epithets in Ante-Nicene writers, in- 
 tended specially to exclude the notion of separation between 
 the Father and the Son, and on that account, as I noticed 
 above, imaging the Son as the utterance or fiat of the 
 Father, and not as directly addressed by Him, which, in 
 like manner, might"be perverted to obliterate His Divine 
 personality; such as His beingthe Father's " commanding," 
 or " planning," or " operating." But titles such as these 
 were given to Him by the Catholic Fathers after Arianism 
 as well as before ; and, if it is no offence in the Post- 
 Nicene to have taken this licence, much less is it in the 
 Ante-Nicene. If Augustine, for instance, might speak of 
 Him as the " Jussio " of God, then might Justin be allowed 
 to call Him the ip^aata or "Operatio," and Origen to call 
 Him the " Mandatio ; " and if Augustine might designate 
 Him as the " Ars Patris,"^ Theophilus is not to blame for 
 applying to Him the title of Bidra^K. Yet such titles, as 
 well as that of the Prophoric Word, denoting, in the first 
 instance, divine indeed, but unhypostatic acts, could not 
 really belong (as the Arians might say) to the Son, except 
 figuratively, since Catholics, as well as they, held Him 
 to be an hypostasis. Hence, Athanasius seems to deny 
 that He can be called ywssj'o, which Augustine sanctioned; 
 oil Trpo<f)opiK6'i, ovSe to irpoard^ai 6ebv, tovto etniv 6 v'loi;. 
 Or at. ii. 35. 
 
 But, even though the Prophoric Word were allowed to 
 
 1 contr. Serm. Ar. 3. t. 8, p. 627 ; de Trin. vi. 10. 
 
212 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 be an hypostasis, as Athanasius urged, that would not 
 rescue the phrase from the Arian use of it ; for, anyhow, 
 that term impHed that the Word was sent forth from the 
 Father; therefore, He was external to Him ; and what was 
 external to the Divine Essence could not really belong to it. 
 Indeed, this was the primary tenet of the whole heretical 
 party, that the Son was a second Being, as distinct in His 
 substance from the Father as from any one of us, though 
 the Semi- Arians said He was a sort of emanation from God, 
 but the Arians proper that Hewas Hiscreature. This.too, 
 as it would appear, is just what Philo meant by the Pro- 
 phoric Word ; and, when Catholics used Philo's term, they 
 might be plausibly represented as using it in Philo's sense. 
 And this Arian view of the Logos received additional 
 support from the received Catholic interpretation of certain 
 passages in the Old Testament, and the designation of 
 " Angel " so unhesitatingly given to the Word by the early 
 Fathers. The title, as properly meaning "messenger," is 
 cognate to the idea of a mission ; and this is the true 
 explanation of their use of it. It is one of our Lord's titles 
 springing out of His voluntary Syncatabasis ; at the same 
 time, unless read with this necessary explanation, it seems 
 to imply a created nature. St. Justin, for instance, speaks 
 of the Word's appearing as an Angel to Abraham, wrestling 
 with Jacob,appearingin the Burning Bush,and announcing 
 to Joshua the fall of Jericho. Still, this is only what the 
 Post-Nicene Fathers, after the experience of Arianism, said 
 also. " He is called an Angel," says Athanasius, " be- 
 cause He alone reveals the Father." Orai. iii. 13. And 
 Hilary: — "In order that the distinction of Persons might 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 213 
 
 be absolute, He is called God's Angel ; for He who is God 
 from God, is also the Angel of God.'' de Trin. iv. 23. 
 And as to particular apparitions, Athanasius says that it 
 was our Lord who wrestled with Jacob ; Hilary, that it 
 was He who spoke words of comfort to Hagar ; Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, that it was He who conversed with Moses on 
 the Mount ; Basil, that it was He who appeai'ed to Jacob 
 in a dream ; Chrysostom, that He appeared to Abraham ; 
 and Cyril of Alexandria, that He appeared to Moses in 
 the Bush. If Athanasius is to be spokesman for these 
 great Fathers, the so-called Angel was not our Lord in the 
 prerogatives proper to His Divine Person, but in one of 
 those manifestations which belonged to His " condescen- 
 sion," and to the office which was the form of it. He was 
 the First-born, as of the material universe, so also of the 
 Angelic Choirs ; not, indeed, as partaking the nature of 
 Angels, any more than the nature of the material world, 
 but as present and living in His creatures by an economy 
 of ministration. But, if Athanasius may speak of Him, 
 not in His proper nature, but in His Syncatabasis, why 
 may not Justin ? 
 
 There are passages, however, of St. Methodius,^ harsher 
 than any that occur in Justin, and it would be unfair to 
 pass them over without expressing an opinion upon them. 
 I cannot deny they sound like Semi- Arianism ; yet I do not 
 see why they should not be interpreted on the principle 
 of the Syncatabasis, as well as those which I have already 
 mentioned. He says that our Lord is "the most ancient 
 
 ' Photius considers his works have been practised upon by heretics. 
 
2 1 4 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 of the ^ons and the First of the Archangels." Conviv. 
 iii. 4. May not this be taken to mean that He was the 
 Prototocos or First-born of Angels, that He entered into 
 them all, that is, into the spiritual world as into the 
 material, and was the Archetype, on which they were both 
 created and super-naturalised ? 
 
 The context, in which these words occur, will confirm 
 such an interpretation of them, and at the same time be 
 defended by it, for the context is at first sight more diffi- 
 cult than the language itself already quoted. Methodius 
 says : — 
 
 " Observe how orthodox Paul is in referring Adam to 
 Christ, accounting Adam to be not only a type and an 
 image of Christ, but even this, viz. that he even became 
 Christ, because of the Pro-asonian (irpb almvwv) Word 
 having fallen upon him {eyKaTaa-Krjyfrai). For it was 
 fitting that the First-born {irpccToyovov) of God and the 
 First-Offspring and Only-begotten, even Wisdom, should, 
 as being intermingled with man {KepaaOelaav) , have 
 become man {ivr)v6 pwn-'qicevai) , in the Protoplast and First 
 and First-born of men. (And this " [also] " Christ 
 was" [viz. when He came on earth] "a man filled with 
 the pure {aKpcurai) and perfect divinity, and God con- 
 tained in man.) For it was most becoming that the 
 most ancient of the ^ons and the First of the Arch- 
 angels, who was intending {fj^eWovTo) to come among 
 men {avvofjuXelv), should inhabit Adam, the most ancient 
 and first of men." 
 
 That is, it was fitting that He who condescended to 
 appear as the First-born of the angelic creation should also 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 215 
 
 become the First-born of the human race, as He after- 
 wards in the true Incarnation became the first of the 
 predestinate. 
 
 As to the notion of an indwelHng, not hypostatic, of 
 the Son in a creature, it is in this sense that we speak of 
 our Lord's appearing to Abraham or to Jacob ; He ap- 
 peared to them in a created Angel. Again, St. Paul says 
 of himself, " Christ liveth in me ;" and the Psalm runs, 
 " Nolite tangere christos meos," in accordance with our 
 Lord's words " Why persecutest thou Me ? " And 
 Catholics hold as de fide, that certainly at communion 
 our incarnate Lord is really present in the communicant. 
 
 There is another passage of Methodius which creates 
 some difficulty, in which Origen too, nay, at first sight 
 even Irenaeus, may be said to be implicated, and which 
 carries us back to Philo, whose language I must first 
 report. 
 
 Philo, then, in one place speaks of the Supreme God as 
 " He that is" (Jehovah), and as accompanied by His Two 
 Powers, God and Lord (de Abrah. p. 367, ed. 1691), titles 
 which Mosheim (in Cudworth " Syst. Intell." iv. 36) con- 
 siders to stand for the Hebrew Elohim and Adonai. 
 Philo's words are, " The Father of all is in the centre, 
 who in the Holy Scriptures is called by His proper name, 
 ' He that is.' Those on each side of Him are His most 
 ancient and nearest Powers ; that is, the one called the 
 Operative, the other the Kingly. The Operative is God, 
 for by It He established and ordered the Universe, and 
 the Kingly is the Lord." He proceeds, " Attended (Sopu- 
 (f)opovfj,€vo'i) by each of these Powers, He who is in the 
 
2 1 6 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 centre presents to the perceptive intellect an appearance 
 ((fiavTaa-lav) at one time of One, at another of Three." It 
 must be added that some such notion is in the Cabba- 
 listic writings. God who is between the Cherubim is the 
 Supreme Being, supported by His two primeval creations, 
 which, according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites considered 
 to be the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Heber, Bampt. Led. 
 ed. 2, p. 175, vid. also Philo, Quis hceres, p. 504.) 
 
 Philo, as far as I know, ascribed no " condescension" 
 to his Logos, for he considered him a creature, or, at 
 least, an emanation, as well as his companion Angel. 
 He speaks of him as a second God {vid. Euseb. Prcep. Ev. 
 vii. 13, p. 323, ed. 1688); as an Archangel between God 
 and man, neither increate nor a creature, an intercessor 
 with God, a messenger from Him {Quis hceres, p. 509), as 
 the first-born Son, His Viceroy {de Agricult. p. 195), the 
 created idea or plan, the K6(Tfio<; votjto^ on which the 
 visible world was made {de Opif. mund. p. 5, Quis hceres, 
 p. 512). There is nothing then in him which needs ex- 
 planation when he speaks of the Almighty and His two 
 ministering attendants ; but if a writer such as Irenaeus 
 uses language of a like character, he must be interpreted, 
 not by Philo, but by other statements of his own and by 
 the doctrine of his brother theologians. Indeed, when 
 closely inspected, the doubtful language of this great 
 Father explains itself. 
 
 He says : — " Not that the Father needeth Angels in 
 order to create, &c. ... for His Offspring and Image 
 minister to Him for all purposes, that is, the Son and Holy 
 Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, of whom all the Angels are 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 217 
 
 servants and subjects." (contr. Hcer. iv. 7, 4.) Again : 
 " God needed not Angels for the making of those things 
 which He had predestined with Himself should be made; 
 as if He had not Himself His own Hands, for there are 
 ever-present with Him His Word and Wisdom, the Son 
 and Spirit, through whom and in whom He made all 
 things at His free-will, and to whom He says ' Let us 
 make man after our Image and Likeness.'" (iv. 20, i.) 
 The phrase " Hand of God " is used as a title of the Son 
 by Athanasius, Cyril and Augustine, and irhplies the 
 Homoiision, that is, that the Son and Spirit are included 
 within, not external to the Divine Essence. Elsewhere, 
 Irenseus says in confirmation of this, " All these things 
 the Father made, not by Angels, nor by any powers 
 divided from His own Intelligence, for God needs not any 
 of these, but by His Word and Spirit." (i. 22, i.) 
 
 Allowing then that the Second and Third Divine 
 Persons have, in and since the creation, condescended 
 to ministrative offices, no offence can be taken with 
 statements, such as those of Irenaeus, which, assuming 
 this, clearly maintain, on the other hand. Their co- 
 existence in the Divine Unity. Though this condition 
 is not denied in the following passage from Methodius, 
 still he unpleasantly uses the language of Philo. He is 
 commenting upon the two olive-trees in Zach. iv. : — 
 
 " The Angel answered, ' These are the two sons of 
 fatness, who stand by the Lord of the whole earth,' 
 meaning the Two primeval (apxeyovov;) Powers, which 
 attend on God," (Bopv<f>opov(Ta';, Philo's word also,) 
 Conv. K. 5. He had in the context teen speaking of 
 
 15 
 
2 1 8 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 the Son and Spirit under the images of the Vine and 
 the Fig. 
 
 As to Origen, he seem's to have followed the theologians 
 of the Cabbala (according to St. Jerome Ep. ad Pam. et 
 Oc. t. i. p. 524, ed. Val.), when he considers the Seraphim 
 in Isaiah vi. to be the Second and Third Divine Persons. 
 Here again, as in the instance of Methodius, the question 
 arises, did he so think of Them in Their own nature, or 
 in the ministrative office They had graciously assumed 
 in the economy of creation and redemption, and as in- 
 habiting the Seraphim ? 
 
 One other incorrectness, and one which does not admit 
 of a satisfactory explanation, must be pointed out in 
 Methodius, in which others also are implicated, but not 
 Origen, who is as distinctly Catholic in regard to it as 
 Methodius, his severe critic, is not. Catholics, as we 
 have seen in the extracts from Athanasius, were very 
 explicit in teaching that the Divine Word was the Living 
 Idea, the All-sufficient Archetype, the Divine Stara^/,?, the 
 transcendent Ars, on which the universe was framed. The 
 Son interprets and fulfils the designs of the Eternal Mind, 
 not as copying them, when He foi'ms the world, but as 
 being Himself their very Original and Delineation within 
 the Father. Such was the doctrine of the great Alexan- 
 drian School, before Athanasius as well as after. Origen 
 calls Him the avToao^ia, and the ihea i S)v IheSiv ; and 
 Clement the cfxoro^ apyervirov 0iw?, and the apxh kol 
 airapxh of ^11 things ; and Athenagoras the Ihsa and 
 ivepyeta of creation. Hence it was that He was fitted, 
 and He alone, to become the First-born of all things, and 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 2 1 9 
 
 to exercise a Syncatabasis which would be available for 
 the conservation of the world. The Afi-ican TertuUian 
 before Arianism, as well as Augustine after it, says in 
 like manner that in Him were " the thoughts and dis- 
 positions of all things, which were as if they were already, 
 as existing in the Divine Intelligence." adv. Prax. 6 fin. 
 Different from this is the language of Philo, who either 
 held that the Woifl wrought after the Divine "Archetypal 
 exemplars," or again, as I have said above, was the 
 Divine created plan of the world; anyhow, not the 
 Divine Idea ; and Eusebius follows him in this denial. 
 "As a skilful painter," he says, "taking the archetypal 
 ideas from the Father's thoughts. He [the Word] trans- 
 ferred them to the substance of His works." Eccl. Theol. 
 p. 165. This mistake was not guarded against by 
 Methodius ; he speaks of our Lord adorning the world 
 by imitation, Kara ft,l/j,T}criv, of the Father. Ap. Phot. 
 Bibl. p 938. Novatian falls into the same error (p. 175, 
 ed. Jackson), calling the Son expressly " imitator." Vid. 
 also Tatian contr. Grcec. 7, who says Kara ttjv fiLfjurjaiv. 
 
 2. Tlie Divine Wisdom. 
 
 Wisdom is another chief title given to our Lord, which 
 was wrested from its true meaning, as contained in the 
 Ante-Nicene writers, by the Arians who succeeded them. 
 It signifies the Word, especially considered as having 
 become a gift to the universe, that is, as the First-born 
 viewed in His Supreme Excellence and Perfection. Hence, 
 whereas there are two chief acts of the Demiurge, first to 
 create, then to fashion and furnish ; in the latter of these 
 
2 20 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 acts, that is, in stamping His Image upon the world in its 
 order, harmony, and beauty, He is Wisdom, as in creating 
 and sustaining it He is the Word. Again, since in the 
 Gospel Dispensation it is the Third Divine Person who is 
 the Giver of life, grace, strength, and glory to the spiritual 
 creation, and since Divine Wisdom, as seen in the 
 material creation, manifests itself in analogous gifts, it 
 is not strange that in the writings of the early Fathers, 
 Wisdom is sometimes found to be the symbol of the 
 Holy Ghost, not of our Lord, as in passages of Theo- 
 philus and Irenseus, as above quoted. 
 
 This leads to a remark very pertinent to the matter 
 in hand. We know that in Scripture the same word 
 "Spirit" is used indiscriminately, and (if I may so 
 speak) used confusedly, both for the Holy Ghost and for 
 His gifts. Even He Himself is called a gift in the 
 Hymn, viz. " Altissimi Donum Dei," as if He had really 
 no personality ; and much more is it common with St. 
 Paul to speak of His gifts and graces as if identical with 
 Himself, as if what is merely His work were really He. 
 Thus we read of Christians " walking in the spirit," of 
 the "spirit of adoption," of "the law of the spirit of 
 life," of " giving " and " receiving the spirit." Nor are 
 we without some instances of a parallel usage in Scripture, 
 as regards our Lord's titles. Thus " Christ " is said to be 
 "born in our hearts," and "the engrafted Word" is 
 said to "save our souls." And so again, our members 
 are said to be " members of Christ," and our Lord is said 
 to be persecuted in His disciples, as I remarked above. 
 
 In this way it is that the early Fathers speak of Him, 
 
ajtd Phrases in Early Writers. 221 
 
 and most appropriately, under the name of Wisdom, as a 
 work or creation. Thus TertulHan speaks of the ' ' Sophia 
 condita, initium viarum in opera ipsius" {adv. Herm. 45), 
 and Clement of the -TrpwroKTca-Toii crofiia. {Strom, v. 14, 
 ed. Potter.) This is the plain doctrine of Athanasius, as 
 stated in the following passage, which is a continuation 
 of what I have above quoted : — 
 
 " If, as the Son*of Sirach says, ' He poured her out 
 upon all his works,' . . and such an outpouring signi- 
 fies, not the substance of the Auto-Wisdom and Only- 
 begotten, but of that wisdom which is copied off from 
 Him in the world, how is it incredible that the All- 
 framing and True Wisdom, whose impress is the wisdom 
 and knowledge poured out in the world, should say . . as 
 if of itself, 'The Lord created Me for His works ' ? For 
 the wisdom of the world is not creative, but is thatwhich 
 is created in the works, according to which 'The heavens 
 rehearse the glory of God, and the firmament announces 
 the work of His Hands.' This if men have within them, 
 they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God, and will 
 know that they ai-e made really after God's Image. " And, 
 as some king's son, when his father wished to build a 
 city, might cause his name to be printed upon each of 
 the works that were rising, both to give security of the 
 works remaining by reason of the show of his name on 
 everything, and also to make them remember him and 
 his father from the name, and, having finished the city, 
 might be asked concerning it, how it was made, and then 
 would answer, ' It is made securely, for, according to the 
 will of my father, I am imaged in every work, for there 
 
2 2 2 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 is a creation of my name in the works ; ' yet in saying 
 this does not signify that his own substance is created, 
 but the impress of himself by means of his name ; in the 
 same manner, to apply the illustration to those who ad- 
 mire the wisdom seen in the creatures, the True Wisdom 
 makes answer, ' The Lord hath created Me for the works,' 
 for the impress which is in them is Mine, and I have 
 thus condescended in My framing them." Orat. ii. 79. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria expresses this created Wisdom 
 in another way, after Scripture, calling the Divine Word, 
 relatively to us, a seed ; whereas if He were literally a 
 seed within us, then the plant of grace, as showing itself 
 in our thoughts, words, and deeds, would be Himself, 
 which is pantheistic. "The Word of God," he says, 
 " ' enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world;' 
 not in the way of a Teacher, as Angels do, or men, but 
 rather as God, in the way of a Framer, doth He sow in 
 each whom He calls into being the seed of Wisdom." 
 In Joan. p. 75. This figure of speech occurs several 
 times in Justin, and surely without any blame to him. 
 He speaks of the heathen writers " seeing truth, though 
 dimly, through the innate seed of the Word." Apol. ii. 
 13. " Of the spermatic Divine Word," ihii., and of 
 those "in whom dwells the seed from God, the Word." 
 Apol. i. 32. It is scarcely necessary to refer to St. 
 Peter's words concerning Christians being born again, 
 " not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through 
 the Word of God who liveth and remaineth for ever." 
 
 If St. Athanasius may, without offence, call the Eternal 
 Word and Wisdom a creature, that is, figuratively, and 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 223 
 
 St. Cyril speaks of him as if a seed, it does not appear 
 why there should not be a sufficient explanation producible 
 for St. Justin and others calling him a Work, though this 
 has seemed to many writers. Catholic as well as Uni- 
 tarian, to give matter for a controversy. For instance, 
 Justin calls him ep'^/ov ti)'; ^ov\rj<; tov 7rpo^aXXovTO<; ainov 
 irarpo^, Tryph. 76, that is, after He was Trpo^XyOei', He 
 became an 6^701/ ; Tatian calls Him epyovwpaiTOTOKovtContr. 
 GrcBc. 5, and St. Dionysius of Alexandria a 7roi.r)/jt,a. If 
 the name of Athanasius is not great enough to shelter 
 such expressions from criticism, I refer objectors to the 
 following passage from the Angelic Doctor : — 
 
 " Filius," he says, "in Scripturis dicitur creatura, 
 Eccli. xxiv. 5, &c. Cum dicitur, ' Sapientia est creata,' 
 potest intelligi de sapientia quam Deus indidit creaturis ; 
 Eccli. i. 9. Neque est inconveniens, quod in uno contextu 
 locutionis loquatur Scriptura de Sapientia genita et creata, 
 quia sapientia creata est participatio qusdam Sapientise 
 increatse." Qu. 41, 3, t. 20, pp. 194-5. 
 
 3. The -Divine Son. 
 
 As the terms Word and Wisdom have each two senses 
 both in Scripture and in the Fathers, the one relative to 
 God, the other to the creature, so has the term " Son ". 
 It means the Only-begotten and the First-born, as I 
 have shown above ; and, as misconceptions concerning 
 the two former titles were a sort of shelter to the pre- 
 valent heresy of the fourth century, so were misconcep- 
 tions concerning the Divine Son. 
 
 I. Very little remains to be said about the term " First- 
 
224 Unadvisable Terms 
 
 born ". The figure is used of our Lord six times in 
 Scripture, and in each case it is distinct in meaning from 
 " Only-begotten ". (i) First, St. Paul speaks of His be- 
 coming in His incarnation the " first-born among many 
 brethren," Rom. viii. 29; and he connects this economy 
 with their being conformed to His Image, and gifted 
 with grace and glory. (2) In the same sense we read of 
 Him in the Apocalypse as " the Beginning of the creation 
 of God " (that is, the new creation), Apoc. iii. 14. (3) 
 He is " the First-born of the dead," Apoc. i. 5. ; that is, 
 the cause and fii'st-fruits of our Resurrection. (4) Also, 
 Col. i. 18. (5) The " First-born of all creation," Col. i. 
 15 ; as being the efficient and formal cause whereby the 
 creation was born into a Divine adoption. And (6) St. 
 Paul speaks of God's " bringing the First-born into the 
 world " (Hebr. i. 6), whereby " the world " may be meant 
 either the material universe, or the world of men. 
 
 In none of these passages does the phrase " First-born 
 of God" occur; the word refers, not to His generation, 
 but to His birth (that is. His figurative birth) into the 
 Universe, or into the family of Adam, or from the grave. St. 
 Athanasius notices this contrast between " Only-begotten " 
 and " First-born ". " If He be called First-born of the 
 creation," he says, "it is because of His condescension 
 to the creatures, according to which he has become a 
 Brother unto many. ... It is nowhere written of 
 Him in the Scriptures, 'the First-born of God,' nor 'the 
 creature of God,' but- it is the words 'the Only-begotten,' 
 and ' Son,' and 'Word,' and 'Wisdom,' that signify His 
 relating and belonging to the Father. But 'First-born' 
 
and Phrases in Early Writers. 225 
 
 implies descent to the creation. . . . The same cannot be 
 both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different 
 relations ; that is, Only-begotten, because of His genera- 
 tion from the Father, and First-born, because of His con- 
 descension to the creation, and to the brotherhood which 
 He has extended to many." Oral. ii. 62. 
 
 The treatises of Petavius, de Trinitate and de Incarna- 
 tione, are works of such vast extent and such prodigious 
 learning, that it is not safe to say what is not contained 
 in them. I will only observe, then, that I do not recol- 
 lect meeting with passages in them which recognise the 
 above doctrine of St. Athanasius concerning the " First- 
 born." Petavius seems to take the title IIpcoTOTOKO'; in 
 its Latin sense of Primogenitus, and thence, contrasting 
 it with Unigenitus, to inquire which Fathers use it of our 
 Lord's divine nature, and which Fathers of His human ; 
 whereas there is a class of ideas and epithets which 
 belong neither to the one nature nor to the other sepa- 
 rately, but to both, that is, to His mediatorial office, and 
 embrace both natures, as Petavius would be the first to 
 acknowledge. Such especially is our Lord's Priesthood ; 
 and analogous to this incarnate mediatorship is His 
 office of Demiurge. It is quite true that, as Petavius 
 shows, there are writers, both before and after the 
 Nicene Council, who understand "First-bOrn" as simply 
 belonging either to the one or the other of His natures ; 
 but that is no reason why he should not do justice to the 
 doctrine of Athanasius, a doctrine taken up by his suc- 
 cessor, Cyril, who, speaking of the title " First-born " and 
 the creatures, says, ouj^ &>? tt/swto? eKeivwv vTrap^wi, aW 
 
226 Unadvisable Phrases in Early Writers. 
 
 (u? •7rpSiTo<i T7J9 vlov irpoaijyopia^ yevofisvof airoii; airio<i. 
 Thesaur. p. 241, c. Vid. also ibid. p. 238, iva wairep 
 adavdrcp tlvl pl^r), &C. 
 
 2. So much, then, on the " First-born " — the other 
 title of the Son, viz. the " Only-begotten," introduces us 
 to the third and most important of the three sanctions, 
 which the Arians claimed, in favour of the heresy, 
 from the Ante-Nicene writings. It will be the subject 
 of my concluding Sections. 
 
The Temporal Gennesis. 227 
 
 § II. THE THIRD OPPORTUNITY OPENED TO THE HERESY, 
 THE TEMPORAL GENNESIS. 
 
 Hitherto I have found scarcely anything in the thought 
 or language of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which, even 
 though suggestive aocidentally of the subsequent Semi- 
 Arianism, does not admit of an orthodox sense, and has 
 not the sanction of the Post-Nicene Fathers. The Prin- 
 cipatus is the doctrine of St. Gregoiy Nazianzen and of 
 St. Augustine ; the Syncatabasis is the special teaching 
 of St. Athanasius. Such doctrines are in no respect in- 
 consistent with the consubstantiality, co-eternity, and co- 
 equality of the Son with the Father. So far is clear ; 
 but I have something more to say concerning certain 
 early writers, which I wish I could explain as satisfac- 
 torily. I do not know how to deny, that, both in the 
 East and in the West, there are writers, otherwise 
 Catholic and orthodox in their theology, who use language 
 concerning the Divine Sonship, which can hardly be dis- 
 tinguished from what in St. Augustine's day would have 
 been considered heretical, or close upon heresy. 
 
 The doctrine, which they favour, is the Temporal 
 Gennesis ; viz., that the Eternal Word was not the Son 
 from everlasting, but became the Son before the creation 
 in order to be its Creator ; and this doctrine, afterwards 
 repudiated by the Church, is, it is plain, in real connexion 
 historically, and in apparent connexion theologically, 
 with Arianism. I say "in real historical connexion," 
 
228 The third opening to the heresy, 
 
 because where it had first appeared, there Semi-Arianism 
 was most successful, and where, as in Egypt, it had not 
 been tolerated, Arianism in no shape gained a footing. 
 And I say, "in only apparent theological connexion " with 
 the heresy, because, while the Arians, of all shades of mis- 
 belief, repudiated the Nicene Homoiision, these writers, 
 whose language is so equivocal on the point in question, 
 all taught the cardinal truth, of which the Homoiision is 
 the symbol, viz., the true divinity, in union with the 
 Father, of the Word and Son. All could have subscribed 
 to the Nicene Creed and to its Anathematisms. 
 
 That these writers held both the eternity, and the 
 hypostatic existence of the Word, I think beyond a doubt. 
 I am not for an instant supposing that, with Marcellus of 
 Ancyra in the fourth century, and with the heretics whom 
 Justin speaks of {Tryph. 128) in the second, they considered 
 the Son to be a mere energy or action, or a temporary 
 expansion, of the Divine Essence, and not the Divine 
 Essence Itself; still that they believed in His eternity, 
 viewed as the Son, I cannot persuade myself, if their lan- 
 guage is the index of their belief; and this is the point on 
 which I shall insist. Nor will it satisfy me even if some 
 of them assert the existence of the Son "before all ages;'' 
 this indeed would be enough, if it were all they said; in 
 that case I could account the phrase to stand for 
 "eternity". For what do we know of eternity except 
 that it is the state of things before time ? It is a nega- 
 tive idea ; it has no epochs ; as soon as we let time go, 
 we are forthwith merged in eternity. The phrase then 
 " before all ages," any how may mean, and often does 
 
the Temporal Gennesis. 229 
 
 strictly mean, eternity ; and it would have been conclusive 
 that those who used it of the Son were believers in the 
 eternal gennesis but for this, — that, whei'eas it need not 
 mean eternity, those who use it in fact show us that it need 
 not, by bringing up again the notion of time after they 
 have seemed to drop it, viz. by such propositions as that 
 the gennesis took place " when the Father willed to create 
 the worlds," that ouPLord "was before He was begotten," 
 and the like. By such expressions they imply that the 
 gennesis after all had a relation to time ; and then it is 
 that it occurs to the inquirer that " before all worlds" is 
 also of the nature of a date, and, being a phrase not 
 absolute but relative, is inadmissible as used for a cate- 
 gorical enunciation of the Son's eternity. Besides, the 
 text in the Septuagint Version, Proverbs viii. 12, which 
 was the stronghold of the Arians, because it spoke of 
 Divine Wisdom being created, also speaks of him as wpb 
 rov ai&vo'i, showing that the pro-asonian state, contem- 
 plated at least by the translator, was not eternity, as 
 containing in it an act of creation, that is, an act which 
 belongs to time. And further still ; it was possible to 
 hold the eternal conception of the Son in the Divine 
 Essence, as a distinct Person, without holding His 
 birth to have been from eternity, and to understand 
 gennesis not to mean generation but birth. 
 
 Some light will be thrown upon these points as I pro- 
 ceed ; meanwhile, fully conscious as I am how comprehen- 
 sive a view it requires, and how minute and familiar a 
 knowledge, of the literature of the first centuries of Chris- 
 tianity, if one is to have a right to pronounce definitely 
 
230 The third opening to the heresy, 
 
 what is in it and what is not, still, writing under the cor- 
 rection of that consciousness, I will venture to say as much 
 as this ; — first, that authors of the East and West, who 
 are distinct in calling the Word " eternal," as well as 
 • ' before all ages," are not distinct in calling the Son 
 "eternal;" and next, that, while they speak of His 
 gennesis taking place in order to creation, and as dated 
 by creation, they add not a word to show that in such 
 statements they meant (as Bull has thought) merely a 
 certain figurative gennesis, and that there had already 
 been another and a true gennesis from all eternity. 
 
 Now to open the question : — ■ 
 
 Christians in that early period had difficulties about the 
 Divine Nature, which do not trouble us now. The most 
 cultivated minds came to the Church from heathenism, and 
 brought their ideas of the One God from Plato, if the 
 philosophical contemplation of the Divine Being and His 
 Attributes was not altogether new and strange to them. 
 Was He All-powerful, All-knowing, All-merciful ? Was 
 He so from all eternity, so that He never could be without 
 the attributes which those titles signifj' ? If so, the 
 subject of them, the created universe, must be eternal 
 also. How could He have attributes, which during the 
 antecedent eternity had no exercise ? how could they 
 have exercise without an existing creation ? If creation 
 had a beginning, He had a birth (so to speak) of attributes 
 since that beginning, which He had not had before it. 
 
 Nor was this all. The dilemma, which arose out of the 
 contemplation of the Divine Attributes, was involved also 
 in that of the Divine gennesis. That gennesis, or internal 
 
the Temporal, Gennesis. 231 
 
 act of God, had its purpose and scope in His external 
 act, the creation of the universe. It was the means 
 towards creation ; as then the attribute of Power impHed 
 a created world, so did the doctrine of the gennesis, and, 
 if the creation was not from eternity, neither was the 
 gennesis. 
 
 This necessary connexion between the two divine acts, 
 the one internal, the»other external, the gennesis and the 
 creation, which was so widely assumed, as a principle, in 
 the Ante-Nicene Church, is not altogether foreign to later 
 theology. That is to say, if I understand Petavius rightly, 
 the mission of the Son to be in due time incarnate, is 
 included in His gennesis ; and, if so, the syncatabasis or 
 , mission (as it may be called) to create, is included in the 
 gennesis also. " Missio," he says, " nihil aliud est, quam 
 seterna productio communicatioque naturae, in qua illud 
 est, ut in tempore opus aliquod externum appareat. Sicut, 
 ' Patrem docere Filium,' est doctum et scientem genuisse, 
 ut auctor Breviarii scribit, et 'judicium dare FiHo ' est 
 judicem ipsum gignere, ut ait Chrysostomus, sic 'mitti a 
 Patre Filium ' est gigni naturam hominis assumpturum 
 et suo tempore assumentem .... Non enim cogitandum 
 est, duas ac separatas esse processiones Personas Filii, 
 quarum una est seterna, altera temporalis." De Trin. 
 viii., i. § 10. 
 
 And the same doctrine, I suppose, is implied in the 
 words which St. Thomas quotes from St. Augustine, 
 QucBst. 34. art. 3 : "In nomine Verbi significatur, non 
 solum respectus ad Patrem, sed etiam ad ilia quae per 
 Verbum facta sunt operativa potentia ; " on which St. 
 
232 The third opening to the heresy, 
 
 Thomas says : " Importatur in Verbo ratio factiva eorum 
 quae Deus fecit." ' 
 
 This connexion between the Divine act of the gennesis 
 and the Divine act of the creation, real as it was, was 
 pushed to th'at extreme by early theologians, as to lead to 
 their holding that, if the gennesis was from eternity, so 
 was the creation, and, if the creation was not from eternity, 
 neither was the gennesis. From this common ground two 
 schools took their start, but in opposite directions; the one 
 holding that each of the two Divine acts, the other that 
 neither of them, was from eternity. And of these schools 
 two great writers may be considered the representatives 
 respectively ; of whom Origen affirmed that the creation 
 was from eternity, as well as the gennesis, and Tertullian 
 affirmed that the gennesis had a beginning as well as the 
 creation. 
 
 I. Origen, for instance, says : " As there cannot be a 
 Father without there being a Son, nor an owner without 
 there being a possession .... so neither can God be 
 called Omnipotent, unless He has those on whom to 
 exercise power ; and therefore, that He may be shown to 
 be Omnipotent, all things must necessarily subsist." de 
 Princ. i. 2, 10. 
 
 Tertullian, on the other hand : — " Because God is a 
 Father, and God is a Judge, it does not therefore follow 
 that He was Father and Judge always, because He was 
 
 'And so Augustine again, "Si, ut Deus, prseceptum accepit, 
 nascendo id accepit non indigendo. In Verbo enim Unico Dei 
 omnia praecepta sunt Dei, quae ille gignens dedit nascenti," contr. 
 Maxim, ii. 14, g. , 
 
the Temporal Gennesis. 233 
 
 God always. For He could not be Father before there 
 was a Son, nor a Judge before there was sin. There was 
 a time when neither sin nor Son was, — sin to make the 
 Lord a Judge, Son to make Him a Father." contra 
 Hermog. iii. 
 
 2. But here I remark as to Origen's doctrine, that he 
 held the eternity of the gennesis, not as a mere deduction 
 from his general docfrine of the eternity of creation, as if 
 the Son were one of the creatures, and gennesis a kind of 
 creation ; for, in passages preserved by Athanasius, he 
 expressly says that the Son is from eternity because He is 
 from and in God, and is co-eternal in His eternity. 
 " When was not in being that Image of the Father's 
 ineffable and nameless and unutterable subsistence, that 
 Impress and Word, who knows the Father ? for let him 
 understand well, who dares to say, ' Once the Son was 
 not,' that he is saying ' Once Wisdom was not,' and ' Word 
 was not,' 'Life was not.'" Again: " It is not lawful, nor 
 without peril, if, because of the difficulty of understanding 
 it, we deprive God, as far as in us lies, of the Only- 
 begotten Word, ever co-existing with him." de Deer. 
 27. Thus Origen includes the Son, not in the world's 
 eternity, but in God's eternity. 
 
 And, on the other hand, as regards Tertullian's denial of 
 our Lord's eternity as the Son, we must not thence at once 
 conclude, that he denied the eternity of His hypostasis as 
 the Word. Indeed, his strong expressions in enunciating 
 the Catholic dogma of the Trinity, some of which I have 
 quoted above, necessarily include substantial orthodoxy in 
 respect to its separate portions. What do his reiterated 
 
 16 
 
234 The third opening to the heresy, 
 
 notices mean of the Divine Triad, of the Three Persons, 
 Each of Them God and one and the same God, and his 
 placing Them on one hne, equal except in order of naming 
 Them, (for instance, " Duos definimus Patrem et FiHum, 
 etiam Tres cum Spiritu Sancto,") if They were not in 
 some true sense Three from all eternity ? He whom he 
 called the Son was no other than the Eternal Word, 
 even though the name "Son" belonged to Him only 
 upon his becoming the Creator of all things. 
 
 3. Again, as to Origen's notion of the eternity of the 
 Universe, it must be recollected that, though in matter of 
 fact creation is not from eternity, yet it might have been, 
 had God so willed. At least so says Suarez : " Duobus 
 modis posse rem aliquam vel productionem esse seternam, 
 uno modo ex intrinseca necessitate sua, quomodo Divini 
 Verbi generatio seterna est; alio modo absque necessitate 
 simpliciter ex libertate causte volentis ex agternitate eam 
 efficere. Repugnat creationi quod sit ab intrinseco seterna. 
 Non est de ratione creationis novitas essendi actualis, &c. 
 Negatur seternitatem repugnare rationi creaturse. Ad 
 Patres dici potest, loqui ex suppositione fidei, quae docet 
 nullam creaturam esse ab aeterno creatam." Metaph. p. i., 
 pp. 409, 410, 412, ed. 1751. It must be recollected, too, 
 that St. Thomas lays it down, " Quod mundum incepisse, 
 sola fide tenetur, et demonstrative probari non potest." 
 And he says : " Voluntas Dei ratione investigari non 
 potest, nisi circa ea quae absolute necesse est Deum velle." 
 Qucest. 46. art. 2. That in Origen's time the " Novitas 
 rerum creatarum " could be called an article of faith, is 
 very doubtful. 
 
The Temporal Gennesis. 235 
 
 And then, on the other hand, as to TertulHan ; it is true 
 that to suppose the gennesis to be a divine act, not from 
 eternity, but in time, is an offence, not only against the 
 perfection of the Triad, but primarily against the simplicity 
 and unchangeableness of the Divine Monad ; but much 
 may be said in his excuse. His religious knowledge was 
 not ours : truths are taken for granted now on all hands, 
 which had to be learned one by one then. The " de Deo " 
 was not yet a formal theological treatise, familiar to the 
 Schools, and found but a poor substitute in the writings or 
 the floating dicta of heathen philosophy, recommended 
 though they might be to Christian writers by reason of 
 the Being or Attributes of God being natural truths, and 
 only indirectly belonging to Revelation. Now it was in 
 regard to the simplicity of the Divine Nature, that Plato 
 and his numerous followers, with their doctrine of Divine 
 Ideas, were most in fault. Moreover, if creation, as Ter- 
 tullian rightly held, was a temporal act, while it was a 
 received maxim, as Victorinus lays it down, " Facere motus 
 est,"' he would not feel the force of that objection to a 
 temporal divine birth, afterwards urged by the Arians {e.g. 
 by Candidus, Galland, Bihl. t. viii. p. 140), viz., " Omnis 
 generatio mutatio quaedam est." And again, he might 
 argue, that such a temporal act need not be inconsistent 
 with the Divine Immutability, though human reason could 
 not see how it was consistent with it, supposing there was 
 no violation on the other hand of the Divine Unity, hard 
 
 ^ ap. Galland, Bihl. t. viii. p. 149. Vid. also Origen, ap. Method. 
 fxerafidWciu rby ArpeTTToy (Tvfifi'fiffeTat, ei vcrepoy ireiroi'rjKe rh Trav. 
 
236 The Temporal Gennesis. 
 
 as it was to understand this, in the dogma of a Tri-une 
 God. And in corroboration we must consider, that even 
 now among orthodox behevers external to the Church, 
 there is much confusion in their conception of the Son 
 and the Spirit, as if these Divine Persons were in the 
 Divine Nature rather than directly God, a confusion of 
 thought inconsistent ' with a clear apprehension of His 
 absolute simplicity and unity. 
 
 With this introduction, let us now collect the suffrages, 
 so to speak, of Eastern, Western, and Alexandrian authors 
 for and against the Temporal Gennesis; that is, the tenet 
 that the Hypostatic Word was the Son, not from 
 everlasting, but by a Divine act coincident with or 
 equivalent to His manifestation as Prophoric, when in the 
 beginning of all things He proceeded from the Father 
 by a syncatabasis, to create, inform, and govern the uni- 
 verse, material and spiritual. 
 
 I shall take the Alexandrians first, then the Orientals 
 or Asiatics, and lastly the Western or Latin writers. 
 
The Alexandrian School. 237 
 
 § 12. THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. 
 
 That the Logos existed with God from eternity, and, 
 I will add, in an hypostasis, evvTr6araTo<i, is confessed or 
 implied by the Ante-Nicene writers generally; that the 
 Logos was also the«Son, and, as the Son, was begotten 
 of the Father before all things, is also their general doc- 
 trine. But the question before us relates to His eternal 
 pre-existence, considered as Son, or the eternity of the 
 gennesis; and, whatever we shall have to say about certain 
 other theologians, this fundamental truth was held and 
 taught without a dissentient voice by the Fathers of the 
 Alexandrian School, so far as their writings have come 
 down to us, taught by them with a prominence, clearness 
 and consistency, which is decisive of Catholic Tradition 
 on the subject. 
 
 By writers of the Alexandrian School, I mean such as 
 thefollowing: — Athenagoras, Clement, Origen,Dionysius, 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Theognostus, Pamphilus, Alex- 
 ander, and Athanasius. 
 
 I. Athenagoras, the earliest of them, is the least ex- 
 plicit; for, while he says that the Divine Being is aiSto)? 
 \oyiKb<;, he does not directly speak of an diSio<; vloi. 
 However, if he does not affirm the eternal gennesis, at least 
 he speaks as if he did not hold the temporal. He speaks 
 of the Son, after the act of creation, as being " in the 
 Father ; " this is to dissociate the gennesis from the act of 
 creation, and to disclaim the " Logos Prophoricus ". He 
 
238 The Alexandrian School. 
 
 says: "The Son of God is the Father's Word, in concep- 
 tion and action, Ihia xal ev€pyeia, for by Him and through 
 Him all things came to be, the Father and the Son being 
 one, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the 
 Son, in the unity and power of the Spirit." Leg. 10. This 
 passage teaches also the homoiision, for it teaches the cir- 
 cumincessio. Elsewhere he speaks of the Word's going 
 forth ; but retaining the word IBea as well as evipjeia, he 
 guards against the error, afterwards Semi-Arian, which I 
 have noticed above in Novatian and Methodius, of sup- 
 posing the Son to create after a pattern in the Father, 
 whereas He is Himself the Archetype of the Universe. 
 That office of Archetype involved aSyncatabasis, and Athe- 
 nagoras uses language of it quite in accordance with that 
 of Athanasius. In that office .He is not simply the Son of 
 God, but, as Athenagoras says. His Trah, as if His mini- 
 ster and is the TrpcoTov yiwrjfia, not of, but for the purposes 
 of the Father ; and, as he hastens to explain, for the ministry 
 of creation, as being its Idea and Motive Power, bringing 
 order into chaos, IBea koI euepyeta TrpoekOoiv, and Himself 
 in the creation the first-fruits of His own work. Such a 
 doctrine, such phraseology is identical with the thought 
 and language of Athanasius about the " First-born ". 
 
 2. Clement: — "Everything which excels the Gnostic 
 (or Christian philosopher) accounts precious according to 
 its worth, and estimable. Among things sensible, rulers 
 and parents and every elder. In matters of learning, the 
 oldest philosophy and the most primitive prophecy. In 
 things intellectual, that which is most ancient in origin 
 (yeviaei) ; viz. Him who is apart from time and beginning 
 
The Alexandrian School. 239 
 
 {axpovov Kal dvapxov), the Beginning and Firstfruits of all 
 things, the Son." Strom, vii. init. Here the Son, not 
 simply the Word, is both a.vapxo<; dpxv and aTrapxn ; 
 both the first origin and the first-born, the Unigenitus 
 and the Primogenitus, and, not only beyond time, but 
 actually without beginning. 
 
 3. Origen : — ^I have lately quoted a passage of Ori- 
 gen's, in which he sjieaks of "the Only-begotten Word as 
 ever co-existing with God," supra, p. 233, vid. also p. 153, 
 and considers it a misbelief to say that " Once the Son 
 was not;" thus by anticipation denouncing the Arian 
 formula, as Pope Dionysius did, with more authority, 
 shortly after him. Again he says In Jerem. Horn. ix. 4. 
 aayrrjp aei lyevvarat, (Routh, t. iv. p. 304), as St. Augus- 
 tine " semper nascitur Filius," Ep. 238, 24. And in the 
 same sense Origen interprets " This day have I begotten 
 Thee," as meaning the ever-present Now of Eternity. 
 In Joan. t. i. 32. 
 
 4. St. Dionysius was accused before the Pope just 
 named, of saying that "God was not always a Father and 
 the Son was not always a Son ; " that " the Son was not 
 before Wi^ gennesis," and that " once He was not, for He 
 was not everlasting," which were afterwards the Arian 
 formula;. He answers : — " Never was it that God was not 
 a Father .... Whereas the Father is eternal, the Son 
 is eternal, being Light from Light. Since there is a 
 parent, there is also a child. They both are and are 
 
 ever The Son only was ever co-existing with 
 
 the Father, and is full of Him who exists, and is Himself 
 from the Father," Vid. Athan, De S. Dion. 13 — 15. 
 
240 The Alexandrian School. 
 
 5. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his Creed, speaks 
 of " One God, Father of a living Word, of Substan- 
 tive Wisdom and Power, and Eternal Likeness ; a Father, 
 Perfect of Perfect, of an Only-begotten Son." And 
 of "One Lord .... True Son of True Father, In- 
 visible of Invisible .... Eternal of Eternal." ap. 
 Galland. t. iii. p. 385. 
 
 6. Theognostus, in the sole fragment of his Hypo- 
 typoses extant, does not indeed use the word " eternal " 
 as a predicate of the Son, but he applies to Him those 
 images, which the other Fathers adduce in proof of His 
 eternity, and of the eternity of the Word, viz. that He is 
 like a ray from the sun, the vapour from water, and the 
 like. He says: — " The substance of the Son sprang from 
 the Father's substance, as the radiance of light, as the 
 
 vapour of water Nor does the Father's substance 
 
 suffer change, though it has the Son as an Image of 
 Itself." ap. Athan. de Deer. 25. 
 
 7. Pamphilus, in the fact of his defending the theology 
 of Origan, subscribes to it himself. Now one of the 
 points of faith which he brings forward from Origen's 
 comment on Genesis, is the eternity of the Son. " On the 
 point that the Father is not before the Son, but that 
 the Son is co-eternal with the Father, Origen speaks 
 thus in his first book on Genesis : — ' God had no 
 beginning of being a Father, impeded, as men who 
 become fathers, by incapacity of becoming such till a 
 certain time. For, if God is always perfect, and can be 
 a Father, and it is an excellence to be the Father of such 
 a Son, why does He delay and withhold Himself from 
 
Tke Alexandrian School. 241 
 
 what is in itself an excellence, and being, so to say, as 
 soon as He can, Father of a Son ? " ap. Routh, Reliqu. t. 
 iv. p. 302. 
 
 8. Alexander, at the first rise of Arianism :— " They 
 say that once the Son of God did not exist ; and that He 
 who did not first exist came into being afterwards . . . 
 and by the hypothesis of ' He was from nothing,' they 
 also overthrow the Scripture record that He existed ever 
 . . . Since that hypothesis is evidently most impious, it 
 is of necessity that the Father was always Father ; for 
 He is Father of the ever-present Son, on account of whom 
 He has the name of Father, &c. ... To the Son we 
 must pay the due honour, ascribing to Him the gennesis 
 without beginning (rtjv dvap-)(ov yivfrja-iv), from the 
 Father, and using of Him only the words ' was ' and 
 ' always,' and ' befoi-e all time'." ap. Theod. Hist. i. 
 
 9. Lastly, Athanasius : — " If He be called the eternal 
 Offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For 
 never was the substance of the Father imperfect, that 
 what is proper to It should be added afterwards ; nor as 
 man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be 
 later than the Father's existence ; but He is God's Off- 
 spring, and, as being proper Son of God, who is ever. 
 He exists eternally." Orat. i. 14. 
 
242 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 § 13. THE ASIATIC WRITERS. 
 
 We have seen how emphatically the Alexandrians, 
 from first to last, are witnesses of the co-eternity of the 
 Son, as Son, with the Father. This being their unani- 
 mous profession or understanding, it is, at first sight, 
 natural to expect that writers in the other parts of Chris- 
 tendom will be found to profess the same doctrine, and to 
 profess it as unequivocally. It is a reasonable expect- 
 ation ; because, as we have seen above, the writers in 
 question are in such full agreement with the Alexandrians 
 in the substance and in the details of their teaching on the 
 subject of the Holy Trinity. Their silence on a twentieth 
 point, it maybe urged in their favour, after agreement with 
 the School of Alexandria upon nineteen, may equitably, 
 or even must reasonably, be supplied from the view which 
 the Alexandrians actually take of the sacred dogma. Again, 
 their own teaching on those nineteen points obliges us, it 
 may be said, to think that in mere logical consistency with 
 themselves, they really did hold that twentieth point, on 
 which they happen to be silent. If they hold that our Lord 
 is consubstantial with the Father, in accordance with the 
 subsequent Nicene formula, if they hold our Lord to be an 
 hypostasis, or to have a personality, whether they consider 
 Him Word or Son, if they believe that distinct hypostasis 
 to have existed from eternity in the unity of the Father, 
 what room is there for diiference between them and the 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 243 
 
 Alexandrians ? What is the subtlety, which modern criti- 
 cism can hit upon, to throw doubt upon what is so clear? 
 
 Such anticipations, I grant, are reasonable; — however, 
 there is a silence which speaks ; and there are subtleties 
 which belong, not to the critic, but to the subject-matter 
 of his criticism. Whether the silence, and whether the 
 language, of the writers in question be such as to bear out 
 what I have said of them, we have now to inquire. 
 
 I have adduced eight or nine Alexandrians stating in 
 one way or another, that the Divine gennesis is from 
 eternity. No other Alexandrian can be found to speak 
 otherwise. I am going to adduce as many writers fi'om 
 other parts of Christendom, and in like manner shall sup- 
 press none. Is it unreasonable to expect that all of them, 
 or that some of them, will in one way or other say what 
 the Alexandrians say ? Will it not be a strange accident 
 if a first eight all speak in behalf of a certain truth, and a 
 second eight are all silent, or at least not distinct upon it, 
 if the second eight held it as well as the first eight ? That 
 truth is, that the Word was the Son of God from eternity; 
 does not the unanimity in speech and in silence on one 
 side and on the other, go for something in proof, not only 
 that those who all speak, held it, but also that those who 
 are all silent, did not hold it ? 
 
 What I want is that any one of those Asiatics and 
 Westerns to whom I am now betaking myself, should say, 
 in behalf of the eternal gennesis, what all, or almost all, the 
 Alexandrians say. I want them to say with Gregory, 
 " True Son of True Father, Eternal of Eternal; " or with 
 Origen, in St. Augustine's language, "Semper gignit 
 
244 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 Pater, semper gignitur Filius; " or with Dionysius, "The 
 Son is aeirievvr\<i;" orwith Clement," He is avapxo'i apx>i;" 
 or with Alexander, " Ever Father, ever Son ; " nay, even 
 with Athenagoras, that the Son at and after the era of 
 creation was in the Father as well as from Him, and was its 
 iSia as well as its evkp<yeia. Nay, it would be something if 
 I found them concordant in professingthatthe gennesisy^SLS 
 irpo almvcov as well as Trpb KTcafjArmv. How is it that, even 
 before the Arian controversy, the Alexandrians abound in 
 such statements, and the writers, to whom I am proceed- 
 ing, during the same period, are so wanting in them ? 
 
 This surely is a strong negative argument against their 
 really holding what, as I have shown, they even do not 
 profess to hold ; but there is a positive argument against 
 them also. They have a doctrine of their own ; I do 
 not mean that every one of them brings it out in fulness, 
 but that it is one to which all of them contribute, and 
 to which they one and all converge ; for, as I thought 
 it reasonable, when collecting testimonies on the doctrine 
 of the Holy Trinity, to interpret one writer by another, 
 when they evidently all belonged to one family of thought, 
 so here too I consider I shall be able to show such an in- 
 trinsic and substantial agreement between these writers 
 on the point in question, as to allow me fairly to take 
 the incomplete and indirect statements upon it, one by 
 one, to which they commit themselves, as complements 
 and elucidations of each other. 
 
 Their doctrine then, which was consistent with their 
 holding firmly the consubstantial and co-eternal unity of 
 the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, was this : — that the 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 245 
 
 Word was with God from eternity ; One with Him, yet 
 distinct from Him, and not merely an attribute orpower; — 
 that he was in "corde" or "in utero Patris," till the uni- 
 verse was to be created, and then He was born in order to 
 be its Creator; the external act by which God surrounded 
 Himself with beings animate and inanimate, spiritual and 
 material, being accompanied by a corresponding internal 
 act in the Divine Essence. Thus the Alexandrian teaching 
 was symbolised by the text, " Egohodiegenui te,""hodie" 
 meaning eternity ; and the opinion, which I am now 
 inquiring into, is symbolised by the text, " Ex utero 
 ante luciferum genui te ; " the doctrine of the 
 Syncatabasis and the Primogenitus, as I have described it, 
 being held by all alike, whether at Alexandria or elsewhere. 
 
 It will be convenient, then, to reduce the doctrine of 
 these Asiatics and Latins to these three heads : first, the 
 Logos in the bosom of the Father, or (to use the philoso- 
 phical word) Endiathetic, which I shall denote by the 
 letter A ; next, the Logos born to be a Son, or Prophoric, 
 B ; and, lastly, the Logos Prototocos, C. 
 
 Under the name of East I include the countries from 
 Thrace to the borders of Egypt ; the countries especially 
 illuminated, in the middle of the fourth century, by Basil 
 and Gregory Nazianzen of the school of Origen, who took 
 up the work which Athanasius had so long carried on 
 before them. And again, the writers of those countries, 
 prior to the time of these Fathers, are such as these : — 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, the writer to Diognetus, Justin, 
 Irenaeus, Tatian, Theophilus, Methodius, and Eusebius. 
 To these may be added, as a witness to the doctrine 
 
246 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 taught him, (whether by Asiatics or Latin ecclesiastics, 
 certainly not by Egyptians, for he seems never to have 
 known them) the Emperor Constantine. 
 
 Of these I put aside St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp and St. 
 Irenaeus from my inquiry. Neither Ignatius nor Poly- 
 carp indeed asserts the eternity of the Son; Irenaeus 
 does, and his assertion of it, considering his relation to 
 Polycarp, may fairly be taken to speak both for Polycarp 
 and for Ignatius. It would be strange, indeed, if they 
 could be supposed to hold any contrary doctrine, since 
 they are rightly included in what may be called the 
 Apostolic family ; and that is why I contrast them with 
 those who came after them whether of the East or the 
 West. They are historically connected with each other; 
 they have not the like historical connexion with others. 
 That these two primitive saints and martyrs should not 
 give expression to the doctrine of the eternity of the 
 gennesis is not wonderful, considering how little we have 
 of their writing, and that neither of them wrote about 
 the Holy Trinity. Of Irenseus it might be expected, 
 because he writes at great length, and on a variety of 
 heresies relating to the Object of our worship ; and 
 Irenaeus, as I have said, does make profession of it. 
 
 In contr. Hcer. iii. 20, he says, " Non tunc ccepit Filius 
 Dei, existens semper apud Patrem ;" and, ibid. ii. 55, fin. 
 he speaks of the "semper co-existens Filius Patri." 
 
 Leaving those, then, who necessarily had the immediate 
 tradition of the Apostles, and whose testimony, as far as 
 given, concurs with that of the unanimous Alexandrian 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 247 
 
 School, with the authoritative decisions (as we shall see) 
 of the Ante-Nicene Church, and with the doctors of the 
 Fourth and Fifth centuries, let us inquire into the Asiatic 
 writers who were between these two eras of St. Ignatius 
 and of St. Augustine, and contemporaneous with the 
 Alexandrians aforesaid. 
 
 But here, again, I must pass over Hermas too, be he a 
 Greek or Latin autkor, for the same reason that also 
 leads me to pass over St. Cyprian, because he nowhere 
 treats theologically of our Lord, either as Word or as 
 Son of God. 
 
 I. I begin, then, with the Epistola ad Diognetum ; 
 though neither can this beautiful fragment of a very 
 ancient author be expected to give us clear information 
 on the definite point which I am enquiring about. He 
 says, speaking of the Logos : — 
 
 05tos' atr apx^ll, o Katvo^ ^aueli, /cal TraXato<; evpede\<;, 
 Koi iravTOJe vio'; eV ayicov KapSbai<{ yevva)/J,€vo<; • ovto(; 6 
 ael, a-rjfjiepov vib<; Xoyicrdel';, c. II. Certainly there is no- 
 thing here implying the Temporal Gennesis; on the con- 
 trary, the unknown writer will be maintaining the Eternal, 
 supposing, with Origen, he understood by <nj/u,epov the day 
 of eternity. But I doubt if the context will admit of this 
 interpretation of the word. Vid. Methodius, infra, p. 258. 
 He seems to me to contrast o5to? 6 ael with cnj/j.epov v!o<;, 
 and again the I'/o? is evidently to be explained by the 
 words ev KapBiai<; yevvcofMevo';, as if he said, " He, the Word, 
 was from everlasting, (A) and is now, as the first-born in 
 the hearts of His holy people, the Archetypal Son (C)." 
 
248 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 I fear I must say that Bishop Bull is not as exact as I 
 should wish him to be in his treatment of this passage. 
 He paraphrases it thus : — " Habet Filius Dei novas 
 aliquas et quasi recentes nativitates . . . nunquam tamen 
 revera novus et recens i^se fuit, sed Filius Dei Patris semper 
 et ab ceterno extitit." Where does the author, whom Bull 
 is paraphrasing, say one word of any "nativitas" except 
 the "nova," which is mystical ? where does he contrast 
 a true generation with that mystical ? where does he 
 say that the Son of God is from eternity ? He speaks 
 of the Word, not of the Son, as eternal, unless indeed 
 arjiiepov means " eternal." This Bull does not pretend 
 to show, yet he says, " Filius Dei . . 6 ae\ . . aperte 
 dicitur, nempe in Epistola ad Diognetum," &c., p. 168, 
 ed. 1721. 
 
 2. Justin suffers from a like misinterpretation. How 
 can Bull not know that the point he has to prove as re- 
 gards certain of his authors, is their witness to the eternal 
 gennesis ? He actually discusses the difficulty arising from 
 the fact that a certain number of them seem to deny it. 
 He has to prove the eternity of the Son, not the eternity 
 of the Logos ; yet, as in the case of the author last quoted, 
 so as regards St. Justin Martyr, when Justin speaks of the 
 eternal Logos, Bull substitutes the word " Son." He 
 says, " Testimonia qua;dam ex eodem [Justino] adduc- 
 emus, quae co-aeternam tov \6yov, sive Filii Dei cum Patre 
 suo existentiam apertissime confirment." F. N. iii. 2,init. 
 ed. 1721. Then he proceeds to quote two passages which 
 speak only of the eternity of the Logos, not of the Son. 
 As to the latter of these, the word " Son," or its equivalent, 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 249 
 
 does not occur in it at all ; as to the former, Grabe, whose 
 annotations have for their object to defend and to support 
 Bull's hypothesis, candidly confesses that both text and 
 stopping must be corrected in a direction adverse to the 
 necessities of Bull's argument. 
 
 Now let us consider St. Justin's theology; for myself, 
 indeed, though I have done my best to master what he 
 has written, I distru^ too much whether my eyesight or 
 my power of sustained attention, to speak with the fullest 
 confidence ; but, speaking under correction of these de- 
 fects, I will say, that, though I have found passages in 
 the Alexandrians, I cannot find a single passage in St. 
 Justin, in which the Son, or the only-begotten, or the 
 gennesis, is declared to be from everlasting, except in such 
 phrases as " before all creatures," which are short of the 
 directness of the Alexandrian School. 
 
 (i.) The following is the passage, on which Bull princi- 
 pally relies in proof of St. Justin's taking the orthodox 
 view of the point in question. I quote it with Grabe's 
 correction and stopping, introducing the three letters, 
 which I have assigned as notes for the Endiathetic Word, 
 the Prophoric, and the Primogenitus respectively. 
 
 'O ti/o? iiceivov, 6 fiovo'i Xey6/j,evo<; Kvpiox; u/o?, o \070s 
 irpo T&v TTOirifidTeoi', kuI crvvoiv, (A) — Kal yevveofievo^, ore 
 (B) Trjv apxvv St' avTOV irdvTa eKTKre Kal eKoa-iirjire (C). 
 Apol. ii. 6. Grabe's Latin runs : " Verbum ante omnes 
 creaturas et coexistens (Patri) ; et nascens, quando [non 
 quoniam . . . .] primitus cuncta per eum condidit et 
 ornavit." p. 170. It is observable Justin does not even 
 use the phrase irpo ald>.vaiv, but tt/oo twv Troirj/j,aT(i3v. 
 
 17 
 
250 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 There is no mention in this passage of the eternity of 
 the gennesis ; rather it is said to have taken place when 
 the world v/as to be created. Nor does Bull's second 
 passage or collation of passages, to the effect that our Lord 
 was the " I am " of the burning bush, avail better for his 
 purpose ; vid. ad Grcec. 21, Apol. i. 63, and Tryph. 60. 
 Doubtless our Lord is from eternity, and Justin believed 
 Him to be the one true God ; but I am looking for a 
 categorical passage declaring that the Son always existed 
 as the Son ; such as Origen's " the Only-begotten Word, 
 ever-coexisting with Him," or " Who dares say, ' Once 
 the Son was not ' ? " I will set down some other passages 
 of Justin ; none of them, I think, rise above the level of 
 the foregoing. I have no doubt of his holding the co- 
 eternity and consubstantiality of the Word; but does 
 he anywhere profess the everlasting gennesis ? 
 
 (2.) Irjaov'i XpiaTo<i, fWvo<; (Skb? u/o? tw dew yeyevvrjTai. 
 Xoyot avrov inrdp'xav, km, irpuTOTOKO'; kuI Svva/jU<;. Apol. 
 i. 23. 
 
 (3.) Tto? ... 05, Kal Xoyo^ irptororoKO'; (C) (hv tov Oeov, 
 Kal deb<; VTrdp'^^Ei. Ibid. 63. 
 
 (4.) 'Ap'xrjv, TTpo irdvTav twv KTiafiaToiv, 6 deb'i yeyevvqKe 
 Swa/jLiv Tiva i^ eavrov XoyiKrjv, (B) ^rt? Kal So^a Kvpiov 
 VTTO TOV Trvev/iaTo<; tov dyiov KoXelTai, -jroTe Be vib<;, iroTe 8e 
 (Totpla, TTore he 0776X09, ttote he 6eo<;, Trore he Kvpio<; Kal 
 \6yo<;. . . . e)(eiv yap irdvTa 7rpo(rovofj,d^ea0ai, ex re tov 
 vTrrjpeTeiv Ttp iraTpiKw ^ovXrj/jiari, (C) Kal e« tov aTTO tov 
 iraTpo'i deXrjaei yeyevvfja-dai (B). ['4XX' ou?] tolovtov oirolov 
 Kal e(f>' rj/xa)v yevo/jt,evov op5)fj,ev Xoyov yap Tiva "Trpo^dX- 
 X01/T6S, Xoyov yevvwfiev, oii KaT diroTOfirjv, a)? iXaTTcoOrjvai 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 251 
 
 Tov ev T)fuv \ojov irpo^aXKofievoi, koX oirolov eirX irvpo^ 
 op&fiev aWo yivofievov, &c. &c. Tryph. 61. 
 
 The Benedictine Editor who follows Bull in his expla- 
 nations, fully admits that St. Justin is not here speaking 
 of an eternal gennesis, but of one before and in order to 
 creation ; at the same time, with Bull, he will not allow 
 that Justin speaks of a real, but of a figurative and 
 improper gennesis. Where does Justin speak of any other 
 gennesis but this temporal one ? and what grounds are 
 there for saying this is not real and natural ? 
 
 (5.) TovTO TO T^ ovTt aiTO TOV •jTaTpof 7rpo^\r}0ev yevvrj/jLa, 
 (B) irpo TravTwv twv TroirjfjLaTcov (Tvvrjv tw iraTpl koX tovtw 6 
 TraTrjp irpocrojjLiKei (A) . . . ap')(r] (C) irpo ircivTcoi/ tS)v ttoitj- 
 jxaTttiv TOVT avTo KoX yevvrjfia viro tov deov iiyeyivvrjTo. 62. 
 
 (6.) n povTrdp'X^eiv deov ovtu irpo alcimav (A), tovtov tov 
 XpKTTov, etTa Kal yevvrjdPjvai avOpatirov yevofievov VTro/iei- 
 vai. Ibid. 48. 
 
 (7.) Tiov avTov XeyovTe<;, vevo^KUfiev, koI irpo irdvTwv 
 •7roi,r)fidTcov, diro tov iraTpo^ Bvvdfiei aiirov Kal ^ovXfj irpo- 
 eXOovTa (B). Ibid. 100. 
 
 (8.) Movoyevrj<; yap, oti tjv tc5 irarpl t&v oktov o5to?, (A) 
 t'Stw? e^ avTOV Xoyo'i Kal Bvva/j.i'i yeyevrjfJ.evo';, (B) Kal vaTe- 
 pov dvd p(t)iro<; Bid Tfj<; irapOevov yev6fievo<;. Ibid. 105. This 
 is a near approach to the statement which I am looking 
 for. To say that " the Word was born " is like saying that 
 the birth was from everlasting, for the Word is eternal ; 
 still, St. Justin may have meant "that the Word was born 
 into Sonship or to become a Son;" that is, became the 
 Logos Prophoricus. In like manner, above, (n. 3, p. 250,) he 
 speaks of \0709 -TrpoiTOTOKo^ ; where Bishop Kaye would 
 
252 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 interpose koi unnecessarily. ViA. also above, p. 251, 
 Xoryov yevvwfiev. And Tatian, X0709 'yevvrjdei';, and 
 Theophilus, tov Xoyov eyewijcre Trpotpopi/cov, infra, p. 253 
 4, &c. 
 
 (g.) 'EirdXaia-ev 'laKw^ (j,eTa tov ^aivofievov /lev, sk tov 
 TTj TOV iraTpo'; l3ov\fj virripereiv, 6eov 6e, e'/c tov elvai tsk- 
 vov TrpioTOTOKov Twv oKcov KTitTfiaTcov (C). Ibid. 125. 
 
 (10.) Trjv Svva/xtv TavTijv •yer/evvfja-dai airo tov TraTpov, 
 Bvvdfiet KoX ^ovXfj avTov, aXX' ov KaT aTroTOfirju, cb? otto- 
 Hept^ofievr)'; t?}? tov iraTph^ ovaLat;, &c. Ibid. 128. 
 
 I have referred to this passage, because it contains an 
 avowal of the Homoiision, as supr. n. 4. 
 
 In none of the above passages is the gennesis said to be 
 del, from eternity ; nay, it is not even said to be " before 
 all time," tt/jo aldvcov; the idea commonly in Justin's 
 mind is creation, and the birth of the Son " before creation," 
 Trpb Tojv KTiafiaTwv. In the one passage, in which he 
 speaks of " before ages " supra (6), he is not speaking of 
 our Lord's gennesis, but of His Divinity. There is nothing 
 to show that he confines ttp&jtotoko?, as Athanasius, to 
 denote a word of office. His usual word to express the 
 Son's ministration is rather uTTT^/jeTj??, vTrrjpeTelv. 
 
 3. Tatian, the disciple of Justin, is far more explicit 
 in his statement of that doctrine which is not altogether 
 foreign to the theology of his master. I am obliged to 
 make a long quotation from him : — 
 
 0eo9 6 Ka6^ ■fjfia'i ovk e'X^ei a-varaa-iv ev 'x^povM, fiovo^ avap- 
 ')(o<i (OV, Kal aiiTO'i virdp')(oav twv oKwv upy(ij- irvev/jia 6 deo'i . . . 
 
 . . . Qeo'i rjv ev dpxf), ttjv Se dpxhv Xojov Svva/uv irapei- 
 Xri^ufiev. o lyap^ Bea-TTOTr]^ tSiv oXoov, axno^ virdpycov tov 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 253 
 
 iravToi; fj v-noaTacnt;, Kara fiev Trjv firfheTrat ^e<yevrifievr}v 
 TTOLTjaiv fi6vo<; ?iv' Kado Se iraaa BvvafiL<;, oparav re Kal aopd- 
 reov avrb<i v7r6(TTa<ri<! fjv' aw ai/To, ra irdvTa {avv avra yap) 
 Sia Xoyt/c^? hvvdfieoy'i avro<; koL 6 \6yo<;, 09 ^v ev avT^ (A), 
 vtrearrfae. QeXijfiaTi Be T779 dirXoTTiTO'; avrov [at His ab- 
 solute will] ■Kpowqha Xoyot [vid. fjXaTO, Sap. xviii. 15.] (B). 
 o Be X0709, ov Kara xevov 'ymprjaa's [i.e. creating as He 
 went forward] epyoVTrpeoToroKov tov Trarpo'; yiverai (C). 
 rovTov Xafiev tov Koap-ov ttjv dp'xijv. ylyove Be Kara fiepia- 
 p,ov, ov KUT d-rroKo-jrrjv' [with a participation of God, not a 
 separation ;] to yap dtroTfiriQev tov TrpcoTOv Ke')(a}picrTai, 
 TO Be fiepuadev, olKovop,M<; ttjv aipeaiv irpooKa^ov, [as 
 taking upon itself the office of an economy] ovk evSed tov 
 66ev eiXrjTTTai ireiroi'qKev. mairep yap diro p,id<; BaSo<;, &c. 
 &C., ovTco Kal 6 X6yo<s, irpoe\6a)v iK T7J<; tov irarpo^ Bwd- 
 fie(o<;, OVK oKoyov ireiToir)Ke tov yeyevvtjKOTa. Kal yap 
 avT0<; e'7ft) \aXw, (B) Kal .... BiaKocrp-elv tov ev vfilv aKoa- 
 firiTov vXjjv irporiprjp.aL. (C) Kal, KaOdtrep 6 Xnyof ev dpyrj 
 yevv7)del's, (B) avreyevvrjae Trjv Kad' ^fj,d<; Troirja-iv (C), avT6<; 
 
 eavTa T7]v vXijv Br)iJ.iovpyriaa<;, (C) oinat Kayco, &c 
 
 A6yo<; yap 6 i'jrovpdvio';, irvevfia yeyovo)<; otto tov Trarpo';, 
 Kai \c709 eK T^9 \oyiKrj<; Bvvd/j.€0)<;, (A) Kara ttjv tov yev- 
 vrjo-avro'; (B) avTov "Trarpo'; [ilp,r](nv, eiKova T7J9 dOavaaia'i 
 TOV dvOpairov eiro'uqffev, (C) &c. contr. Grcec. 4 — 7. 
 
 In this passage, which displays a force and clearness 
 superior to Justin's, Tatian follows his master in professing 
 the Homoiision, by his use of Justin's illustration of the 
 " fire from fire ". This illustration, too, shows that, in 
 what he says of the procession of the Logos, he is speaking 
 of a real and proper gennesis, not an allegorical, while at 
 
2 54 "^^^ Asiatic Writers. 
 
 the same time, as Maran the Benedictine editor admits, 
 he is evidently speaking of a temporal gennesis. It is 
 observable that he does not use the word " Son " once. 
 
 The words in the last sentence, \6yo<; 6 €irovpdvi,o<s, 
 irvev/jLa <yeyovo)^ airo Trar/ao?, call for a remark. They 
 may be thought to imply that the (everlasting) Word was 
 begotten, which would be an eternal gennesis, or at least 
 they identify the two ideas of Word and Son, so that 
 either the Word is but temporal, or the Son is eternal. 
 However, I should understand the words X070? irvevfia 
 rfeyovax; (and the Xo'709 yevvrjdeh), as I have translated 
 Justin's Xo'709 'ye<yevr]/xei'0(; (n. 8, p. 251, 2, and infra, p. 
 283) of " the Prophoric Word ". It must be allowed, 
 indeed, since, according to the remark of Dionysius of 
 Alexandria, our words are in some sense our children, that 
 the everlasting Word is, as such, in some sense a Son of 
 God, and so far the gennesis in Justin's sense is eternal. 
 This admission, however, does not exclude its being tem- 
 poral more exactly, if, as I think, these Fathers considered 
 our Lord's gennesis as a process. From eternity He was 
 conceived, as if " in utero," and before time and crea- 
 tion He was born. He was not born from eternity. 
 
 With Athanasius Tatian connects the title "First- 
 born " with the Word's work of creating and informing 
 all things ; in calling the First-born Himself a work, he 
 has the sanction of St. Athanasius and St. Thomas, whom 
 I have quoted above. The phrase irpoaXa^mv ttjv aipeatv 
 suggests the voluntariness of His Syncatahasis, an idea 
 which I do not find in Justin, who seems rather to make 
 the oLKovo/jbta or virrfpeaia to belong to our Lord's Nature : 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 255 
 
 but I have softened the harshness of this notion, supr. 
 " On the temporal procession." 
 
 His Kara ttjv ni/xTjaiv is wrong theology, as I have noted 
 above, when referring to St. Methodius and Novatian, 
 supr. p. 219. It connects his view of doctrine with that 
 of writers, who, historically, have no relations with him ; 
 as his emphatic start, " God was alone," will be presently 
 seen to connect him«with Novatian, St. Hippolytus and 
 Tertullian. 
 
 Tatian at length fell into heresy ; but it was not a 
 heresy affecting his belief in the Holy Trinity ; and it 
 was after his writing the treatise from which the above 
 extracts are made. 
 
 4. St. Theophilus writes with more authority than 
 Justin or Tatian. He was a bishop, and of the great see 
 of Antioch, being the sixth in descent from St. Peter. 
 His testimony is in point of distinctness an advance upon 
 Tatian's, as Tatian's is upon St. Justin's. 
 
 'E^ ovK ovTcov TO, TTCLVTa eTroirjo-ev. oi) yap ti tS 6ew 
 <7vvi]K/iacrev aXX' avTO'; eavTov T6iro<i av, Kal avevBef)^ mv, 
 Kal v'rrepi'X^eov irpo tSjv alcoveov, rjdeXrjaev avOpwirov Troifjaai 
 Q) yvacrdfj' tovto) ovv it poi]Toi fiacre rop Ko<rfj.ov o yap yevrjTot 
 Ka\ TT/soo-fieij? icTTiv, 6 Be dyevrjTo^ ovBevo'; TrpocrSeiTai. e)(^cov 
 otv 6 Oeo'i rov eavTov \6yov evBtdderov ev toI^ ^'S^ot9 c7Tr\dy- 
 "Xyoa (A), iyevvrjcrev ainov fierd t^s eavTov cro^tas i^epev^d- 
 fiei>o<; irpo tmv bXtov (B). Tovtov tov \oyov hcryev inrovpyov 
 T&v vrr' avTov yeyevv/J-evav, Kal Bl avTov ra irdvTa TreTroirjKep. 
 ovTo<i Xeyerai dp-^rj, ori ap)(ei Kal Kvpievei irdvToov rwv Bi' 
 avTov BeBr)/iiovpyT]fievo)v (C). 05to? ovv av irvevfia Oeov, Kal 
 dpx^j ical <TO(pla, ical Bvva/j,i<i vifria-Tov, Karrip'^eTo els Toii^ 
 
256 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 irpo^ryra'^, k.tX. . . . ov yap rjcrav 01 Trpo^iiTai ore 6 Koa-p,o<i 
 iyivero' oXX' rj cocjiia r) iv avTo. oiaa ■>] tov deov (C) Kai 
 6 X0709 dyio'; aiiTov 6 ael avfiirapav avro) (A), ad Autol. 
 ii. 10. 
 
 Again : o \6'yo<; 6 tov deov, o? ecm koX vio<; avrov .... 
 a)9 aXi^Oeia Sirjyelrai, rov Xoyov, tov ovra Bia'Travro'; evhtdOe- 
 Tov iv KaphLa 6eov (A), irpo yap tl yiveadai, tovtov el-^^e 
 a-vfi^ovXov, eavTOvvovv Ka\ ^povrjaivovra, oiroreBe'^OeXrja-ev 
 6 6eo<; TTOtrja-ai ocra i^ovXevaaro, tovtov tov Xoyov iyevvrjo-e 
 TTpo^opiKov (B), TrpcoTOTOKov Trd(T7i<i KTuaeco'; (C), ov Kevaj0ei<i 
 avTo^ TOV Xoyov, dXXd Xoyov yevvijaa<;, Ka\ tw Xoyw avrov 
 StaTravTo<; ofiiXcov . . . 6eb<; ovv cov o X070?, Kai eic deov 
 ire^vKQ}^, K.T.X. Ibid. 22. 
 
 Here, as in the foregoing authors, there is a clear 
 expression of a behef in the Homousion ; our Lord is in 
 the Father's lBu)i<; airXdyyyoi';, iv KophLa deov, ivSiddsTOV, 
 6« 6eov ■jre^vKw'i, &c. &c. And, moreover, in such expres- 
 sions, as in the passage of Tatian, we have the plain proof 
 that ih&gennesis thus spoken of is a real properg^e^wesM, and 
 not a metaphorical ; for if metaphorical, there was nothing 
 in it to call for these phrases which insist on His proceeding 
 from the very oixria of God. Moreover, in Theophilus the 
 philosophical words, Endiathetic and Prophoric, at length 
 come to the surface, which are implied as ideas in Justin 
 and Tatian, as also in Hippolytus and others, as we shall 
 see infra. Further, Theophilus knows of no other gennesis 
 but the temporal, for he confines the idea oi gennesis to the 
 Word's becoming^ro/i/zonc ; owore r)6eXr]aev iroifjaai, iyev- 
 vrj(re •7rpo(j)opiK6v. And the phrases iv a-7rXdyxvoi<;, iv /capSta 
 fire to be remarked, in connexion with the "ex utero" of 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 257 
 
 Psalm log, on which I have already insisted ; and still 
 more so with the singular word avvr\Kix.acrev. God is al- 
 ways from eternity in His perfection or maturity; '.'but," 
 says Theophilus, " nothing was in its maturity with 
 God ; " in other words, the Logos was eV icapVia deov, but 
 had not yet attained that perfection which took place 
 when He became prophoric, or was born into Sonship. 
 This idea will be further illustrated when we come to 
 consider the doctrine of St. Hippolytus. I understand 
 Theophilus's word vTrovpyoi; of the Syncatabasis, though 
 it is a less honourable title than Justin's inrr]peTT}<;, and 
 perhaps than the Trat? of Athenagoras and Hippolytus, 
 and far below the dignity of tt/jcototoko?. However, it is 
 corrected, if it needs correction (for Athanasius seems to 
 use it, Orat. ii. 22), by the words dpxei and Kvpievei which 
 follow, and by a-vfi^ovXo^, which also strongly expresses 
 the Word's personality ; vid. also ^07j66<,, ad Autol. ii. 18. 
 Also, it must be observed that he uses the phrase irpo 
 7(bv almvwv for the divine eternity, as Justin, supr. p. 
 252. 
 
 5. St. Melito was Bishop of Sardis in the latter part 
 of the second century. There is nothing in what remains 
 of him specially bearing upon the subject before us ; 
 it may be noted, however, that twice he uses the 
 phrase "before the ages;" viz. -n-po rSiv aldyvtuv (Routh. 
 Reliqu. t. i. p. 112) and •Trpoaiiopio'i (ibid. p. 116), 
 and in both places in the sense of eternity (as being 
 applied to the Word's divinity), with Justin and Theo- 
 philus. 
 
 6. St, Methodius, bishop, first of Patara in Asia 
 
258 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 Minor, then of Tyre, is best known as having written 
 against Origen-, though he agrees with him, as we have 
 seen, in those representations of the ministrative office 
 of the Son and Spirit, which I have had to explain. 
 There is a passage in his Convivium Virginum which is 
 asserted on all hands as decisive of his adhesion to the 
 doctrine of the eternal gennesis ; it is as follows : — 
 
 " Those who are receiving the illumination [of baptism] 
 ^(OTi^ofievoi, receive the lineaments, features, and manly 
 aspect of Christ, the resemblance of the Word being 
 stamped upon them .... [Hence] the oracular voice 
 from above from the Father Himself to Christ, on His 
 coming for the purification of water in the Jordan. ' Thou 
 art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' He declared 
 that He was His Son without the mention of limit or 
 time, aopiaTui'i ical a-xpovco';. ' EV yap air a e^rj, Kal ov 
 ' yeyova<; ' • ifiSaivaiv fitjre Trpoa^aTov avrov TeTV)(€vai tjj? 
 vlodecriat, ixrjTe aS irpoinrap^avra fiera ravra reXo? io'XV' 
 Kevai, aWa Trpoyevpr/OevTa Kal eaecrdaL Kal elvat rbv avrov. 
 TO Be, 'Eym arj/Mepov yeyivvrjKa, ere, on rrpoovra rjBrj rrpo 
 rSiv alcovtov ev roc<i ovpavol<;, e^ov\ij0T)v Kal rS KOtr/iO) 
 yevvfj(Tai, o 8?; iari, rrpocrdev ayvoovfievov yviopuaai." 
 Conviv. viii. g, ap. Galland, t. 3, p. 719. 
 
 In this passage it is certainly said that the Son " is," 
 not "was made;" that He is the Son without limit of 
 time; that He has not merely obtained a Sonship recently, 
 which will one time come to an end, but that, whereas He 
 was before the ages in heaven, and was afore-begotten, 
 so He will ever be in existence, and so is He one and the 
 same. But granting all this, I am not sure in these state- 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 259 
 
 ments of any implication of the eternal gennesis. Metho- 
 dius seems to me to say that " ' to-day ' is the day of the 
 Church, during which incessant regenerations take place, 
 of which the Son (who is prior to the Church, nay, prior 
 to all creation, as having no beginning in time, and who 
 will outlive the Church) is the great Archetype, ever 
 coming to the birth, ever coming into the world, for 
 the world's illumination." This, indeed, is nothing 
 else than the doctrine of " the First-born," applied, 
 as in Rom. viii. 29, Hebr. i. 6, Apoc. i. 5, to the new 
 creation. The concluding words "to beget Him to the 
 world, that is, to manifest Him who was before un- 
 known," are parallel to passages in Justin, Tryph. 88, 
 fin., and Epist. ad Diogn. supr., and Hippolytus, in/r. p. 
 270, fin. 
 
 7. The Emperor Constantine has not even the autho- 
 rity of a layman in the Church; but what he so confidently 
 states on the subject of the Divine Sonship, he certainly 
 did not invent himself, but learned from some high persons 
 in the East or West. It will be found substantially to 
 agree with the doctrine of Tertullian as stated above, p. 
 232, in affirming that God is not a Father from all eternity, 
 except in posse, not actually. "Our most religious Em- 
 peror," says Eusebius, "did in a speech prove, that the Son 
 of God was in being even according to His divine gennesis, 
 which is before all ages (A) ; since, even before His actual 
 gennesis {irpiv yevpT]6fjvai- ev ivepjela) (B), He was in virtue 
 {ev hwdfiei) with the Father without gennesis {wyevvriraxs), 
 the Father being always Father, as always King and 
 always Saviour." ap. Athan. Deer. fin. 
 
26o The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 8. And now, by way of contrast, let me refer to the 
 doctrine of that Eusebius who reports to us the theology 
 of Constantine. While I cannot deny that such a theo- 
 logical view, in which the Emperor was sheltered by pas- 
 sages of such orthodox writers as I have named, might 
 easily be misunderstood in an Arian or Semi-Arian sense, 
 — both the heretical party and the authors I have cited 
 speaking of the Son as being formally born, upon and in 
 order to, the creation of the universe, and as if not generated 
 from eternity, — after all there is this vast difference be- 
 tween the heretics and these Catholic Ante-Nicenes, that 
 the Catholics were firm believers in the Homoiision, and 
 the others, on the contrary, rejected it. The latter con- 
 sidered that the Son had an individual existence as each 
 of us has, and was in all respects separate from the Father 
 as we are, whether, as Arians, they thought Him a mere 
 creature, or, as Semi-Arians, a second and secondary God. 
 The Catholics, on the other hand, some of whom I have 
 cited and some I have still to cite, testify in set terms to 
 the consubstantiality or simple individuality of Father 
 and Son. I have already given the statements of these 
 Asiatic Ante-Nicenes; now I will show this contrast as 
 exhibited in the language of Eusebius, a Semi-Arian, 
 using for the purpose some of the passages brought to- 
 gether by Petavius, Ae Trin. i. ii. 
 
 He lays it down, for instance, as revealed truth, that 
 " after the unoriginate and ingenerate essence (ovaiav) of 
 the God of the Universe, which is incommunicable and 
 above all comprehension, there is a second essence and 
 divine Power, the origin of all created things, and first 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 261 
 
 subsisting, and begotten {'^e'^evnfi.iv'qv) from the First 
 Cause (alriov), the Word, Wisdom, and Power of God." 
 Prcep. vii. 12, p. 320, ed. 1688 ; 
 
 That "The Only-begotten of God Himself, and First- 
 born of the universe, the origin of all things, exhorts us 
 to account His Father alone as true God, and to worship 
 Him alone." ibid. vii. 15, p. 327; 
 
 That " though the4ladiance co-exists with the Light 
 {(TwvTrap'xei) and is its complement (for without its 
 Radiance Light could not subsist), and co-exists together 
 with it and in itself {KaO' avro), the Father exists before 
 the Son (vpoij'n-dpy^^ei) and subsists before the Son's making 
 (ttj? r^eveaeoi^ avrov irpov^eaTqKev), in that He alone is 
 ingenerate(rt76i'»7T09); and, whereas the Radiance does not 
 shine forth by any choice on the part of the Light, but by 
 a certain inseparable accident of its essence, the Son sub- 
 sists the Image of the Father by His purpose and choice." 
 Demonstr. iv. 3, p. 147, 8 ; 
 
 That " he who holds two hypostases is not obliged 
 to admit two Gods ; for we do not determine them 
 to be equals in honour;" that "the Son Himself teaches 
 us that His Father is His God;" whereas "the Son, 
 when He Himself is compared to the Father, will not 
 be God of His Father, but .... the Image of the Unseen 
 God, &c., and He venerates, worships, and glorifies 
 His own Father as being God." contr. Marcell. ii. 7, p. 
 109. 
 
 I have brought together other passages of Eusebius, in 
 annotating on Athanasius, vol. ii. art. Eusebius. 
 
 If the Semi-Arian Eusebius thus vitally differed 
 
262 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 from Justin and Theophilus, much more did the 
 Arians.^ 
 
 9. Nor is this all. It must be considered that the 
 authors whom I have cited, whatever be the authority of 
 some of them, cannot be said to speak ex cathedra, even 
 if they had the right to do so ; and do not speak as a 
 Council may speak. When a certain number of men 
 meet together, one of them corrects another, and what is 
 personal and peculiar in each, what is local or belongs to 
 schools, is eliminated. Now we have the voice of a great 
 assembly of Asiatic Bishops in the third century speaking 
 on the very doctrine of our Lord's Divinity ; I mean the 
 Council or Councils of Antioch, between a.d. 264 and 272. 
 One of these Councils was attended by as many as seventy 
 Bishops. They were convened at Antioch against the 
 heresiarch Metropolitan, Paul of Samosata, and they pub- 
 lished an exposition of the Catholic dogma, which supplies 
 us with that very article of it which I desiderate in Tatian 
 and others. I cannot deny, and indeed I cannot but be 
 pleased, that the Alexandrians had a share in this good 
 work. Dionysius, their then Bishop, was the first to move 
 against Paulus; he wrote against him, and, when he could 
 not attend the Council, as being in his last illness, he sent 
 
 1 I am not forgetful of the strong passages brought together by 
 Cave in behalf of Eusebius's orthodoxy. I would gladly believe 
 that he became more orthodox after the Nicene Council, at least 
 upon a main point on which the Arian controversy turned. The 
 passages most in his favour appear to be in his Land. Constant., 
 written ten years after the Council ; but this is too large a subject 
 for a note. 
 
The Asiatic Writers. 263 
 
 a formal letter to its Fathers, from his death-bed, on the 
 grave subject of their meeting. Moreover, the most 
 eminent members of the Council were closely connected 
 with Origen as a teacher ; Athenodorus and Gregory 
 were his converts, and for many years his pupils ; and 
 Firmilian, if not his pupil, as Gregory Nyssen affirms, 
 at least was his warm friend and patron, and studied the 
 Scriptures with him* in a long sojourn in Palestine, I 
 do not say this, however, to weaken the authoritative 
 force of the Council as an Asiatic body, though doubtless 
 this Alexandrian element was of the greatest service in 
 its deliberations. 
 
 Into their dogmatic Letter they introduce one of those 
 plain cardinal words incompatible with the doctrine of the 
 temporal gennesis, which I have looked for in vain as yet 
 out of Alexandria. They speak of the Son, not merely 
 as before all creatures, or ages, but absolutely as eternal. 
 They say, "This Son .... knowing both in the Old and 
 the New Covenant, we confess and preach as being be- 
 gotten, the Only-begotten Son, Image of the Invisible 
 God, First-born of all creatures, Wisdom and Word and 
 Power of God, in existence before ages, not in foreknow- 
 ledge, but in substance and hypostasis Son of God .... 
 Him (the Son) we believe, being ever with the Father {criiv 
 Tc3 Trarpi ael ovto), to have accomplished the Father's 
 purpose for the creation of the Universe." Moreover, as 
 if protesting against the mischief done by the docti'ine of 
 the "prophoric Word," the "Word begotten into Son- 
 ship," they assert that He is "One and the same in sub- 
 stance." Routh. Reliqu. vol. ii. pp. 466, 468, 474. 
 
264 The Asiatic Writers. 
 
 At the last of these Councils, one of which drew up the 
 Letter in which these words occur, the word homousion 
 which the Alexandrians had maintained, I confess, was 
 withdrawn ; but it was withdrawn on an objection of 
 Paul's, for which it was thought necessary to consult, 
 not for any reason arising out of the meaning and drift 
 with which it was afterwards used at Nicsea. However, 
 that withdrawal, whatever may be said of it, does not 
 impair the force of what the Council did positively enun- 
 ciate. What that enunciation brings home to us is 
 this, — that we may follow the facts of ecclesiastical 
 history, whithersoever they lead us (as in this question 
 of the incomplete utterances of early Saints), without 
 any misgiving that, in doing so, we shall be doing 
 damage to the tradition of the early Church, as a wit- 
 ness in behalf of the faith of St. Athanasius and St. 
 Augustine. 
 
The Western Writers. 265 
 
 § 14. THE WESTERN WRITERS. 
 
 The theological literature of the East in the first cen- 
 turies can hardly be said to have suggested Arianism ; 
 but it was a sort of shelter for it, when it made its ap- 
 pearance. I shall h^e to speak in very much the same 
 way of certain writers of the West during the same 
 period, who were more copious and more able than the 
 Orientals. St. Justin or St. Theophilus cannot pretend, 
 in force of intellect or originality, to vie with TertuUian, 
 or with Hippolytus in fertility or in authority. 
 
 The theological writers in the West during the period 
 which I have taken in Asia and Egypt (viz., down to the 
 middle of the fourth century, to Eusebius and Athanasius 
 inclusive) , are St. Hippolytus of Rome, the Roman author 
 of the lately discovered Elenchiis Heeresium, TertuUian of 
 Rome and Carthage, Novatian also of Rome; St. Zeno of 
 Verona, St. Hilary and St. Phoebadius of France, and Lac- 
 tantius and Victorinus of Africa. Of Cyprian I spoke above. 
 
 Of the four Roman writers in this list, three were 
 in direct variance with the Holy See on matters of dis- 
 cipline, which they maintained ought to be stricter than 
 the Popes judged to be prudent. The earliest of these 
 three seems to be the author of the Elenchus Heeresium, 
 discovered some twenty or thirty years ago, who is so 
 scandalous in his treatment of two contemporary Popes, 
 Zephyrinus and Callistus ; a learned and able writer, but 
 fierce and reckless in his enmities, and incontrollable in 
 
 18 
 
266 The Western Writers. 
 
 his temper. Another, the African TertuUian, is the most 
 powerful writer of the early centuries. He is said to have 
 lived in Rome, for many years apparently, and was there 
 ordained Priest ; then, when at length driven to his own 
 country by the hostility of the Roman clergy, he set 
 himself to inveigh against the laxity of morals which 
 he considered to be tolerated by the Popes, and died in 
 the profession of Montanism. The third is Novatian, a 
 Roman priest, so highly placed and so specially respected, 
 that, during the vacancy of the Holy See, he was chosen 
 by the Roman clergy to be their spokesman in their 
 correspondence with St. Cyprian of Carthage; a man 
 of unblemished, or rather austere character, and dying 
 for the Christian faith in the Valerian persecution. He 
 too, scandalised by the relaxation of discipline in his day, 
 became the author of the unhappy schism which goes by 
 his name. His sectaries stood by the Catholics, and 
 suffered with them for the cause of orthodoxy, during the 
 Arian tyranny. He is said to be the first Anti-Pope, and 
 to have contrived his own consecration by means quite 
 unworthy of his high character ; but, bearing in mind how 
 Pope Callistus suffers from his unscrupulous adversary, 
 I am slow to admit what may really be a party re- 
 presentation of him. He, as Callistus, has no oppor- 
 tunity of speaking for himself. 
 
 Greater still in reputation, without any slur upon his 
 character or conduct (though some have attributed to 
 him a temporary Novatianism some twenty or thirty 
 years before Novatian) is Hippolytus. He stands, or 
 rather stood, while his writings were extant, in point of 
 
The Western Writers. 267 
 
 authority, range of subject, and ability, in the very first 
 rank of theologians in the Ante-Nicene times, and per- 
 haps has no rival at all, as a theologian, during that 
 period, except his master, St. Irenaeus. At present we 
 have little more than fragments of his writings, and it is 
 a mystery how Origen's works have come down to us, who 
 has ever been in the shade, and not those of Hippolytus 
 who has ever been iathe brightest light of ecclesiastical 
 approbation. A senator of Rome, as some consider, before 
 he became a servant of the Church, he is said to have 
 been a disciple of the holy Bishop of Lyons, and he 
 followed him in being in succession Bishop, Doctor, and 
 Martyr. Within a century of his death a church had 
 been erected near the Basilica of St. Laurence in honour 
 of a martyr of his name, and it became a popular shrine 
 and resort of pilgrims; and there is reason for concluding 
 that he was the Hippolytus to whom it was dedicated.^ 
 I say so, because there it was that in the i6th century a 
 marble statue of him was found, which is still to be seen 
 in the Vatican, an historical portrait, as some consider, 
 with a list of his works engraven upon the episcopal chair 
 on which he is seated. He is the first commentator in 
 extenso upon Scripture among Christian writers, and his 
 annotations are said to have been used by St. Ambrose 
 in his own Hexameron. He is on the Catalogue of theolo- 
 
 ^ There is no difficulty in believing that other martyrs of the 
 same name were afterwards associated with him in the church 
 which was dedicated to him, as occurs in the instance of other, 
 saints. 
 
268 The Western Writers. 
 
 gians given us by Eusebius, St. Jerome, Theodoret, and 
 Leontius, and, togetherwith St. Irenaeus, is quoted largely 
 by Theodoret in that writer's controversies with the 
 heretics of his day. Moreover, Pope Gelasius, a.d. 500, 
 uses him as one of his authorities in his work against 
 the Eutychians, and Pope Martin in the Lateran Council 
 of A.D. 649 appeals to him in his own condemnation of 
 the Monothelites. 
 
 That a name so singularly honoured, a name which a 
 breath of ecclesiastical censure has never even dimmed, 
 should belong, as so many men think just now, to the 
 author of that malignant libel on his contemporary Popes- 
 which is appended to the lately discovered Elenchus, is 
 to my mind simply incredible, — incredible, not simply 
 considering the gravity of tone in what remains to us of 
 his writings, and mainly indeed in the Elenchus itself, but 
 especially because his name and his person were, as I 
 have been pointing out, so warmly cherished at Rome by 
 Popes of the fourth, fifth, and seventh centuries. Rome 
 has a long memory of injuries offered to her majesty ; and 
 that special honours should have been paid there to a, 
 pamphleteer, as we now speak, who did not scruple in set 
 words to call Pope Zephyrinus a weak and venal dunce, 
 and Pope Callistus a sacrilegious swindler, an infamous 
 convict, and an heresiarch ex cathedra, is an hypothesis 
 which requires more direct evidence for its acceptance than 
 has hitherto been produced. I grant that that portion of 
 the work which relates to the Holy Trinity as closely re- 
 sembles the works of Hippolytus in style and in teaching, 
 as the libellous matter which has got a place in it is in- 
 
The Western Writers. 269 
 
 compatible with his reputation ; — in the present discus- 
 sion, however, it matters not what becomes of a difficulty 
 which is mainly historical or biographical. Here I shall 
 place him first among the Western writers, on account 
 of the weight of his authority in early times, the clear- 
 ness and terseness of his style, and the completeness of 
 his doctrinal view. After him I shall proceed to his 
 companions, Tertulli^n and Novatian. 
 
 I. HippotYTUS, contr. Noetum, 10. 
 
 " God, existing (virapxcov) alone, and having nothing 
 contemporaneous {<tv^xP°^°^) with Himself, purposed to 
 create the world." 
 
 Existing alone ; so Tatian, fiovo^ avap^p^, vTrdp^wv 
 ^PXV> sm/"'- P- 253 ; and infr. p. 276, Tertullian, " Ante 
 omnia Deus erat solus;" (vid. also Marcellus, ttX^i' 6eov, 
 ovSev erepov rjv. Euseb. supr. p. 24.) 
 
 " He conceived in thought {evvorjOek) the world (A) ; 
 He willed, spoke, and made it. To Him forthwith pre- 
 sented itself the thing that came into being (yevo/Mevov) 
 as He would." 
 
 Clement says, 97 ISia, ivvotjjxa tov deov • oirep ol ^dp^- 
 apot Xoyov elprjKacri, tov Oeov. Strom, v. 3, ed. Potter. In 
 Hippolytus, then, ivvorjOe)^ may perhaps . refer to the 
 Word as endiathetic. 
 
 " It is enough for us to know only this, that contempo- 
 raneous with God there was nothing besides Himself; and 
 that He being sole (yitwo?) was many (ttoXu?) ; for not 
 Word-less (intellect-less), or Wisdom-less, or Power-less, 
 or Thought-less {d^ov\evTo<;) was He, (A) but all things 
 were in Him, and He was the whole {to irav)." 
 
270 The Western Writers. 
 
 " "When He would, as He would, He manifested His 
 Word (B), at seasons determined with Him [i.e. Him- 
 self] , by whom He made all things (C) . When He wills. 
 He does ; and when He has in mind. He performs ; and 
 when He speaks. He manifests ; and when He moulds, 
 He exercises wisdom (o-o^ifexat)- Foi" ^-ll things that 
 have come into being {^evofieva) He contrives, by means 
 of Word (Reason) and Wisdom, by Word creating and 
 by Wisdom embellishing. He did then as He would, 
 for He was God." 
 
 "Embellishing" or "furnishing" is a reference to Gen. 
 ii. I, " So the heavens and the earth were finished, and 
 Tras o «ocr/A09 avraiv," " et omnis ornatus eorum." So 
 Justin and Tatian, supr. pp. 250, 253. And so Methodius, 
 de Creatis, vii. ap. Galland, t. 3, p. 802. 
 
 " And of the things which were coming into being He 
 begat (ejevva) the Word to be His Leader, and Counsellor, 
 and Operator {dpxvyov, <tv/j,^ov\ov, ipyaTTjv)." 
 
 And so Theophilus, iyewtjaev tov Xoyov, inrovpyov, 
 dpxvv, crvfj.^ov\ov, &c., supr. p. 256. 
 
 " Which Word having in Himself invisible (A) He 
 makes visible (B) to the world, during its process of crea- 
 tion (KTi^ofievo)). Speaking a first voice, and begetting 
 Light from Light (B), He sent Him forth {-n-poriKev), a 
 Lord to the creation (Kvpiov)." 
 
 Tatian, TrpoTrrjBa X0709, supr. p. 253 ; and Theophilus, 
 apx^i' o X6yo<i koL Kvpievei ttuvtcov, supr. p. 256. 
 
 " His own Mind (vovv), to Himself alone hitherto exist- 
 ing as visible (A), but to the world, that was coming into 
 being, invisible, Him He makes visible, that, by becoming 
 
The Western Writers. 271 
 
 manifest, the world might see Him and might thereby 
 be sustained {<ja>dr)vai Svvr]0fj) (C)." ^ 
 
 This salvation or preservation through the presence 
 and manifestation of the Word, is that indwelling virtue 
 of the Primogenitus, on which Athanasius dwells in such 
 various ways. The sight of Him is life or salvation to 
 the Universe, as His incarnate birth is said by Methodius, 
 supr. p. 258, to be a manifestation of the unknown. 
 
 " And thus there stood by Him Another (B). In saying 
 Another, I do not say two Gods, but as Light from Light, 
 or as water' from a fountain, or as a ray from the Sun." 
 
 Here is the doctrine of the Monarchia, against which 
 Eusebius offends and the holders of the Three dpxiical 
 uTToo-Tacret?. Also the doctrine of the Homoiision ; 
 whereas Eusebius, supr. p. 261, says, that the Father 
 and Son are not like light and radiance, so far as this, 
 that the Father can have been without the Son, and that 
 the Son is not the necessary complement of the Father. 
 
 " There is one Power, that from the All-in-all (e'/c tov 
 nravTO's) ; and the All is the Father, from whom there is a 
 Power, the Word (A). And He is Mind (vov<;), which, 
 progressing (irpo^a^) in the world (B), was manifested as 
 the Minister (Trat?) of God (C). All things are through 
 Him, and He alone from (eV) the Father." contr. Noet. il. 
 
 Hat? is elsewhere too used in this sense by Hippolytus, 
 as in de Antichrist. 3 and 61. It was by His Syncatabasis 
 in the creation of all things that, though a vio<;, the Word 
 became the Primogenitus, or Trat? deov. The term also 
 belongs to Him as incarnate, vid. Act. iv. 27-30. 
 
 Hippolytus presently adds : — 'AW' ipet /j,ol, ti<; ' ^evov 
 
272 The Western Writers. 
 
 fioi ^epeii;, \6yov Xeycov vlov . . .'O fiaKo.piO'i TlavKo<i Xeyei 
 . . . 6^eo<; rov eavTOv vlov ire/iyfra'; ev ofioLcofiaTi crapKO<i 
 aaapria^, . . . irolov ovv vlov eavTov 6 06o<; Bia rij? a-apKOV 
 KaTeTrefiyjrev aW f) rov Xoyov, ov vlov -rrpoerTiyopeve 8ta to 
 fiiXXeiv avTov yeviadai ; . . ■ ovre yap acrapKO<; koX Kad' 
 eavTov 6 Xoyov TeX€io<; r^v vlo<;, Kanoi reXeto? Xoyo<; wv 
 fiovoyev^'i • ov6' r] crap^ KaO' eavrrjv Six^ Tov Xoyov viro- 
 crrdvai rjhvvaro, 8ia to iv Xoyw ttjv (Tvcrrcuriv e^eiv. ov- 
 T<B9 ovv 6?s vibt; TeXeio<; Oeov i<})avepd)9r). Ibid. 15. 
 
 This passage is too important not to be set down in the 
 Greek, Bull and others attempt to soften what is extreme 
 in its statement, but they hardly can be said to do so with 
 complete success. St. Theophilus, as supr. p. 255, says, 
 that at the epoch of creation " nought " had attained the 
 fulness of maturity but God, who was ever all-perfect, 
 as if the Son, while " in utero Patris," had not arrived 
 at His perfection. St. Hippolytus seems to carry this 
 idea further, viz. that, as the Son was necessary as the 
 hypostasis of His human nature, so again His human 
 nature co-operated towards the perfection of His Sonship. 
 Marcellus parallels Hippolytus's Bta to fj-eXXeiv avrov 
 yevia-dai with his own '7rpo<ji7jTiK(0';, &c. supr. pp. 28-33. 
 
 I find one passage in Hippolytus in which he makes a 
 statement which I had not found elsewhere except among 
 the Alexandrians, and which ought to be recorded. In his 
 Didascalia, ed. Fabric, part i. p. 246, we read o irpo aldvwv 
 fiovoyev'^'i. There is a stronger passage in the Vienna 
 Catena, ed, Fabr. ii. p. 29: ael rjv tw ISiO) avvvTrdp^av 
 yei'vijTopi, &c. Neither of them is inconsistent with the 
 doctrine of the "in utero." Also, it is difficult to trust 
 
The Western Writers. 273 
 
 the superscription of names in such collections ; e.g. in 
 some of them Hippolytus is called " Bishop of Rome," 
 vid. also supv. p.- 88, note. I should add, I cannot accept 
 as genuine the fragments contra Beronem et Helicem, as 
 Bull and Fabricius do. 
 
 2. The Authorof thefi^Mctes, whocomes next to be con- 
 sidered, writes upon the subject in discussion as if he had 
 Hippolytus's treatise Before him or by heart. He says : — 
 
 " God who is one, the first and only, and Creator and 
 Lord of all things, had nothing contemporaneous with 
 Himself (x. 32, p. 334). 
 
 " Only," yu,oz/o? ; as Hippolytus, Tatian, Tertullian, and 
 Novatian. a-vryj^^povov ea^ev oiiSiv is almost verbatim from 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 " He then being the Only God and Universal, first 
 having conceived in thought a Logos (A), begets," — 
 
 ivvorjOei';, as Hippolytus : diroyevva brings out the idea 
 of ivvoTjdei';, which I have suggested above is intended by 
 Hippolytus to refer to the Endiathetic Word. The author 
 proceeds to speak still more plainly, — 
 
 " Begets Him (B), not a logos as a mere utterance (ijxov^v), 
 but as being an Endiathetic \oji<rfji6<;," (that is, a BvvafM<;, 
 not an act,) " of the All-in-all (tov nravTo^)." 33. 
 
 He who was begotten or born, or became a Son, was 
 the aboriginal Logos or Xojia-fj,6<!, that connatural in- 
 dwelling Power called Logos, not a mere accidental, 
 external sound, or voice from God. It was the Endia- 
 thetic Word, born into Prophoric action. He uses the 
 TO -rrav, as Hippolytus, si4j[>r. p. 269. 
 
 " Him alone of all beings He begat : for Being the 
 
274 The Western Writers. 
 
 Father Himself was, the gennesis from whom (e^ ov to 
 jevvrjdrjvai) was the cause (of existence, airiov) to those 
 things which were coming into being (C).- The Word was 
 in Him, undertaking {4>ip(ov) the will of Him who begat 
 Him (C), not being unskilled in the Father's conception 
 {oiiK airetpo'; Trj<; evvoia'i)." 
 
 Here seems to be the same shade of error which leads 
 Methodius and others to speak of our Lord as a Son 
 acting KaTa fj,ifi.r](7Lv rov Trar/jo?. The idea is continued 
 in the words which next follow, in which too, as in St. 
 Justin, the Son is spoken of as the " First-born of God," 
 not " First-born of the Universe," as St. Athanasius 
 would speak. 
 
 " For together with His going forth (irpoeXdeiv) from 
 Him who begat Him (B), having become His First-born 
 (C), He has, as an utterance {(jxovijv) in Himself, the 
 ideas conceived in the Father's mind {evvorj6eia-a<; iv ™ 
 irarpiKw) ; whence, at the bidding of the Father (/ceXeu- 
 OI/T09 •jrarpo'i) that the world should come into being, 
 did the Word accomplish every separate portion of it, 
 thus pleasing God (C). . . Whatsoever things God 
 willed, did God make. These things He fashioned 
 (eSrjfiiovpyei) by His Word, nor could they become other- 
 wise than they became . . . And besides them He framed 
 out of all composite substances the ruler of them all, 
 [Adam ?] fashioning him {Bi]/j,iovpy6v, qu. hrjfju.ovpySiv), not 
 wishing to make him a god and failing, nor an angel (be 
 not deceived),^ but a man. For had He wished to make 
 thee a god, He could have done it ; thou hast the Word 
 
 ' A parallel iiAi irXava is found in Hippol. de Antichr. 2. 
 
The Western Writers. 275 
 
 r.s the Archetype " [by which to frame such a hypothe- 
 tical creature] {e'xet^ tov \0701; to TrapdSei/Yfia) ; "but He 
 wished to make a man, and a man He has made thee . . ." 
 
 I thus interpret 7rapdBeiy/j,a as characteristic of the tt/jw- 
 ToroKO'i ; for if we translate it, " you see what He can do 
 by the instance of what He did in the case of the Word," 
 as if our Lord were not true God from the Father's sub- 
 stance, but a made gcSd, we contradict the words that 
 follow : " His Word is alone from (e'/e) Him . . . therefore 
 He is God, existing as the substance of God (oia-i'a virdp- 
 X<>>i> Oeov)." This is the doctrine of the Homoiision. 
 
 Lastly, he says: — Ta nrdvra Bioixel 6 X6jo<; 6 Oeov, 6 
 TrpaoTO'yovo'i iraTpoi Trat? (C), r) irpo emcr^opov ^wa(^6po<i 
 ^mvrj (B). 
 
 He is Trat?, servant or minister, as in Hippolytus, supr. 
 p. 271, by reason of His Syncatahasis. Ilpb iwa-^opov; 
 this seems to be his substitute for tt/jo Kria/iaTiov, a 
 phrase which I do not find in this author, nor in Hippo- 
 lytus : nor the phrase vpo tS>v aiwvwv, except supr. p. 272 ; 
 but I have not confidence enough in my own accuracy to 
 assert a negative. 
 
 3. Tertullian must have this credit given to him, 
 that, as I showed above, he, among all the Ante-Nicene 
 writers, is most accurate and explicit in his general state- 
 ments of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Especially 
 is he clear upon the Homoiision. This is a merit which 
 remains to him, into whatever extravagances he fell in 
 other points ; and it must be kept in view, much as 
 we may lament his error on the particular question 
 before us. 
 
276 The Western Writers. 
 
 I have already quotedifrom his Treatise against Her- 
 mogenes one passage, sM^r. p. 232, in which he lays down 
 distinctly the proposition which, except on the hypo- 
 thesis that the Eternal Logos was ''generatus in Filium," 
 is simply Arian ; viz. " Fuit tempus cum Filius non fuit." 
 In his treatise against Praxeas, he gives fuller expression 
 to that tenet, and in singular accordance with the doctrine 
 of Hippolytus and Theophilus : he says, c. 5-7 : — 
 
 " Before all things God was alone ; He Himself was 
 world, place, and all things for Himself. He was alone, 
 for there was nothing external to Him." 
 
 Here is that initial statement, which we have found, on 
 starting, in Tatian and others, as to the aboriginal solita- 
 riness of God. And of His Self-sufficiency; — astheavro?. 
 kavTov ToTTo?, avevSerji; &e, of Theophilus, and the to ov 
 rjv of the Elenchus. Tertullian continues : — 
 
 " However, not even then was He alone ; for He had 
 with Him that which He had in His own Self, that is to 
 say. His Reason (Ratio) (A). For God has Reason 
 (rationalis Deus), and Reason was in Him before [all 
 things] ; and thus it was that all things were from Him. 
 Which Reason is His Intelligence (Sensus)." 
 
 Bull {Def. F. N. iii. 10, p. 209) says that the Greek of 
 sensus is evvoia. If so, Tertullian is pursuing the line of 
 exposition taken by Hippolytus and the Elenchus, supr. 
 pp. 269, 273. 
 
 " This Reason the Greeks called Logos, which also 
 stands for our word Sermo (Word) ; and therefore it has 
 become a custom with our people, translating roughly, to 
 say that the Word was in the first beginning (primordio) 
 
The Western Writers. 277 
 
 with God ; whereas it is more exact to consider Reason 
 more ancient. For God had not the Word (non Ser- 
 monalis Deus) from the beginning (B), but Reason 
 (Rationalis Deus) (A), and that even before the begin- 
 ning (principium) ; and because the Word Itself, as 
 being informed (consistens) by Reason, evidences Reason 
 to be prior, as being the Word's substance (substantiam 
 suam)." • 
 
 " Substantiasua," that is, the hypostasis, or substantial 
 stay of the Word ; as if the Word was by itself a mani- 
 festation, and Reason the reality in God. We may argue 
 hence, Bull says, that Reason, being a substance, is a 
 Person. This, indeed, TertuUian says distinctly pre- 
 sently, and says that the Word, as identical with Reason, 
 is that Person, using the term Persona ; but I do not see 
 with Bull that the term substance or hypostasis means 
 Person here, but stay, stay of the Word ; in the same 
 sense, as God is the hypostasis of creation. 
 
 ". . . With His Reason thinking and disposing 
 (disponens). He made that to become His Word, (viz. 
 Reason,) which by the Word He was exercising (B) . . . 
 When you silently converse with yourself, this inward 
 action you will observe is carried on by reason, which 
 suggests to you a word for every movement of your 
 thought and every stirring of your intelligence (sensus). 
 Every act of thought is a word ; every act of intelligence 
 is reason . . . Therefore the word is in some sense your 
 double (secundus), by means of which you speak when 
 you are thinking, and think when you are speaking. 
 How much more fully then does this take place in God, 
 
278 The Western Writers. 
 
 whose image and likeness you are even accounted {;oid. 
 Dionysius in Athan. de S. D. 23). . . Accordingly, I 
 may without rashness lay down, first of all, that, even 
 then, before the framing of the Universe, God was not 
 alone, as having in Himself- Reason, and the Word in 
 Reason, so as to make that Word His Second (secun- 
 dum a se) by exercising it within Himself (agitando intra 
 se) (B)." 
 
 All this answers to the doctrine of the Logos Endia- 
 thetic and Prophoric; and this intrinsic agitation of which 
 he speaks, is, as will appear lower down, the gennesis of 
 the Word, the transition of the Ratio into the Sermo ; and 
 the very word " agitando," which is used literally, (not 
 morally,) evidences, as I have said, that the radical error 
 of these early theologians lies in their imperfect appre- 
 hension of the Nature of God, Its simplicity and Immu- 
 tability, as if His Essence allowed of internal alteration. 
 
 " This force and disposition of the Divine Intelli- 
 gence (vis et dispositio sensus) is in Scripture signified 
 also by the name of Wisdom ; for what is wiser than the 
 Reason or the Word of God ? Hear then Wisdom, which 
 had been laid deep (conditim) as a Second Person (A). 
 First of all, ' The Lord created Me a beginning of His 
 ways for His works ; before He made the earth, before 
 the mountains were placed, and before all the hills He 
 begat Me.' That is to say, in His own Intelligence lay- 
 ing deep and begetting. Next, recognise in the passage 
 Wisdom's presence with Him (assistentem) in this fact 
 of Its being separated off from Him. 'When He was 
 preparing the heaven,' he says, ' I was with Him ... for 
 
The Western Writers. 279 
 
 I was delighted every day with His Person.' . . . Then it 
 is that the Word Himself takes His form (speciem) and 
 His clothing (ornatum), His sound and voice, when God 
 says, 'Let there be Light.' This is the perfect birth of 
 the Word (B)." 
 
 " Sophia assistens" is parallel to the «aio{!T&)?7ra/3to-TaTo 
 avTui eT€po<; of Hippolytus ; and this expression, " stood 
 by Him," or "was present to Him," answering to the 
 d \d709 ^v TT/To? Tov 6e6v of St. John, separates off the 
 doctrine of these Fathers from the Sabellianizers, such as 
 those spoken of by St. Justin, or the party of Marcellus, 
 or such as Praxeas, against whom Tertullian is writing, 
 who, if Marcellus may be taken to represent them, were 
 disposed to substitute ev tS 6e<p for tt/jo? tov 6e6v, in order 
 to obscui'e the personality of the Word, vid. supr. p. 24. 
 Tertullian has spoken of the Ratio of God being " in 
 semetipso." supr. p. 276. 
 
 For the right meaning of "the Lord hath created Me," 
 I refer, supr. p. 205, to Athanasius. 
 
 " Haec est perfecta nativitas Sermonis:" — therefore 
 that nativity was once imperfect. This reminds us of the 
 avvrjKnaaev ovhev aiiTip of Theophilus ; also of the reXeto? 
 v!6<; of Hippolytus, though he associates the Incarnation 
 with the reXetoT?;?. The Second Person, according to 
 them, had from the first, from eternity, the nature of a 
 Son, even when Endiathetic or in utero, as Tertullian 
 speaks presently, but that Sonship came to its perfection 
 in His becoming, or as He became, prophoric. 
 
 Let me add that Phcebadius {ap. Galland, t. 5, p. 253) 
 seems to be referring to Tertullian, and setting him right, 
 
28o The Western Writers. 
 
 when he says " Hsec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, hoc 
 est, principium sine principio." That is, the dvapyo'i ap-)(ri . 
 of Clement. TertulHan continues : — 
 
 " This is the perfect birth of the Word, while He pro- 
 ceeds from God, being laid deep (conditus) by Him first 
 in order to the thought [of creation] under the name of 
 Wisdom (A), then generated (B) to give effect [to that 
 thought] (C)." 
 
 "Conditus" might almost be translated "conceived" 
 in contrast with actual birth. 
 
 " Then generated to give effect to that thought, viz. 
 ' when He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him,' 
 [and] thereupon making God a Father to Himself [parem 
 leg. patrem] , by proceeding from whom He became a Son, 
 — being First-born as generated before all, and Only- 
 begotten as alone begotten from God, in a proper sense, 
 from the womb of His heart, as the Father testifies, ' My 
 heart has burst forth with a Word most good' (B)." 
 
 Here TertulHan, like Justin, understands the title of 
 " First-born " to refer to the Divine Sonship, not like 
 Athanasius to the WovA'sSyncatabasis. " Ex vulva cordis 
 ipsius " answers to the eV rois crTfKdyxyoi<; and iv KapBia 
 of Theophilus, and the " cordis ejus nobilis inquilinus" 
 of Zeno, and the " in gremio " and " in fir^rpa " of Vic- 
 torinus, as we shall find infra. 
 
 ..." Nor need I longer insist on this point, as if the 
 Word were not from God both under the name of Wisdom 
 and Reason and of the whole Divine Mind and Spirit; who 
 was made the Son of that God, from whom by going forth 
 He was generated (B), You ask me, do I lay down that 
 
The Western Writers. 281 
 
 the word is some Substance formed (constructam) by the 
 [Divine] Spirit and the carrying on [traditione] of "Wis- 
 dom ? Just so ... I say that nothing could have pro- 
 ceeded from God empty and void, inasmuch as not being 
 put forth [prolatum] from what is empty and void, and 
 that That cannot be without a substance which proceeded 
 from so great a Substance, and has produced so great sub- 
 stances . . . Whatevd!t, then, was the Word's substance, 
 That I call a Person, and for That I claim the name of 
 Son ; and, in acknowledging Him for a Son, I am main- 
 taining that He i'S the Father's Second." 
 
 "The Father's Second," that is, a Reiteration of the 
 Father, not a name, or quality, or act, but a substantial 
 Person, as he has said all along. 
 
 Such is TertuUian's teaching, as clear and decided in 
 character, — as grand, viewed as an exposition of Catholic 
 Truth on the general doctrine of the Trinity, — as it is 
 distinctly faulty as to one point, the Son's co-eternity, 
 considered as the Son — the consequence of an error which 
 has its root, I I'epeat, in his defective apprehension of 
 the Divine Attributes. 
 
 4. NovATiAN is commonly considered to be the author 
 of the Treatise de Trinitate, as if on the authority of St. 
 Jerome, but nothing depends on the Treatise beingNova- 
 tian's.as in any case it is a work of the Ante-Nicene period. 
 
 "What shall we say then ? Does Scripture set forth 
 two Gods ? How then does it say, that God is One ? 
 or is Christ not God?" &c. c. 30, p. 231, ed. Jack- 
 son. 
 
 Here is the same objection proposed, on the score of the 
 
 19 
 
282 The Western Writers. 
 
 Monarchia, which we find in Hippolytus, supr. p. 271, and 
 in Tertullian, adv. Prax. c. 4. 
 
 " God the Father is Founder and Creator of all things ; 
 alone without origin, the invisible, illimitable, immortal, 
 eternal, and one God." c. 31, p. 236. 
 
 This is like the start of Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, 
 and Tertullian, supra. 
 
 " Out of whom, when He willed, The Word, His Son, 
 was born," or "The Word was born to be a Son (B)," 
 (Sermo Filius natus est.) In the former of these ren- 
 derings he will agree in the use of terms with Tertullian ; 
 in the latter, Him, whom Tertullian calls Ratio before 
 and Sermo after His birth, Novatian calls Sermo before it. 
 In either rendering Novatian considers the gennesis tem- 
 poral, for he says " quando voluit." So oTrore ■ijOeXrjcrev, 
 Theophilus, supr. p. 256, and Hippolytus, p. 269. 
 
 " Whom we understand to be not a mere voice, &c. . . . 
 but the substance of a virtue sent forth fi'om God (pro- 
 late a Deo)." 
 
 " He then, whereas He is begotten from the Father, 
 still is ever in the Father, [i.e. a parte ante] : I say ' ever 
 in,' not as maintaining that He was not born, but that He 
 was born. But we must pronounce Him to be ever in the 
 Father, who is before all time, for no time can be assigned 
 to Him, who is before time." 
 
 Here Novatian understands " before time " to mean 
 "from eternity," with Justin and Melito, supr. pp. 251, 
 257, and Zeno, infra. 
 
 " For He is ever in the Father, or else the Father is 
 not ever Father." Here Novatian implies that the Father 
 
The Western Writers. 283 
 
 has been ever a Father, in opposition to TertulHan; but, 
 since he has said above that the birth of the Son was 
 "quando voluit Pater," which is inconsistent with eternity, 
 I think it natural to take the words in one of those other 
 senses which they admit, in which they are in harmony 
 with the " quando." 
 
 For instance, Tertullian himself, though he denied that 
 God was a Father from eternity, would probably or cer- 
 tainly allow that He was Father in posse, together with 
 the Arian Theognis and the Emperor Constantine. And 
 such an explanation or evasion receives some shelter from 
 St. Thomas's solution of the parallel question about crea- 
 tion. "Actio (not merely the posse) Dei est seterna, sed 
 effectus non est seternus." Vid. Sylv. in Qucest. 45, p. 344. 
 
 Also, if Novatian, as the other authors I have quoted, 
 considered that the Word's inherence in God before the 
 gennesis was an existence " in vulva cordis ipsius," as 
 Tertullian speaks, this would be assigning not only a 
 potential, but actually an incipient Paternity to the 
 Father from everlasting. 
 
 And further, it is plain that the very idea of "the 
 Word " implies a filietas, and if the Word is eternal, so 
 is the filietas. I have already referred to Dionysius, who 
 says, " Words are our children," vid. Athan. de Sent. 
 Dion. 23. Vid. the XoyoTrdrmp of Marcellus and Photi- 
 nus, supr. p. 23. 
 
 Novatian, then, might hold that the Father was Father 
 from eternity, because there lay hid within Him He, 
 who had the nature of a Son (both as being the Word, 
 and as being the Son in the event), yet might hold also 
 
284 The Western Writers. 
 
 that the actual gennesis or nativitas was temporal. He 
 proceeds : — 
 
 " He then, when the Father willed, proceeded from the 
 Father ; and, whereas He was in the Father, He pro- 
 ceeded out of the Father ; and, whereas He was in the 
 Father, because He was out of the Father, henceforth 
 (postmodum) He was with the Father, because He pro- 
 ceeded from the Father, namely, that Divine Substance, 
 whose name is the Word (B)." 
 
 The " cum Patre " answers to St. John's ttjoo? tov Oeov, 
 John i. I, and to Hippolytus's TrapurraTo and to Ter- 
 tullian's "assistens;" and they all interpret St. John as 
 speaking of the state of the Word, not before, but after 
 the gennesis. 
 
 " Worthily is He before all things ; but He is after 
 the Father, since by Him all things were made, who 
 proceeded from Him, at whose will all things were made 
 (C). He was God, proceeding out of God, constituting 
 the Second Person, after the Father, as being the Son, 
 but not robbing the Father of His prerogative of being 
 the One God," &c. 
 
 A passage presently follows so remarkable for beauty 
 and completeness of statement, and for concurrence in 
 the later theology, that I will-quote it in the original : — ■ 
 " Unus Deus ostenditur verus et asternus Pater; a quo 
 solo hsec vis Divinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita 
 et directa, rursum per substantiae communionem ad 
 Patrem revolvitur. Deus quidem ostenditur Filius, cui 
 Divinitas tradita et porrecta conspicitur ; et tamen nihilo- 
 minus unus Deus Pater probatur, dum gradatim reciproco 
 
The Western Writers. 285 
 
 meatu ilia Majestas atque Divinitas ad Patrem, qui dederat 
 earn, rursum ab illo ipso Filio revertitur et retorquetur," 
 
 Here are the doctrines of the Consubstantiality and 
 Coinherence. 
 
 5. Lactantius is of no authority in himself any more 
 than Constantine ; nor should I cite him, if he stood 
 alone. The force of his testimony lies in his being one 
 of a number, who may be said to appeal and respond to 
 each other. And in particular his doctrine is in its main 
 points remarkably coincident with that of his fellow- 
 Africans, Tertullian, Zeno, and Victorinus. He would 
 seem then, not indeed in the details, but still in the sub- 
 stance of his statements, to be reporting what he learned 
 from his ecclesiastical teachers. One idea he has, indeed, 
 which must be original with him ; I do not find it in the 
 writers I have been enumerating, and it has just the 
 appearance of a clever antithesis of his own or some other 
 private person, by way of systematising divine truths. He 
 contrasts our Lord with the Archangel who fell, as if they 
 had anything in common. " God," he says, "before He 
 commenced this fabric of the world, produced (produxit) 
 a spirit like to Himself (B), who was possessed (prseditus) 
 of the virtues of God the Father . . . Then, He made " 
 [he does not say "produced"] "another, in whom the 
 nature (indoles) of his Divine origin (stirpis) did not 
 remain. Accordingly, he was poisoned with his own 
 envy, and passed over from good to evil." Instit. ii. 9, 
 ed. 1748. 
 
 But here at least is the temporal gennesis in agreement 
 with Tertullian and the rest. 
 
286 The Western Writers. 
 
 " He was twice born ; first in spirit, afterwards in flesh. 
 Whence it is said in Jeremias, ' Before I formed Thee in 
 the womb, I knew Thee.' " Inst. iv. 8. 
 
 Here again is the expression "m utero," though it 
 directly appHes to His human birth ; and, as the other 
 three Africans concur in using this image of the Divine 
 Sonship, and among the Greeks Theophilus, we may 
 suppose that Lactantius too, at least includes under 
 it a reference to our Lord's heavenly as well as to His 
 earthly nature. To the same effect he continues : — 
 
 " Also in the same prophet : ' Blessed He who was 
 before He was born,' which has happened to no one else 
 but Christ, who, being the Son of God from the beginning, 
 is regenerated anew according to the flesh." 
 
 It would be obvious to take the birth spoken of in these 
 words, " He was before He was born," of our Lord's 
 human nature, were it not that it was a known formula 
 in reference to His Divine Nature, the denial of which was 
 anathematised at Nicaea. It is found also, with reference 
 to our Lord's Divine Nature, long after the Nicene Council, 
 in St. Hilary and St. Zeno, as we shall see infra. I do not 
 say that Lactantius understands it in that sense in this 
 passage. I quote the passage merely to give another 
 instance of the common knowledge and use of the formula 
 among Catholics. In respect to its admitting both an 
 orthodox and a heterodox sense, it is somewhat parallel to 
 the jJiia (j)vcn<; aeaapKafievrj. 
 
 " Holy Writ teaches . . . that that Son of God is 
 God's Word (Sermo), or again. His reason (Ratio) . . . 
 Rightly is He called the Sermo and Verbum of God . . . 
 
The Western Writers. 287 
 
 whom God conceived, not in the womb, but in the mind 
 (non utero, sed mente)." 
 
 That is " in utero mentis," a figurative " uterus." It is 
 to be observed, he uses the word "conceived," thus carry- 
 ing out the idea of a birth, but there is nothing to show 
 that he did not beheve at least the conception to be from 
 everlasting. 
 
 ..." If any one wonders that it should be possible 
 for God from God, by the putting forth (prolatione) of His 
 voice and breath, to be generated, he will cease to wonder, 
 when he has acquainted himself with the sacred voice 
 of the Prophets." Ihid. 
 
 Here he speaks of the Sonship as commencing with 
 that " prolatio vocis et spiritus " which was introductory 
 to creation, that is, of a temporal gennesis. 
 
 That, with the foregoing writers, he holds the Consub- 
 stantiality and the Coinherence, is plain from the follow- 
 ing passage : — 
 
 " How is it, that, whereas we profess to worship one God, 
 nevertheless we assert that there are two, God the Father 
 and God the Son ? . . . Neither can the Father be without 
 the Son nor the Son be separated from the Father. . . . 
 Since then it is the Father who constitutes the Son, and 
 the Son who constitutes the Father, there is One Mind to 
 both of Them, one Spirit, one Substance ; but the Father 
 is, as it were, the exuberant Fount, the Son as if the stream 
 that flows from it ; the One is like the Sun, the other as the 
 Ray . . . When by the prophets one and the same is called 
 the Hand of God, and the Power, and the Word, certainly 
 there is no division betwen Them , . , The One is as if 
 
288 The Western Writers. 
 
 Two, and the Two as if One . . . Rightly Each is called 
 the One God ; for, whatever is in the Father flows on to 
 the Son, and what is in the Son comes to Him from the 
 Father." Ihii. iv. 29. 
 
 6. St. Hilary did not teach the same doctrine after his 
 banishment into Phrygia, as he taught before it. When 
 he returned, he taught, as in his work ie Trinitate, that 
 our Lord was Son from everlasting ; but at first, as in his 
 comment on the Psalms, he used the celebrated foi'mula, 
 which, in agreement with TertuUian, Novatian, and others, 
 seemstoimplythattheg-eMwesMwastemporal. He always 
 held the " Consubstantial," though he did not hear of 
 the Nicene Council or Creed till thirty-one years after the 
 Council was held. "Though I had been regenerated," 
 he says, " and had continued some time in the Episcopate, 
 I never heard the Nicene Faith till I was on the point 
 of exile ; but to me the meaning of Homousion and 
 Homoeiision was suggested by the Gospels and Apostles." 
 de Synod. 91. In him then we have a specimen of 
 pure Western belief, uninfluenced by the controversies 
 of the day. That this is the right view to take of him 
 is confirmed to us by the parallel avowal of the Gallic 
 Council of Aries, a.d. 360, in its letter to the Orientals: — 
 " Verbum usiam," its Fathers say, " a vobis quondam 
 contra Ariomanitarum hseresim inventum, a nobis semper 
 sancte fideliterque susceptum est." Hil. 0pp. p. 1353 ; 
 where the remarkable words " quondam a vobis " show 
 how little the Gallic Church of that day realised to 
 themselves the true character of the Nicene act. Its 
 Bishops believed, not on the word of a Council "sometime 
 
The Western Writers. 289 
 
 held in the East," but upon the authority of their imme- 
 morial tradition. 
 
 Such being the' signiticancy of St. Hilary's testimony, 
 what does he tell us in his work on St. Matthew about the 
 Divine gennesis ? He tells us that He who was the Word 
 from eternity, became the Son in order to creation. " The 
 Word," he says, " was in the beginning God, and with 
 God from the beginning He was born from Him who was, 
 and He that was born had this prerogative, viz. that He it 
 is who ' erat antequam nasceretur ; ' that is, there is the 
 same eternity of Him who begat, and of Him who is 
 begotten." Matt. xxxi. 3. 
 
 Here we seem to see the reason why thisformula," Erat 
 antequam nasceretur," which to us has an heretical sound 
 as implying the temporal gennesis, was used by great 
 theologians as Hilary, and was recognised as existing, 
 yet not reprobated, nay, indirectly sanctioned by the 
 Nicene Fathers when they anathematised those who 
 denied it. It was an obvious escape from the Arian 
 argument, " A son has, as such, a beginning of exis- 
 tence." This formula virtually answered, "Yes, as a 
 son He had a beginning, but He was the eternal Word 
 before He was the Son. As in the fulness of the times 
 the Eternal Word became the Son of man, so in the be- 
 ginning of days He had become the Son of God." 
 
 However, St. Hilary unlearned this doctrine after his 
 visit to Asia Minor and Alexandria. In Asia Minor he 
 would have proof of the dangerous use which the Semi- 
 Arians made of the formula, and at Alexandria he became 
 the personal friend of Athanasius, who inherited the 
 
290 The Western Writers. 
 
 Alexandrian antagonistic and true teaching. Perhaps he 
 would read in Athanasius's fourth Oration his condemna- 
 tion of those who said, irpo tov iyevvri07}pai, ev tS Oew ^v 
 6 Xoyo^, and, 6 X0709 ev T(Z 6ea> areX'^?, 'yevvrjOeU, reXeio? 
 yeyouev. Orat. iv. 11, 12. Accordingly, in his de Trinitate, 
 Hilary, without distinctly condemning the ancient and 
 widely spread opinion which he had himself held, lays 
 down that both the formula in which it was embodied, and 
 its contradictory, are alike unmeaning ; for, if the gennesis 
 is from everlasting, our Lord neither was, nor was not, 
 before He was born. " Cum natum semper esse," he says, 
 " nihil aliud sit confitendum esse quam natum, id sensui, 
 antequam nascitur ' vel fuisse,' vel 'non fuisse,' non 
 subjacet." de Trin. xii. 31. 
 
 7. However, the opinion did not die with Hilary; it has 
 the sanction of St. Zeno of Verona some years after Hilary 
 gave it up. Zeno was consecrated in 362, and died close 
 upon the second Ecumenical Council in 381, leaving to 
 posterity a certain number of discourses, doctrinal andhor- 
 tatory, written with great force and elegance. In these 
 his conformity in all respects with the Nicene doctrine is, 
 as might be expected, entire ; he is distinct upon the con- 
 substantiality, co-eternity, co-inherence, and co-equality 
 of the Father and Son ; but when he comes to the question, 
 Is the gennesis eternal ? he speaks after the usage of his 
 African fellow-countrymen. 
 
 " The beginning," he says, in ii. 3, " without contro- 
 versy, is our Lord Christ, whom the Feather before all 
 ages did embrace (amplectebatur) in the profound im- 
 penetrable secret of His own Mind (A), and with a 
 
The Western Writers. 291 
 
 knowledge which was all His own, not without the affec- 
 tion felt towards a Son, but without the manifestation of 
 Him. Therefore that ineffable and incomprehensible Wis- 
 dom propagates Wisdom, and Omnipotence Omnipotence 
 (B). From God is born God, " De Ingenito Unigenitus, 
 de Solo Solus, de Toto Totus, de Vero Verus, de Perfecto 
 Perfectus, Totum Patris habens, nihil derogans Patri." 
 
 Here observe the tenses, " amplectebatur " and " nas- 
 citur." That this "nativitas " is not the eternal Ballerini 
 simply grants ; but with Bull, he maintains that the word 
 denotes the Father's decree or the Son's procession to 
 create the world, an hypothesis for which I cannot see 
 that he advances any argument, for the connexion of 
 two events is no argument for their identity.^ Also ob- 
 serve the expression," Filii non sine affectu ; " he does 
 not say, " with the affection," in order to signify that it 
 marked the beginning of that relation which was per- 
 fected in the " perfecta nativitas," as Tertullian speaks, 
 prior to creation. Of course the love of the First Divine 
 Person to the Second was infinitely full from all eternity; 
 but Zeno is here speaking of the Paternal love towards 
 a Son. He goes on : — 
 
 " He proceeds unto a nativity, ' qui erat antequam nas- 
 ceretur,' equal to the Father in all things, for the Father 
 in ipsum alium se genuit ex se, ex innascibili scilicet sua 
 ilia substaatia," &c. 
 
 Here Zeno uses the very formula, which was sheltered 
 at Nicasa, which we have found in Hilary and Lactantius 
 and which is the recognised symbol of the temporal 
 
 1 On this subject vid. " Arians," Note ii. ed. 4th. 
 
292 The Western Writers. 
 
 gennesis, as held by Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, 
 and the rest, as the homoiision is of our Lord's proper 
 divinity. 
 
 Again, in ii. 4, Zeno says: " Erat ante omnia manens, 
 unus et idem alter, ex semet ipso in semet ipsum Deus, 
 secreti sui solus conscius (A), cujus ex ore, ut rerum 
 natura, quae non erat, fingeretur, prodivit Unigenitus 
 Filius (B), cordis ejus nobilis inquilinus, exinde visibilis 
 necessario effectus, quia orbem terrse erat ipse facturus 
 (C), humanumque visitaturus genus," &c. 
 
 Here by " visibilis effectus," as by " revelamine " in the 
 former passage, he connects his doctrine with the aoparov 
 ovTa opoTov TToiel of Hippolytus. Observe also the con- 
 trast between " cordis inquilinus," and " ex ore," after 
 the manner of Tertullian. 
 
 Again, in ii. 5, which is in part a repetition of ii. 3, he 
 says, "Excogitatarum ut ordinem instrueret rerum (C), 
 ineffabilis ilia Virtus incomprehensibilisque sapientia e 
 regione cordis eructat Verbum, Omnipotentia se pro- 
 pagat," &c. Here "excogitatarum" seems to answer 
 to the ivvoTjOeiii of Hippolytus. 
 
 It is remarkable that he says a few lines later : — "Tem- 
 perat se propter rerum naturam Filius, ne exsertas ma- 
 jestatis Dominum non possit mundi istius mediocritas 
 sustinere." This reminds us of the doctrine of Athana- 
 sius, sti.pr. pp. 73, 202. And this explains, as Ballerini 
 suggests, the words of Tertullian, which have been 
 charged with a denial of the co-equality of the Son, 
 whereas he is speaking of the Syncatabasis. " Invisibilem 
 Patrem intelligemus pro plenitudine majestatis, visibilem 
 
The Western Writers. 293 
 
 vero Filium agnoscemus pro modulo derivationis." adv. 
 Prax. 14. 
 
 If it needs explanation, that a Saint and Martyr, 
 many years after the Nicene Council, should, as far as his 
 language goes, countenance a tenet which by Augustine's 
 time had been forbidden ; I should point on the other 
 hand, to the fact, equally remarkable, that that Council 
 makes mention of theformula which embodied it without 
 condemningit, nay, with an express condemnation of those 
 who denied it, and next, to the assurance which was 
 given by the Alexandrian Council to the whole world in 
 362, the year of Zeno's consecration, that it was enough 
 to accept the words of the Nicene Creed, with I suppose, 
 its anathemas, in order to be an orthodox believer.^ 
 
 8. VicTORiNUS, who wrote almost contemporaneously 
 with Zeno, has as little authority, taken by himself, as 
 Lactantius, but is valuable as one of a company of con- 
 sentient writers, both as supporting and completing their 
 statements. He was an African, and, while a heathen, 
 taught rhetoric at Rome. Augustine relates the circum- 
 stances of his conversion, and how, when the hour came 
 for his making profession of his faith, and he had the 
 option given him of making it privately, he declined the 
 
 ' Without withdrawing what I have maintained above in Dissert. 
 3> PP- 57i ^'^■1 'h^t '^s " "°" ^"^^t antequam nasceretur " of 
 the Arians was an enthymeme of their own directed against 
 Catholics, I do not see my way to deny that Tertullian before Arius, 
 and Zeno after him, and various other writers between their dates, 
 used on their part the " Erat antequam nasceretur" deliberately and 
 independently as a positive formula. 
 
294 The Western Writers. 
 
 considerate suggestion. "When he stood up," says St. 
 Augustine, " the spectators whispered his name one to 
 another, with a voice of congratulation, and there ran a 
 low murmur through the joyful multitude, ' Victorinus, 
 Victorinus ! ' " The Saint continues : " And, when that 
 man of Thine, Simplician, related this to me, I was on 
 fire to imitate him.'" Victorinus was converted in 360 or 
 361 ; and, as he was advanced in years, the works which 
 he drew up against the Arians cannot have been written 
 much later than that date. 
 
 St. Jerome calls them very obscure, and Gennadius 
 considers them deficient in knowledge of Scripture. I 
 am not considering them here in either of these respects; 
 but in respect of their doctrinal enunciations, whether the 
 catechetical instruction, which accompanied his conver- 
 sion, was given him in Rome or in Carthage. It is enough 
 for my purpose, if he has a clear view of doctrine, and that 
 in coincidence with the writers whom I have quoted, and 
 in illustration of them. Now, while he is clear upon the 
 Consubstantiality, &c., he distinctly teaches that theg-w- 
 nesis was a process ; that our Lord from eternity was God 
 andfrom God, but still onlyin God, ''in corde,'' "vulva," or 
 " utero ; " as such He was the Logos, the " alter et idem " 
 of Zeno, (Victorinus uses the term fcetus,) which was at 
 length to become a Son ; that, when the world was to be 
 created. He was born and manifested, became the Son, and 
 acted as the principle of order and beauty, the life, the 
 sustainingpower, of the universe. I shallquotehim under 
 A, B, and C, symbols which I have all along used as 
 designating respectively the Word Endiathetic, the Word 
 
The Western Writers. 295 
 
 Prophoric, and the Primogenitus. It will be observed 
 that he holds the Homoiision and the Coinherence. 
 
 A. " Erat circa Deum Logos, et in principio. Ergo 
 semper fuit." Ae Gener. 16 ; ap. Galland, t. 8. 
 
 " ' In principio ' esse, non generatum esse significat. 
 Non genitus est Logos, quum Deus ipse Logos sit, sed 
 quiescens et silens Logos." Ibid. 17. 
 
 " Unigenitus qui est in gremio Patris ... in gremio, 
 et in yu.'?T/ja substantias 6/xoovaiov ; uterque, et substantia 
 et divinitate consistens ; uterque in utroque ; et cog- 
 noscit uterque utrumque." adv. Arium, i. 15. 
 
 " Gravida occultum habet quod paritura est. Non 
 enim foetus non est ante partum, sed in occulto est." 
 de Gen. 14. 
 
 B. " Et generatione pervenit in manifestationem ov 
 operatione, quod fuit 6V potentia. Absconditi mani- 
 festatio generatio est." de Gen. 14. 
 
 C. " Universalis Logos Filius Dei est, cujus potentia 
 proveniunt et procedunt in generationem omnia et con- 
 sistunt. Ipsius ergo potentia, procedens et simul 
 existens cum Patre, facit omnia et generat." adv. 
 Arium, i. 22. 
 
 " Quod Filius Logos est in actionem festinans sub- 
 stantia ; vita enim Logos, et intelligentia Logos, pro- 
 cessit in substantiam eorum quaa sunt intellectibilium 
 et hylicorum ; et idcirco actio ipsius Logi propter im- 
 becillitatem percipientium ipsum et patitur et passibilis 
 est, vel potius passibilis dicitur." Ibid. i. 24. 
 
 These last words excellently express Athanasius's 
 idea of the Syncatabasis. With Justin and the rest. 
 
296 The Western Writers. 
 
 Victorinus recognises the ministrative, servile, and 
 passible condition of the Primogenitus, (not in His 
 divine nature of course, but) in His voluntary office, 
 terminating as it did in His incarnation and passion, 
 a condition which arose out of the necessary imperfec- 
 tion of that created universe with which, for its exalta- 
 tion. He condescended to be implicated^ 
 
 I have already, in speaking of the Asiatic Writers, 
 drawn attention to the striking dogmatic utterance of 
 the great Council of Antioch in the third century, decla- 
 ratory of the eternity of the Divine Gennesis; a still moi-e 
 authoritative Voice issued about the same time from the 
 West, from the Apostolic See, and to the same effect. It 
 is a great misfortune that the series of dogmatic Tomes of 
 the Ante-Nicene Popes have not been preserved to us; a 
 fragment of one of them remains, and it accidentally con- 
 tains an assertion, indirect but clear, of the very doctrine 
 we desiderate in certain other writers, the eternal exist- 
 ence of the Son. It is in Pope Dionysius's notice of some 
 supposed heresy at Alexandria, which over-zealous eccle- 
 siastics had brought before the Holy See. The portion 
 which remains to us of his letter is written in a tone of 
 authority and decision befitting an Infallible Voice. 
 After censuring some quasi-tritheistic error, he proceeds: 
 
 " Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to 
 be a work, and consider the Lord has come into being, as 
 one of things that really came to be ; whereas the divine 
 oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and be- 
 coming, but not to any fashioning or making. A bias- 
 
The Western Writers. 297 
 
 phemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to 
 say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork ; for if He 
 became Son, once He was not ; hut He was always." 
 
 He goes on to explain the words in Proverbs, " The 
 Lord created Me," &c., and it is remarkable how through- 
 out his remarks he ignores the hypothesis of a tempoi-al 
 gennesis, knowing only the temporal birth from Mary and 
 the Divine Sonship from everlasting. 
 
 20 
 
298 Conchision. 
 
 § 15. CONCLUSION. 
 
 And here I conclude my inquiry into the historical 
 origin of Arianism, perhaps rather abruptly, and certainly 
 without exhausting it. I cannot hope to have read all 
 that ought to be read upon it, or to have covered the 
 whole ground which it occupies, or to have done full 
 justice to the views of other commentators and critics, or 
 to have guarded my own from all objections. So far is 
 certain, that, whatever have been my pains, I cannot have 
 escaped errors in matters of detail, though I have no mis- 
 giving about the substantial correctness of what I have 
 written. 
 
Postscript. 299 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 May i., 1883. — My attention having been accidentally called to 
 certain passages in this Tract iii., I have been led to ask myself 
 whether I have always succeeded in bringing out my real meaning 
 with that distinctness which was imperative on so important a sub- 
 ject, and the more so becaJfse of the reverence due to the times and 
 persons of whom I had to treat. 
 
 Then I reflected that a fresh edition of the Volume, in which I 
 might avail myself of the opportunity of revision, could hardly be 
 expected in my lifetime. 
 
 The result has been that I have made at once such alterations 
 in the foregoing pages as I felt to be necessary, without waiting for 
 a future which might never come to me. 
 
 J. H. N. 
 
IV. 
 
 THE HERESY OF APOLLINARIS. 
 
 (From Notes, dated August 22, 1835J 
 
 (301) 
 
THE HERESY OF APOLLINARIS. 
 
 § I- 
 
 THE ApoUinarian heresy is at first sight anti- 
 thetical to Arianism ; Arians denying our 
 Lord's true divinity, and ApolHnaris His true humanity. 
 
 [For a good and interesting account of ApolHnaris, vid. Wake 
 against Bossuet, Appendix in vol. 28 of " Popish Controversy ; " 
 vid. also Petavius de Incarn. i. 6, v. 11-13, ^"<i Tillemont, 
 Memoires, t. 7, p. 602, edit. 1706. Basnage and Bayle are unfair, 
 selecting from the report of early writers about his opinions just what 
 they choose.] 
 
 2. But only at first sight ; for the very tenet, which con- 
 stitutes the ApoUinarian heresy, viz. the denial of the 
 existence of any mind or intellect, voO?, in our Lord's 
 human nature, was already professed, and in a still bolder 
 form, by the Arians. 
 
 [The Arians denied, not only the vovs in our Lord's soul, but they 
 refused to ascribe to Him a soul of any kind ; whereas the Apolli- 
 narians did not deny Him a soul, so that intellect was away, that 
 is, an animal soul. This was not among the original Arian errors. 
 Perhaps they were cut short in their full profession of heresy by 
 the prompt indignation which their denial of our Lord's divinity 
 
 (303) 
 
304 The Heresy of ApoUinaris. 
 
 excited. Denial of His human soul is not found as one of their 
 tenets in the letters of Alexander, Arius, &c., at the beginning of 
 the controversy, nor in the historical accounts of it, a.d. 319-341. 
 It is apparently mentioned by Athanasius, Adelph. i, (with the 
 words, vvv Se Kar ohiyov imoKaTa^aivovTes,) and Apoll. i. 15, A.D. 
 371-2. And later still by Gregory Naz. [ Ep.. ad Cledon. t. 2, 
 p. 87, by Theod. hcer. iv. i, and August, hcer. 55. King (Creed, 
 p. 230) considers it as only partially received among the Arians. 
 It was received, as we find from Theod. supr. and Eranist. ii. 
 pp. 73, 80, by the Eunomians, the extreme party among them, 
 A.D. 357. The Benedictine Editor of St. Hilary, Prcef. n. 119, 
 also says, "Neque hie error erat omnium qui Ario favebant com- 
 munis, sed insignium quorundam Arianorum proprius." He men- 
 tions Potamius (vid. Phoebad. contr. Arian. p. 251) ; also, Ursacius 
 and Valens (Theod. Hist. ii. 8) ; and, referring, but not assenting, 
 to Baronius (Ann. 324, u. 100), Eusebius. Theodoret (supr.), and 
 Leontius (de Sectis, iii. 4, p. 365), say, that the Arians adopted 
 the tenet to baffle the Catholics, who are accustomed to explain 
 texts indicative of infirmity in our Lord, by referring such to His 
 human nature. However, it was but the natural or necessary 
 result of their original heresy, and of their dislike of mystery in 
 religion. If the Word was not God, why should He not act as, and 
 instead of, the soul of a man ? 
 
 The Arians were not the only forerunners of Apollinaris. Origen 
 (de Princ. ii. 5) seems to refer to other such, and Hippolytus 
 (contr. Noet. 17) when, after speaking of our Lord's soul, he adds, 
 \oyLK))V Se \4y(a. 
 
 3. Again, it must be recollected, that the heresies con- 
 cerning the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, even 
 though on paper they look contrary to each other, do 
 in fact, when analysed, run together into one. For 
 they are all opposed to the one Truth, and are thereby 
 a negation of those ultimate principles of thought, on 
 which that Truth rests ; and thus really, one and all ai-e 
 ranged on one line over against the Truth alone, which 
 seems at first sight to lie between them. 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 305 
 
 [Thus Arianism and Sabellianism, though diametrically opposed to 
 each other in a drawn-out scheme of doctrine, substantially agree to- 
 gether, and are contrary to the Catholic Faith, inasmuch as the True 
 Faith asserts or admits the existence of mysteries in any human view 
 of the Divine Nature, and both heresies virtually deny it. Again, the 
 Platonic doctrine of the Logos iySUBiros and ■Tpo<popiK6s, the Word 
 conceived in the mind and the Word spoken, a. Divine attribute and a 
 Divine energy, leads either to Sabellianism or to Arianism ; — to Sabel- 
 lianism, since the Divine Word, Endiathetic, is not a Person ; to 
 Arianism, since the Personal Word, Prophoric, is not strictly Divine. 
 And again, Arians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and Monophysites, agree 
 together in the assumption on starting, that nature and person are 
 always coincident in intellectual beings; vid. Damasc. coiiir. jfacob. 
 ii. t. 1, p. 398; Leont. in Nestor, i. p. 660; Vigil. Thaps. cotttr. Eiitych. 
 ii. 10, p. 727 ; Anast. Hodcg. fin. ii. p. 70, vi. pp. 96, 98, ix. p. 140, 
 xvii. p. 308. 
 
 4. And thus, over and above any direct and avowed 
 identity of doctrine between Apollinarianism and Arian- 
 ism, there are, as it were, underground communications 
 between the one and the other. For instance, as we 
 shall see presently, inasmuch as Apollinarianism tends 
 to the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Divine 
 Son with His assumed flesh, so does it necessarily favour 
 the Arian denial of His consubstantiality with the Father. 
 
 [Thus St. Ambrose: " Emergunt alii [Apollinaristse], qui carnem 
 Domini et divinitatem dicant unius esse naturae. . . . Jam tolera- 
 biliores sunt Ariani, quorum per istos perfidiie robur adolescit ; ut 
 majore contentione adserant [Ariani] Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum 
 Sanctum unius non esse substantive, quia isti [ApoUinaristas] divi- 
 nitatem Domini et carnem substantias unius -dicere tentaverunt. " 
 Incarii. 49.] 
 
 5. However, Apollinaris does not seem to have been 
 aware that there was really but one falsehood in theological 
 
3o6 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 teaching, as there was but one truth. Perhaps he was 
 deceived by the ethical differences of his teaching from 
 that of the Arians; and, as he disliked them, and 
 had zealously opposed them to his own temporal 
 disadvantage, he might easily be induced to think in 
 consequence, that no views which he was putting for- 
 ward would advance the interests either of Arianism or 
 heresies cognate to it. 
 
 [The literary remains of Apollinaris, as of the Eutychians, display 
 an unction, very unlike Arianism, which made its way by means of 
 a pretentious logic. These teachers write devotionally rather than 
 controversially. Eutyches in particular refused to argue, out of 
 reverence, as he said, towards our Lord. Whenever his inconsistencies 
 were urged upon him, he said the subject was beyond him. He con- 
 sidered our Lord arpewras rpcnrfiyai, and that in His own secret way, 
 quomodo voluit et scit. aj>. Leon. Ep. 21. He professed to dislike 
 <pv<rio\oyeTv. Concil, t. 2, pp. 157, a.d. 164, &c., &c. Leontius remarks 
 on this evasion, contr. Nest. i. p. 665. The same character of mind 
 manifests itself in the Eranistes of Theodoret's dialogues. Vid. Dial. 
 i. p. 18, fin. 11,-fi fiot KoyuTfiois, &c., also i. p. 11, ii. p. 105. Leo, 
 speaking of Eutyches, says that his heresy was "de imperitia magis 
 quam de versutia natus." Ep. 31, p. 854; vid, also Epp. 30, p. 
 849; Epp. 28, p. 801; 33, p. 865; 34, p. 870; 35, p. 877; 88, 
 p. 1058. After Eutyches there was a change ; vid. Leont. de Sect. 
 vii. 3, 4. Severus and his party were skilful controversialists ; 
 Damasc. contr, jfacob. ii. and x. Maxim, t. 2, p. 280. Anast. 
 Hodeg. pp. 20, 308, &c. As to Apollinaris, he was a man of 
 education, and wrote with force as well as with warmth, and his 
 followers had soon the evil repute, not only of clever disputation, 
 but also of literary forgeries, as indeed had the Monophysites also. 
 The Pseudo-Areopagite is by Lequien attributed to Monophysites 
 (Dissert. Damasc. ii. 14, &c.), while Leontius has a work de fraudi- 
 bus Apollinistarnm.] 
 
 6. Moreover, he might easily persuade himself that he 
 was but following out and completing, clearing and defining 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 307 
 
 and protecting the teaching of the Fathers. The great 
 truth which they had ever propounded, was that the 
 Eternal Son had come into the world in our nature — lan- 
 guage which implied that His Personality was divine, and 
 His manhood only an adjunct to it, instrument, or mani- 
 festation. The Word was clothed in flesh, he would say ; 
 He dwelt, acted, repealed Himself in the flesh, but this 
 was as far from being a real addition to His own self, as 
 a garment or an instrument is from being a part of a man. 
 A garment is made to fit the wearer; so must our Lord's 
 human nature be shaped and adjusted for a union with 
 His divine. It had not a substantive character; it was 
 not an hypostasis; else it would have a personality of its 
 own ; accordingly, it could not in all respects be similar 
 to the ordinary make of human kind. 
 
 [There are two meanings to the word "substantive," as to the word 
 "hypostasis ;" ri atrKais %v, Kol rb Koff kaarh uv; Leont. de Sect. vii. 2; 
 bare existence, and self-existence, as in grammar, a noun adjective 
 in contrast with a noun substantive. We may allowably say that our 
 Lord used His manhood after the manner of an attribute, but still 
 that manhood did really exist. St. Cyril, who has been accused of 
 Apollinarianism, was so impressed with the danger of giving it an 
 opening in his own teaching, that, in spite of "hypostasis" being 
 by his day so generally used in the sense of " Person," he does not 
 scruple to maintain in his Anathematisms that our Lord's manhood 
 was an hypostasis. " Palam est," says Petavius, Incarn. vi. 2, n. 3, 
 p. 274, " ibi," that is, in his Anathematisms and his defence of them 
 " hypostasin pro persona non accipi, sed pro solida, vera, et non imagi- 
 naria re, sive rei extantia."] 
 
 7. In like manner, he would say, as a man was not a 
 garment, so our Lord was not a man; that is, strictly 
 speaking. He had not a manhood; He was God clothed 
 in our nature. 
 
3o8 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 [ApoUinaris did not refuse to call our Lord " man ;" Leont. de fr. Ap. 
 p. 705, c. And Eutyches says, " In veritate, non in phantasmate homo 
 factus," ap. Leon. Ep. 21, p. 741 ; nay, tcAeios ii/Bpanros, Cone. Hard, 
 t. z, p. 157, yet he said our Lord's body was ayBpiinivov, not avBpdirou, 
 Leon. Ep. 26, 30 ; Concil. t. ii. p. 165. And the Ernnistes, Dial. ii. 
 p. 82. But the last-named pleads hard to be excused doing 
 so : rh fiev eiSeyat t^v \7j(j>6e7(rav fpvtriv irpoHpryov rtdefiat • rh de ye 
 S.v6puytrov aTtoKolKelv Ty)S otKOvfieytjs Thv (TtcTTJpaj (rpiiKpvvelv iffri. 
 Dial. ii. p. 83. And, tI rh ayayKdCov vfias &yBpuirov oyo/idCeiv rhy 
 ^lerripa ; ibid. p. 78. Also he says, it is TrepirrSy to call Him man, 
 p. 85 ; again, that before His passion He was called man, but not 
 after, p. 93. And the ApoUinarian in Incert. Dial. v. 2-14, gives 
 eight reasons in proof that our Lord is not man. These teachers 
 preferred to speak of His eyirapKos wapovirla, Concil. Hard. t. 2, pp. 
 163, 197, 235, after the precedent given by Athanasius, Adelph. 1, 
 and by Cyril, Catech. iii. 11; xii. 15; xiv. 27, 30, and by Epiphanius, 
 Har. 77, 17.] 
 
 8. But, if our Lord could not be, strictly speaking, con- 
 sidered to be a man, and had not a human personality, it 
 was plain in what His nature differed from ours. The 
 mind or z/of)? was the seat of personality ; therefore He 
 had no mind. This absence then of mind from His man- 
 hood was the characteristic tenet of Apollinaris. He said 
 that our Lord had no mind, because He had no human 
 personality ; just as Catholics said, that since He had in 
 all respects a human nature. He had a human mind. 
 
 [et &y6punroSj Kal BiavoriTLK6s ' el Se o-j SiavorjTiichSj ouS* 'avQpuTros. Greg. 
 Nyssen. Antirrh. 12, Jin. o-jk &pa avQp'x'^tiyq (r^p^, tj fijj Koty(cy^}(ra(ra ^vxf 
 AoyiKif. Incert. Dial. iv. 9. ibid. v. 16. ov yap &yovy (ipoy, S StySpaiiros. 
 Greg. Naz. i. Cledon. t. ii. p. 35. Moreover, our Lord's mind 
 is the very medium, by which a union was possible between the 
 Divine and the human, according to Origen, Princ. ii. 6, n. 3. 
 Naz. Oral. ii. 23, p. 24. Incert. Dial. iv. .c. Damasc. Fid. O. 
 iii. 6, p. 213.] 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 309 
 
 9. Thus, instead of securing especial honour to the 
 Person of Christ, they landed themselves at once in a tenet 
 especially dishonourable to Him. If our Loi'd's human 
 nature had no intellectual principle included in it, His 
 Divine Self would be constrained to take its place, and 
 act for it, as a sort of soul of the body ; but what an in- 
 dignity, what a subjection and imprisonment, what a state 
 incompatible with the very idea of divinity, for the Eternal 
 Word to be made to share with the flesh a human indi- 
 viduality ! This, which is the reductio ad absttrdum of 
 Apollinarianism, will of course come before us more 
 directly presently. 
 
 10. This is what comes of Reasoning in the province 
 of theology, unless in the first place we inquire our way 
 by Scripture and Tradition, and then proceed to reason 
 under the information thence afforded us. 
 
 [St. Basil, Ep. 263, p. 406, speaks of Apollinaris as working out his 
 theological views by logical processes ; and Leontius says o{him,Su(rxvpi- 
 feTO rh S6yii.a outoS, ovk uirb pifTov rivos, liW airh iripivoias . de Sect, iv. 
 2, p. 636, vid. Anast, Hodeg. p. g8.] 
 
3 1 o The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 § 2. 
 
 1. Apollinaris denied that our Lord was perfect man, 
 that He had a rational soul in addition to His Divine 
 Nature ; and he did so, on the ground that the doctrine 
 of a humanity complete at all points, with a human 
 mind, rendered an Incarnation impossible, as introducing 
 a second being or person into the constitution, as he might 
 call it, of Emmanuel. He argued, as if from the nature 
 of the case, that nothing could be taken up by the Divine 
 Word into His Personality, which was already in itself 
 individual and one; for, otherwise, it would be impossible 
 to maintain the aKpa evuxiK, the summa unto, between 
 the Divine Word and His assumed nature, and that this 
 maintenance was our primary duty. 
 
 [The summa unio was the first principle of the Apollinarians ; vid. 
 Theod. Eran. p. i8g,Jin. and Leont. defr. Ap. p. 705, where Apollinaris 
 almost uses the phrase as a symbol, and is vehement in his maintenance 
 of it against Diodorus ; e.g. " Ludis summam unionem," &c., vid. 
 also Jobius, ibid. p. 702. However, in Pseudo-Justin, ap. Leont. 
 contr. Nest. p. 668, and Grab. Spicil. t. 2, p. 198, it is (according to 
 the Benedictine editor of Justin, Append, p. 488, and Lequien in 
 Damasc. t. 1, p. 420) a Nestorian phrase. Again, it is Catholic 
 in Proclus ad Armcn. p. 613, in Eulogius ap. Photii Bihl. p. 768, 
 10, p. 812, 20, Anast. Hodeg. c. 13, pp. 228, 240, and in Maximus, 
 Epp. t. 2, p. 273. Of course all parties claimed to preserve in 
 their own teaching what really was a first principle in the doctrine of 
 the Incarnation.] 
 
 2. Then the Apollinarians proceeded thus : — 
 
 Avo TeXeia could not in any real sense coalesce and 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 3 1 1 
 
 unite ; for this would be like saying that one and one do 
 not make two. As well might two human minds run 
 together into one, as God and man be united, without 
 some accommodation or adjustment in the human nature 
 to the Divine. Does not the Church herself admit this? 
 for what is her denial of personality to our Lord's human 
 nature, but a confessed incompleteness in that nature ? 
 Moreover, what is tlje seat of personality but the vow or 
 mind ? and how can we consistently deny personality to 
 our Lord's manhood, yet ascribe I'oO? to it ? 
 
 [Unum perfectum, non duo perfecta. Leont. de fr. Apoll. p. 707. 
 Naz. Ep. I. Cledon. p. 88, iras oli Sio TiyeiioviKii ; Incert. Dial. iv. 3, 5. /ij; 
 fTyai 8ehv Tf\fioi> /ifrk ivSpiinou reKelou. Nyssen. Autirrh. 22. Athan. 
 Apoll. i. 2, 16. Epiph. Hcer. 77, 23. Ancor. 77. The Catholics in answer 
 denied that personality was involved in the idea of vols, so that a man 
 might be perfect in the nature and attributes of man, yet have no person- 
 ality.] 
 
 3. To say that our Lord, Emmanuel, was perfect man 
 was to consider Him as avOpaTrov 6eo^6po<;, a man full of 
 God or deified, whereas really He was 0eb<; a-apKo<j>6po<}, 
 God incarnate. 
 
 [Vid. Valentinus in Leont. de fr. Ap. p. 702, col. 2, fin. They wrote 
 this confession of the " God incarnate " on their doors and garments 
 Naz. 2. Cledon. p. 96.] 
 
 4. They accused Catholics of holding two sons, the 
 Son of God and the son of Mary, instead of the One Person 
 of Emmanuel ; comparing them to the Paulianists. 
 
 [That is, of what was afterwards the heresy of Nestorius. Athan. Apoll. 
 i. 21. Nyssen. t. 2, p. 694. Theod. Eran. iii. p. 193. Leont. de fr. Ap. p. 
 701 C. and rovro eWeTOt ry HavKiaviK^ Statpetret. Vid. Constant. Epp. 
 Pont. App. p. 63.J 
 
3 1 2 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 5. Also, they said that Catholics added a fourth Person 
 to the Blessed Trinity, and placed a man before the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 . [Athan. Epict. 2, g. Apoll. i. 9, 12. Epiph. Haer. 77, 4-10. 
 Ancor. n. 77. Ambros. Incarn. 77. Leont. p. 707 A. Procl. 
 Armen. p. 614.] 
 
 6. Moreover, they argued that, if our Lord is man as 
 He is God, we are called upon both to worship Him 
 and not to worship ; which cannot be done : therefore 
 the Catholic doctrine is not true. 
 
 [Naz. Ep. I. Cledon. p. 8g. Incert. Dial. v. 28. Leont. p. 707. Catholics 
 did not say that He was man as He was God. They even admitted the 
 illustration of a garment as applied to His humanity ; vid. Petav. Incarn. 
 vii. 13, and infra, and they maintained that it had no personality ; only 
 they maintained also that nevertheless it was complete in its nature, and 
 therefore that it included an intellectual soul or vovs. 
 
 7. Further, they said that a human intellect was unne- 
 cessary to the Incarnate Word, whose infinite intelligence 
 would supply every need which a human mind could 
 answer ; and, if unnecessary, to teach it was to introduce 
 a gratuitous difficulty into theology. 
 
 [irepiTT^s yap -ftv, <j>r](rly, 6 yovs, tov Oeov Xiyov ira,p&VTOS. Theod. Hoer. 
 V. II, p. 420.] 
 
 8. Nay, it was mischievous as well as gratuitous ; for 
 it interfered with the simple idea and object of the In- 
 carnation, which was the manifestation of the Invisible 
 God. 
 
 [To support this view they referred to Baruch iii. 35-38 : " After this 
 He was seen on earth and conversed with men ; " vid. Theod. Eran. i. p. 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 3 1 3 
 
 17. Naz. Ep. 2. Cledon. p. 95. Athan. Afoll. ii. 4. Nyssen. t. 2, p. 
 694. Incert. Din^ iv. 1, ^«. and ii. init. If a manifestation were all 
 that was necessary, a phantom would answer the purpose as well as 
 a real body. We shall find this consequence carried out by the extreme 
 ApoUinarians.] 
 
 g. Whatever tended to represent the union of God and 
 man as more than a simple manifestation of the Invisible, 
 they considered to»obscure the truth. An outward form 
 was enough, for it exactly answered the purpose of being 
 an organ, an instrument of manifesting Him. 
 
 [The ApoUinarian Valentinas says, " Amictum et vestem ac tegumen 
 mysterii occultati assumpsit, et pro hominibus apparuit ; nee enim 
 aliter spectatores Dei fieri poteramus, nisi per corpus." Leont. p. 
 703. And Jobius : " Carnem unisse sibi, et esse unam personam 
 indivisibilem mediam inter Deum et hominem, et conjungentem 
 creaturas divisas cum creatore." ibid. p. 702. And Apollinaris 
 himself: " Organum, et quod movet instrumentum, unam naturaliter 
 perficiunt operationem." ibid. p. 706. " Venerabile, magnum, supra- 
 mundanum trKeicuTfia. ibid. The body of Christ is a trx^jua 6pyaviK6v, 
 Athan. Apoll. i. is, 14. Incert. Dial. iv. S,fin. " Let us glorify Him,'' 
 says Apollinaris in Theod. Eran. ii. pp. 173, 174, is Tivk ^aaiXia iv EureAe? 
 (pav^vra (TtoAt?* Spavres Kal avrh rh ^vBvfia So^affQev. vid. also Ambros. 
 Incarn. 51. 
 
 However, the orthodox disputant, in Theod. Eran. 1. pp. 22, 3, speaks 
 of the flesh of Christ as a napawiratrfia and irpoKtSAvfi/ia, referring to 
 Hebr. x. 20 ; and the Eranistcs is shy of adopting these words, 
 perhaps under the notion that those words mean a veil rather than 
 a medium of vision. In Hcer. v. 11, p. 422, Theodoret calls the word 
 wpoic<iKviifjLa heretical, as applied to the flesh of Christ, contrasting it 
 with the idea of it as the cmapx^ of the whole race. Vid. Note on Athan. 
 Orat. ii. 8, Oxf. trans., or ibid. ed. •.:, art. in voc. jrapaTreVao-iUo.] 
 
 10. They proceeded to argue that the human mind 
 was necessarily sinful, and that in consequence it was an 
 
 21 
 
314 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 impiety to suppose that it was a portion of that manhood 
 which our Lord assumed. 
 
 [It would seem from this as if the Apollinarians thought sin was 
 of the nature of the soul, after the manner of modern Calvinists. 
 Leontius seems to make this their main argument ; e'Ae'ye -yap on b 
 vovs afiapT7iTLK6i/ T( ifrriv. de Sect. iv. 2, p. 636. He goes on to say 
 himself, "The more need of our Lord's soul to sanctify ours." vid. 
 also de fr. Ap. pp. 702, 706. Athan. Apoll. i. 2, 14, 15. Naz. Ep. 
 I. Cledon. p. 8g. Epiph. Heer. 77, 26. Eran. i. p. 13. Incert. Dial. v. 2, 
 9- 
 
 Another form of this objection was, k6<t^ov /iepos Kiafiov catrai oh 
 SiVoTtti. Athan. Apoll. ii. 7. Incert. Dial. v. 2.] 
 
 II. Such were the argumentative grounds of the heresy. 
 Its advocates disposed of the difficulty arising out of the 
 Scripture passages which speak of our Lord's soul, by 
 asserting that the animal or physical soul was meant in 
 them, or if the rational constituent or vov<;, then that the 
 Divine Word, which supplied the place of a soul, was 
 called soul there. And thus He was "perfect man ; " the 
 divinity supplying that in His manhood which was neces- 
 sary for its perfection. But without the Word, He was 
 not " perfect man," any more than one of us has a perfect 
 manhood, when, by the departure of the soul, he lies a 
 corpse. 
 
 [The Word then was the vovs of the aivBsrov, of the Christ or Em- 
 manuel. The Apollinarians considered our Lord ohit &tf/vxov, 0J8' 
 oAoyov, ovS' &VOVV, oiS' areX^, the 0e6Tns supplying the deficiency ; Naz. 
 Ep. i.. Cledon. p. 94. This divinity was Christ's "inner man;" 
 -avrX Tov i(rto6sv Iv Tifjuv avQpdnrov, vovs iiroupdvios iv Xpi{rT(p. Athan. Apoll. 
 i. z. And on the other hand, rh trufia koI tj t/zux^ ^ e|w0eV iffriv tivOptimos. 
 ibid. 13, vid. also ig. 
 
 This explanation will serve to enlighten us as to an evasion, to which 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 3 1 5 
 
 they had recourse in some of their creeds, which seem orthodox. Thus in 
 the Creed included in the Ephesine Acts, (vid. supr. p. 37,) our Lord is 
 said to be iKov 9ibv icaX /uerA rod irdiMTOs . . . /cal i\ov &vdpamov juctA Trjs 
 BedrriTOS ; where the /col before the first /lera seems to direct us to the 
 evasion. They meant to say that He was perfect God, His body 
 exclusive, and perfect man, His Divinity inclusive. And so again, reXt los 
 &v6paiTos if irvei/iari in Constant. Epp. Pont. App. p. 75 ; where iri/eDjiia 
 stands for the Divine Nature, an archaism, which they seem to have 
 affected, because it brought their triple view of human nature into con- 
 nexion with St. Paul, I Thess. v. 23, the human iryeCyiia there spoken of, 
 or intellectual spirit of an ordinary man, being changed for the Divine 
 Spirit or Word in the manhood of Emmanuel. 
 
 They were called Sifioipirai, as allowing Him only two out of the three 
 constituents of human nature. Basnage strangely mistakes here. ViJ. 
 Naz. Ep. 202, rpiTTin6piov.] 
 
3 1 6 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 §3. 
 
 1. Such were the statements and arguments, by the aid 
 of which the Apollinarian tenet was recommended to the 
 acceptance of Cathoh'cs ; but, whatever might be their 
 value, their outcome was nothing short of a negation of 
 our Lord's Divinity, as absolute, if not so immediate, as 
 Arianism. 
 
 Apollinaris taught, as a special means of securing that 
 all-important dogma, and of securing the summa unio, the 
 hypostatic simplicity, of the two natures in the Word 
 incarnate, that He, the Infinitely great God, had become 
 the soul of a human being. 
 
 ["Hoc est, Verbum carnem factum esse, unitum esse carni, ut 
 humanus spiritus." Leont. p. 702 D.] 
 
 2. That is, that He had united Himself to what, viewed 
 apart from His presence in it, was a brute animal ; this 
 position being no mere inference of opponents, but what 
 the Apollinarians taught directly and purposely, in order, 
 as they said, to deprive His humanity of that (viz, the in- 
 tellectual principle) which emphatically constitutes man. 
 
 [Vid. passages quoted above, pp. 308-314.] 
 
 3. Moreover, that the whole, the avvdeTo<; ovaia, which 
 the Word formed with that brute creature, has a com- 
 pleteness and entireness, surpassing that of the Word 
 Himself. 
 
 [He taught, says Gregory Naz., ee((T7jTa toB fiovoyevovs /iepos 
 yeyeaOai tov avOpwireiov ffvyKp&fxa.TOS Ep. 202, p. 168. & Kaip^ 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 3 1 7 
 
 KTicris, says Apollinaris himself, koI /jlI^is Beo'irea-ia, fleis koI cropj /xiay 
 oirereAeffay ipiffiv. Eulog. ap. Phot. p. 850.] 
 
 4. Let it be observed, he did not merely say that the 
 Incarnation was analogous to the union of soul and 
 body, as the Athanasian Creed rightly teaches, and as 
 the Eutychians afterwards perversely maintained, but 
 that it was an actual instance of that union. The Word 
 was the very soul of a human body. The Word and 
 the flesh went together to make a compound nature, a 
 avvdeToi ovaia, which was neither the one nor the other, 
 as in the case of men generally, being both present, but 
 both changed in that resulting whole. What, separately 
 taken, is ghost and corpse in man, becomes in their 
 union soul and body, each new in itself, as well as in 
 the unit which they together constitute. A change in 
 the Divine Nature of the Word ! This then was Apolli- 
 naris's expedient for protecting this sacred truth against 
 the blasphemies of Arius. 
 
 [Leont. de Sect. viii. 8, p. 649. irapKtvhv rhv \6yov. Nyssen. t. 2, p. 
 694. ^Woiaffis rov \6yov. Athan. Apoll. i. 2. d \6yos els frdpKa Kal 
 offria KoX rpixo-s Kol 8\ov ffatfia fiera^e^KTiTai, Epict. 2. & wpwTos, says 
 Theodoret of Apollinaris, ray ^iaeaiv t^v xpatriv ei<rdy<i>v. Eran. p. 
 174. ffvvBiTov ovarlav ovdels elireTf irSk/xTjO'e, ttA^v 'AiroWiydpios. Ephraem. 
 ap. Phot. p. 804. vid.' also p. 850. Damasc. contr. jfac. p. 402. vid. 
 TertuU. in Prax. 27.] 
 
 5. There was no escape open to Apollinaris from these 
 consequences, except the fresh error, into which he 
 seems to have been forced, viz., that of denying that 
 our Lord's body remained human, and of maintaining 
 that it had a celestial nature. 
 
3 1 8 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 [He argues, Leont. p. 706 B, that, if it can be said, " The Word 
 became flesh," it may also be said, "The flesh became the Word.' 
 "Verbum caro factum est, ut caro fieret Verbum. " Pseudo-Athan. 
 ap. Anastas. Hodeg. xiii. p. 230. He argued that our Lord's body 
 was consubstantial with the Divinity, and not with our bodies ; 
 otherwise, it could not have life in itself, and become a principle of 
 life to others, but must need quickening and nourishment, as others 
 need. Leont. p. 705 E. Diodorus affirmed that His nature was the 
 same as that of other men, though His conception and birth were 
 different ; on which Apollinaris asked what was the use of a divine 
 generation and birth, if a corresponding nature did not follow. 
 ibid. D.] 
 
 6. Or further still, except the heresy of maintaining 
 that our Lord's body became nothing more than a 
 phantom, such as Angels might wear in order to their 
 intercourse with men. 
 
 [avfiyKT] Xeyezv, ^ r-^v ^Is o-dpKa rpoir^v aiirhv virofiefiev7}K^vai, ^ SoK'tjO'et 
 roiovTov d(p6TJyai. Evan. p. 10.] 
 
 7. So much on the heretical tenet, viewed in itself; 
 next, as to its bearing on our Lord's mission. 
 
 If the Incarnation is mainly of solely intended as a 
 manifestation of the Divine Nature, how is it a satisfac- 
 tion for human sin ? 
 
 [ouK oTSv T€ ^p erepov aj/B" erepov &VTiSovvai hirpoy • aWa (rwjxa ayrl 
 <r(iix.aTOS, Kol ifux^y ""tI 'f'vxvs SeSwKe . . toutcVtiv t!> avrdWay/ia. 
 Athan. Apoll. i. 17. 
 
 irapeSwKey [tj e/f/cA-T^ffia] rhy 9ehv Kol \6yov iiri^yjfi'fjffaPTa . . . 'Ipa 
 Ka\ iradji virep Tjfiwy &s dydputros, Kol KvTpcifrTjTai T]fias 4k irdBovs Ka\ 
 Bavdrov us 9e6s. ibid, i, 20. 
 
 el fji^ Kal Thy tfTwQsv KaX rhy €^u6ey (TvystniiffaTO eavTi^ & \6yoSf . . . 
 TTus rh vieep rov Trayrhs avTeSaKEy ayriXyrpoy ', ibid. i. ig. Vid. Leon. 
 Serm. 63, p. 249.] 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 319 
 
 8. What becomesofour boast, thatour enemy has been 
 foiled by the very nature over which he had triumphed, 
 and that that nature has been shown capable, and been 
 made the subject, of the most intimate union with Infinite 
 sanctity and wisdom ? 
 
 XpiffThs r)]V avOpciimvrjj/ ^ux^v iSiav oZffav, . . . tVa, onov itrwdpri i] tpOopa^ 
 ixu avaTiiXri ri a.(f>6apcrla, Sec. Athan. Apoll. i. 17. vid. also 7. ii. 6, 17. 
 Epiph. Ancor. 78 a. Ambros. Ir.carn. 56. Naz. Ep. i. Cledon. p. 
 85.] 
 
 g. How is it a union of Himself with our nature, 
 such, as to be the germ of its new life, and the first- 
 fruits of its renovation in holiness ? 
 
 [SAou rod avBptiyjrov, ^vxv^ '^^^ (rdifiaros^ a\r]dws 7] <r(CT7]p(a yeyoyev 4v 
 oiiT^ rtp \6yti>\ Athan. Epict. 7. rh aTrpStrXri'irTOVj adepdirevToy. Naz. 
 Ep. I. Cledon. p. 87. iKsXvov itroxrev, ^ KaX <ruvi\(pSi). Leont. de Sect. 
 iv. 2, p. 626. ov ■trpoKtiKvfifj.a rp BeSrTjTi fiiJx^ivdfieyoSf oWA SiA tt}s 
 airapxv^ irai/rl t^ yeyei t)}v viK'qv vpayfiaTev6/jisi'os, Te\eiav t)]v aydpatretaj/ 
 (pia-iv aveKaPs. Theod. Hier. v. II, p. 422. vid. also Eran. 
 iii. p. 297. Leon. Sertn. 72, p. 286. Vigil. T. adv. Eiit. i. p. 
 724. Athan. Orat. iii. 33. Nyssen. t. 2, p. 696. Damasc. F. O. iv. 4, 
 P- 255.] 
 
 10. Much as it is to have a perfect pattern set before 
 us, how is this pattern practically available, unless an 
 inward grace is communicated from His Person to 
 realise this pattern in us ? 
 
 \\4y€T€, Tjf dfioiciffet /col t??" /jLifi-fitrei ff^^effSat robs irtiTTevoyTas, Kal 
 ov rf ayaicatvia'et Kol r^ cLTrapxy, Kal wus . . . ov yctp ^Aflev 7} de^rjis 
 eavr^v SiKai&ffai, ovSe yap ififiaprey, aW' eim^xeutre Si' T]fJ.a.s, &c. &c. 
 Athan. Apoll. ii. 11. rh ^Krhs rifiwv KaBapl^ovfn fi6yov Sia rod Kaivov 
 vpo(raiTretov. Naz. Ep. z. Cledon. p. 95.] 
 
320 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 II. I do not mean of course that he would not deny 
 the consequences which I have been urging against his 
 doctrine ; but I am concerned here, not with him per- 
 sonally, but with that doctrine itself. We may be sure 
 that he felt its difficulties ; and this consciousness is the 
 natural explanation of his inconsistencies, which are 
 not few. 
 
 He was an eloquent writer, and an able disputant, and boldly 
 affirmed what, according to the undeniable logic of his opponents, he 
 ought to have denied. In one fragment, for instance, he says our Lord's 
 body was glorified, ws iJpjUOTTe cti/ioTi fleoD wai iranTjpt K6(rfiov, koI triTepfiari 
 ^arjs aiayiovj Kal opydvaj 9eiwv evepyetuv, Kal KvTiKtf KaKtas airda'Tis, Kal 
 davdrou KaBatperiK^f Kal avaffTdtretas ap^riy^. cip. Evan. ii. pp. 173, 4. vid, 
 also p. 256. These are fine words, but were they reconcilable with his 
 heretical tenet ? 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 321 
 
 §4. 
 
 I. These inconsistencies, which form the decisive testi- 
 mony of Apollinam himself against his own teaching, 
 will partly be seen in his own statements as they remain 
 to us, as contrasted with his profession of the whole 
 Catholic creed, and partly in the extravagances of his 
 followers. 
 
 First, as to his own statements : — 
 
 [His opinions to be found in his fragments preserved, i. by Theodoret, 
 and 2. by Leontius, and 3. in the report of Gregory Nazianzen (Leont. p, 
 707 C), Gregory Nyssen, and Basil.] 
 
 He said that, i. Our Lord was born of the Blessed 
 Virgin (Leont. p. 701 C, p. 702 D, Incert. Dial. iv. 
 gyi«.) 2. He had no rational principle but the Eternal 
 Word (p. 706 C, D). 3. His body or flesh was an 
 organ or outward form of the Divine Power (p. 706 
 D). 4. The Only-begotten was a constituent of a com- 
 pound nature (p. 704 C). 5. "What was virtually a new 
 nature in Him was made out of the .divinity and the 
 flesh (p. 704 A). 6. Though they remained in their 
 own nature (ibid.). 7. His flesh was of a created nature 
 (p. 702 D). 8. It remained after the union (p. 701 
 E, A, C. Eran. pp. 171, 2). 9. It was consubstantial 
 with ours (p. 702, C, D. p. 704 A. Eran. p. 170). 
 10. It was not consubstantial with God (p. 701 E, 
 
32 2 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 p. 702 D). II. It was consubstantial with God, by com- 
 munication of name, not by change of nature (p. 704 E). 
 12. It was not from heaven, considered as flesh (p. 701 B^ 
 p. 705 A). 13. As being the flesh of Christ, it is God 
 (p. 702 D, p. 704 B). 14. Our Lord was the " coelestis 
 homo," "propter spiritum coelestem " (p. 702 D). 15. 
 His flesh, though not from heaven, (p. 701 B). 16. Still 
 possessed the names and the properties of the Word, 
 so as even to be increate (p. 705 E, p. 176 A). 17. It 
 was not changed from created to increate, but was in- 
 create, as far as it was God (p. 706 B). 18. It was in- 
 create, considered as God (p. 705 B). ig. The man was 
 consubstantial with God (p. 705 C). 20. His flesh was of 
 one substance with the Word (p. 706 D). 21. It was 
 connatural with the Divine Nature (p. 705 B). 22. It was 
 consubstantiated with the Divinity (p. 705 D). 23. It 
 was from the beginning in the Son (Naz. Ep. 202). 24. 
 The Word remained God, not changed into a bodily sub- 
 stance (p. 705 D. Eran. p. 70). 
 
 2. Next, as to his followers, some were unwilling to lose 
 the shadow of an orthodox profession, however nominal ; 
 while others were prepared to go all lengths, orthodox or 
 not. Some desired to retain a positive doctrine; others 
 recklessly split up their party into fragments as numerous 
 as their doctrinal varieties, bi'inging it to an end by virtue 
 of the very principles on which it had started. 
 
 &c. Athan. Apoll. i. 21.] 
 
 3. Both parties claimed Apollinaris as their master. 
 
 [Valentinus, the moderate, says, " Magister noster ApoUinarius 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 323 
 
 blasphemos et insanos scripto vocavit eos, qui," &c. Leont. p. 703 D. 
 Timotheus, the extreme, "cum Magister noster ApoUinarius dicat," 
 &c. p. 704 C] 
 
 4. Both parties taught that our Lord's body was origi- 
 nally consubstantial with ours, and that it was made 
 divine. But it was debated between them, whether by 
 being made divine, it was changed merely in properties, 
 or was changed intothe divine substance. 
 
 [Valentinus says, " Npbis consubstantialis est secundum carnem ; 
 ftnio honoravit naturam, non fecit corpus consubstantiale Deo," p. 
 703 C. Timotheus says, " Natura quidem consubstantialem nobis esse 
 carnem, unione vero esse divinam. " p. 704 B.] 
 
 5. Valentinus, of the moderate party, maintained that 
 its properties alone were affected by the presence of the 
 Divine Word, not its substance. 
 
 [He writes his Apologia " contra eos qui dicunt dicere nos esse corpus 
 consubstantiale Deo." Leont. p. 701 B. "Cum Verbo Dei simul 
 adoratur caro." p. 702 C, D. "Unione Deus habetur, non natura." 
 ibid. " In unione esse perseverat." ihid. His formula was " Unio 
 non est homoiision." p.' 703 A.] 
 
 6. Even on this more cautious ground, questions had 
 to be met and satisfied. If the Word and His flesh were 
 in Emmanuel as rational soul and body, the Divine 
 Nature suffers in Him, as the soul suffers in and with 
 the body. His party answered that it was His animal 
 soul that suffered; but could the mere animal soul say, 
 " Eli, Eli, lama," &c. ? However, there was an alter- 
 native by which to escape the conclusion that the Divine 
 Nature suffered ; viz. to maintain that there had been no 
 passion at all, only a manifestation of the Word. 
 
324 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 [Apollinaris held the oWfleia of the Word; iiid. Theod. Eran. 
 p. 256. 
 
 But Athanasius and Epiphanius accuse the party of ascribing 
 Ta3r7 to the Divinity. overlay toS \6yov 7ro9r)Ti)i/ XiyovTiS. Ath. 
 Apoll. i. 3. Epiph. Hcer. 77, 32. The Apollinarian in Incert. 
 Dial. iv. 4, says, ou/c iiraSev olv i Kiyos ; 8\<os iiradcv. Gregory Naz- 
 however, with a treatise of Apollinaris before him, says that he 
 maintained our Lord rp iS/(f aSnov BeirriTi iraflos Sc'^oirflai. £/. 202, 
 p. 168.] 
 
 7. A further difficulty lay in our Lord's death. As 
 the cessation of warmth, sense, and motion are signs of 
 death on the part of the body, so on the part of the soul 
 is the descent into Hades ; now the Word was the soul 
 of Emmanuel ; did the Word then take a place among 
 disembodied spirits ? Again, was His body any longer 
 divine, now that the Word had left it ? But why need 
 they embarrass themselves with teaching His death, 
 since His coming was only a manifestation ? And to 
 this conclusion they inclined. 
 
 [" Non solum non succumbit morti, sed earn solvit," says Apolli- 
 naris. Leont. p. 707, Athan. Apoll. i. 6, 14. Epict. 8 fin. Incert. 
 Dial. v. 3.] 
 
 8. Now to turn to those, as Timotheus, who adopted 
 the extreme views to which the heresy led. They main- 
 tainedour Lord's body became, onitsunion,consubstantial 
 with the Divine nature ; else, it was idolatry to worship 
 Him as incarnate. Hence they were called a-wovcrvaa-Tai. 
 
 [Leont. p. 703 E, p. 704, and p. 707 A. Sfiooitriov rh e/c Mapios 
 ffwfia T]7 rou \6you de^T-qrt. Athan. Epict. z. ffiipKa iTpoaitiivi6v 
 riva leal ffvvovcnufierriv. Naz. Ep. 202. Theod. Hcer. iv. g. Facund. 
 viii. 4, p. 471 and note. (Yet Malchion says Sehv iivvovaia>ii,ivov t$ 
 arSpiiirtf, infr. Cyril's Formula, 17.) That our Lord was not in His 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 325 
 
 human nature consubstantial with us, was one of the two points of 
 Eutychianism, though he wavered about it. vid. Condi, t. 2, p. 164, 5. 
 Flavian ap. Leon. Ep. 26, Ep. 30.] 
 
 g. But, if this was so, that a change of substance 
 took place in our Lord's body on His assuming it, so 
 that it even was increate and everlasting, how was it a 
 body at all ? For if it could remain a body, after this 
 change, then that into which it was changed would it- 
 self be of a material nature already. Either this, or it 
 was no longer a body, but a phantom, as the old Docetse 
 had said. And thus, when they called His body increate, 
 perhaps they meant non-create, that is, that it never 
 had been brought into existence at all. 
 
 [yti^ iirixTriTov elyai tV (^dpica, &\K' ^| opx^' ^'' '''9 "'V- Naz. Ep, 
 202, p. 168. fi^ vidrepov elvai rh (ra/ia rfis rov \6yov Be6TriTos, ciWci 
 (TvvaiSiov avTif, iirel ix Tijs oifflas rijs (ro(l>ias (rwiaTi\. Athan. Epict. 2. 
 v69£V vfilv KttrnyyeKBri (rdpKa Sktiittov Keyeiv, Sxrre fl tV Be6TriTa 
 ToC \iyou els /ierdTTaffiv ffapxbs (pavrd^eaBai, ^) TJJe o'lKovofdav rov 
 irdBovs (cal rov Bavirov koX Tijs avatTTiaeas us SSxricriv voiii^eiv ; ApoU. 
 i. 3. vid. the same dilemma in Theod. Eraii. p. 10, quoted supr. p. 318. 
 a-KLiiSri tV Serjic iiroiCno i Be6s. Athan. Apoll. i. 7. its 4v SoK^arei. ibid. 
 ii. 5. (H)) SoK^irei. Incert. Dial. iv. 7. as (pavrairias Tivhs airaTTjXflj koX 
 SoK'fiffeas. Naz. Ep. 2. Cledon. p. g6. fleVci Kal oi (pi<ret ff&iia, Tre(p6priKev. 
 Athan. Epict. z. Unus verus, qui sine carne in came apparuit. Leont. 
 p. 707 A. 4y TOii- TTOffifiaffi rh \Ey6fievov &KTL(rTov rh fnjSeiru inrdp^av 
 Af'yEToi. Athan. Apoll. i. 5.] 
 
 ID. Another question arose. They confessed that 
 our Lord's body was originally human ; did this mean 
 that it had existed before its union with the Word ? 
 If so, they were falling into the heresy afterwards 
 called Nestorianism. 
 
 [Athan. Epict. 8. Leont. de Sectis, vii. i. vid. Petav. Incarn. i. 14, 
 5, P- 35.] 
 
326 The Heresy of Apollinaris. 
 
 11. There are those, among whom is numbered Apolli- 
 naris himself, who made short work with this difficulty by 
 maintaining our Lord's body was of a divine nature from 
 the first, being taken, not from the Blessed Virgin, but 
 from the internal essence of the Word Himself, a celestial 
 development, for the purpose of a manifestation. 
 
 [e| lauTou fi€Tairoi'fi(ras (TapKa d \6yos. Athan. Apoll. ii. 12. ou/c eK 
 Mapias, oAA.' e/c ttJs kavTOv oi/ffias. Epict, 2. i^ opx^^ ^*' '^'P ^^^ '^h^ 
 (rapKciSri exeiyriv ipiciv efyai. Naz. Ep. 202, p. 168. So Valentinus, 
 the Gnostic, "Verbum ex se caro factum est." TertuU. Cam. Ch. 
 ig-2i. And Eutyches, " Seipsum replasmavit." Vigil. Th. contr. Eut. 
 Hence Sktkttoi/ koI itrovpdvioy \eyovTes t)jv tov XpiffTov <rd.pKa, Athan. 
 Apoll. i. -z. e^ ovpavov t6 (rw/ia. ibid. 7. Xpiffrhs ou p^oi'Kbs, aXA' i':rovpdvios. 
 Incert. Dial. v. 4. Neque caro e coelo nee asterna, ut vos dicitis. 
 Leont. p. 703. vid. Naz. Ep. 202. p. 168. Nyssen. Antirrh. 13. 
 Epiph. Hcsr. 77. 2.] 
 
 12. It is obvious how easily this last opinion might 
 pass into Sa,bellianism by identifying the Word with 
 this mere visible development, which was superficial to 
 the Divine Essence. Accordingly, we find one large 
 section of the Apollinarians accused of that heresy, and 
 they favoured this imputation by teaching that our Lord 
 was the image of the Father, not in His divine, but in 
 His human nature. 
 
 [Vid. as to Apollinaris himself Basil. Epp. 129, 265. Theod. 
 Hmr. iv. 8. Athan. Apoll. i. 20, ii. 3, 5. On the other hand, 
 Leont. de Sect. iv. 2. vid. Benedictine note on Ambros. Incarn. 
 II.] 
 
 13. On the other hand, those who scrupled to assert 
 that the Divine Nature suffered on the Cross, yet denied 
 with Apollinaris that Christ had a human mind, would 
 
The Heresy of Apollinaris. 327 
 
 te tempted to consider Him not strictly God at all, and 
 therefore of course passible. And in fact the Apolli- 
 narians are accused by some writers of considering the 
 Son interior to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son, 
 which is the heresy of Arius. 
 
 [Naz. Ef. I. Cledon. p. 92.] 
 
 14. As we know that the party of Valentinus were 
 not Sabellians, it is j;)robable that it was the Timotheans 
 who favoured Sabellius, and the Valentinians who in- 
 clined towards Arianism. 
 [Vid. Tillemont, Mem. t. 7, p. 602, &c.] 
 
V. 
 
 ON ST. CYRIL'S FORMULA 
 MIA 0TSIS SESAPKflMENH. 
 
 {From the Atlantis of July, 1858.) 
 
 2222 (329) 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 The inquiry — turns upon the use of terms — Phraseology of science 
 gradually perfected — especially in the province of Revelation — Mistakes 
 during the process — Reluctance of early Catholics to pursue it— illus- 
 trated by the Homousion — and by other terms — especially the hypostasis. 
 
 Yet this no proof of carelessness about dogma — Athanasius dogmatic, 
 though without science — his varying application of hypostasis — One 
 hypostasis taught in fourth century — and in third — Three by Alexand- 
 rians — both One and Three by Athanasius, — who innovates on the 
 Alexandrian usage,— yet without changing the general sense of the 
 term — which denotes the One Supreme Being — as individual, personal 
 — and the God of natural theology — and also as being any or each of 
 the Three divine Persons — Latitude in the sense of the term — illustration 
 from Athanasius. 
 
 Usia has a like meaning — and is preferred by Athanasius,— as a 
 synonyme for hypostasis — and physis also — and eidos. — These terms 
 are inapplicable in their full sense to the Word's humanity — yet they 
 are so applied — e.g. hypostasis — and usia — and physis — but not in their 
 full sense. 
 
 Especially not physis — first on Scripture grounds — next on grounds 
 of reason — The divine physis must retain the fulness of its attributes — 
 therefore the human physis must have a restricted meaning — How then 
 is there a human physis at all P^Hence the form and the force of Cyril's 
 Formula. 
 
 Illustration from the Council of Antioch — which teaches the unalter- 
 ableness of the divine usia — together with the Catholic Doctors generally 
 — with Athanasius — and other Fathers — some of whom therefore attri- 
 bute the human conception to the operation of the Word — Thus Cyril 
 
 (331) 
 
332 Analysis of the Argument. 
 
 too by the " One Nature " denotes — the Word's eternity,— unity, — un- 
 alterableness. 
 
 The same Council teaches that the Word's usia occupies the humanity 
 — and that the humanity is taken up into the Word's xisia — as, analo- 
 gously, the creation also is established in His usia — Contrast between 
 physis and usia — The proper meaning of physis — shows the delicacy of 
 applying the term to His humanity — which is in a state above nature — 
 and therefore was not commonly called a physis — till Leo and the Council 
 of Chalcedon. 
 
 This is clear from the early Fathers — who appropriate the term to the 
 divinity — and describe the humanity as an envelopment — as an adjunct 
 — as a first-fruit — not, as homousion with us — and omit the obvious 
 contrast of the Two Natures — the term " man " equivalent to "nature ". 
 
 Recapitulation — The Word's Nature — is One — and is Incarnate — 
 Fortunes of the Formula. 
 
MIA ^THIi; TOT &EOT AOVOT SESAPKflMENH. 
 
 THIS celebrated Formula of St. Cyril's, perhaps 
 of St. Athanasius's, was, as is well known, 
 one of the main supports of the Monophy- 
 sites, in controversy with the Catholics of the fifth 
 and following centuries. It has been so fully discussed The 
 by theologians from his day to our own, that it hardly 
 allows of any explanation, which would be at once 
 original and true ; still, room is left for collateral 
 illustration and remarks in detail ; and so much shall 
 be attempted here. 
 
 First of all, and in as few words as possible, and ex 
 abundanti cautela : — Every Catholic holds that the Chris- 
 tian dogmas were in the Church from the time of the 
 Apostles ; that they were ever in their substance what 
 they are now ; that they existed before the formulas were mms 
 publicly adopted, in which, as time went on, they were us™f 
 
 terms. 
 
 defined and recorded, and that such formulas, when sanc- 
 tioned by the due ecclesiastical acts, are binding on the 
 faith of Catholics, and have a dogmatic authority. With 
 
 (333) 
 
334 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 this profession once for all, I put the strictly theological 
 question aside ; for I am concerned in a purely histori- 
 cal investigation into the use and fortunes of certain 
 scientific terms. 
 
 2. 
 
 phraseo- Evcn beforc we take into account the effect which 
 
 logy of ... 
 
 science would naturallv be produced on the first Christians by 
 
 gradually -' -^ 
 
 perfected, ^hc noveltyaud mysteriousness of doctrines wliich depend 
 for tlieir reception simply upon Revelation, we have' 
 reason to anticipate that there would be difficulties and 
 mistakes in expressing them, when they first came to be 
 set forth by unauthoritative writers. Even in secular 
 sciences, inaccuracy of thought and language is but 
 gradually corrected ; that is, in proportion as their subject- 
 matter is thoroughly scrutinised and mastered by the co- 
 operation of many independent intellects, successively 
 engaged upon it. Thus, for instance, the word Person 
 requires the rejection of various popular senses, and a 
 careful definition, before it can serve for philosophical 
 uses. We sometimes use it for an individual as contrasted 
 with a class or multitude, as when we speak of having 
 "personal objections "to another; sometimes for the body, 
 in contrast to the soul, as when we speak of " beauty of 
 person." We sometimes use it in the abstract, as when 
 we speak of another as "insignificant in person ; " some- 
 times in the concrete, as when we call him "an insignifi- 
 cant person." How divergent in meaning are the deriva- 
 tives, personable, personalities, personify, personation, person- 
 age, parsonage I This variety arises partly from our own 
 
of the fjuia ^v(TLS. 335 
 
 carelessness, partly from the necessary developments of 
 language, partly from the exuberance of human thought, 
 partly from the defects of our vernacular tongue. 
 
 Language then requires to be refashioned even for ?^P^°^"y 
 sciences which are based on the senses and the reason ; Sf°et""- 
 but much more will this be the case, when we are con- "°"' 
 cerned with subject-matters, of which, in our present 
 state, we cannot possiblyform any complete or consistent 
 conception, such as the Catholic doctrines of the Trinity 
 and Incarnation. Since they are from the nature of the 
 case above our intellectual reach, and were unknown till 
 the preaching of Christianity, they required on their first 
 promulgation new words, or words used in new senses, 
 for their due enunciation ; and, since these were not de- 
 finitely supplied by Scripture or by tradition, nor for cen- 
 turies by ecclesiastical authority, variety in the use, and 
 coufusion in the apprehension of them, were unavoidable 
 in the interval. This conclusion is necessary, admitting 
 the premisses, antecedently to particular instances in proof 
 
 Moreover, there is a pi'esumption equally strong, that Mistakes 
 
 during 
 
 the variety and confusion which I have anticipated, would '•"= 
 
 •^ ^ process. 
 
 in matter of fact issue here or there in actual heterodoxy, 
 as often as the language of theologians was misunder- 
 stood by hearers or readers, and deductions were made 
 from it which the teacher did not intend. Thus, for in- 
 stance, the word Person, used in the doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity, would on first hearing suggest Tritheism to one 
 who made the word synonymous with individual ; and 
 Unitarianism to another, who accepted it in the classical 
 sense of a mask or character. 
 
2Ti6 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 Even to this day our theological language is wanting 
 in accuracy : thxis, we sometimes speak of the contro- 
 versies concerning the Person of Christ, when we mean 
 to include in them those which belong to the two natures 
 which are predicated of Him. 
 
 3- 
 of^iari^"cl- Indeed, the difficulties of forming a theological 
 pu°5ul" phraseology for the whole of Christendom were obviously 
 so great, that we need not wonder at the reluctance which 
 the iirst age of Catholic divines showed in attempting it, 
 even apart from the obstacles caused by the distraction 
 and isolation of the churches in times of persecution. Not 
 only had the words to be adjusted and explained which 
 were peculiar to different schools or traditional in different 
 places, but there was the formidable necessity of creating 
 a common measure between two, or rather three lan- 
 guages, — Latin, Greek, and Syriac. The intellect had to 
 be satisfied, error had to be successfully excluded, parties 
 the most contrary to each other, and the most obstinate, 
 had to be convinced. The very confidence which would 
 be felt by Christians in general that Apostolic truth would 
 never fail, — and that they held it themselves, each in his 
 own country, and the orbis termrum with them, in spite 
 of all verbal contrarieties, — would indispose them to de- 
 fine it, till definition became an imperative duty. 
 byTetl. I think this plain from the nature of the case ; and his- 
 oicswn, tory confirms me in the instance of the imposition of the 
 homoiision, which, as one of the first and most necessary 
 
of the [lia. <f>vcn<;. T,;^y 
 
 steps, so again was apparently one of the most discourag- 
 ing, in giving a scientific expression to doctrine. This 
 formula, as Athanasius, Hilary, and Basil affirm, had been 
 disowned as consistent with heterodoxy by the Councils of 
 Antioch, a.d. 264-72, yet, in spite of this disavowal on 
 the part of bishops of the highest authority, it was imposed 
 on all the faithful to the end of time in the Ecumenical 
 Council of Nicsea, AD. 325, as the best and truest safeguard, 
 as it really is, of orthodox teaching. The misapprehen- 
 sionsand protests, which, after such antecedents, its adop- 
 tion occasioned for many years, may be easily imagined. 
 Thoughabovethreehundred bishops had accepted it,large 
 numbers of them in the next generation were but imper- 
 fectly convinced of its expedience ; and Athanasius himself, 
 whose imperishable name is bound up with it, showed 
 himself most cautious in putting it forward, though it 
 had the sanction of an Ecumenical Council. He introduces 
 the word, I think, only once into his three celebrated 
 Orations, and then rather in a formal statement of doc- 
 trine than in the flow of his discussion, viz. Ora't. i. 4. 
 Twice he gives utterance to it in the Collection of Notes 
 which make up what is called his fourth Oration (Orat. iv. 
 g, 12). We find it indeed in his de Decretis Nic. Cone. 
 and his de Synodis ; but there it constitutes his direct 
 subject, and he discusses it in order, when challenged, 
 to defend it. And in his work against Apollinaris he says 
 o/ioovo-to9 ^ Tpi,d<i, 1. g. But there are passages of his 
 Orations in which he omits it, when it was the natural 
 word to use; vid. the notes on Orat. i. 20, 21, and 58 fin. 
 Oxf. transl. Moreover, the word does not occur in the 
 
^^S On Si. Cyril's Formula 
 
 Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a.d. 347, nor in the 
 recantation made before Pope Julius by Ursacius and 
 Valens, a.d. 349, nor in the cross-questionings to which 
 St. Ambrose subjected Palladius and Secundianus, a.d. 
 381. At Seleucia, a.d. 359, a hundred and fifty Eastern 
 Bishops (with the exception of a few Egyptians) were 
 found to abandon it, while at Ariminum in the same 
 year the celebrated scene took place of four hundred 
 bishops of the West being worried and tricked into a 
 momentary act of the same character. They had not 
 yet got it deeply fixed into their minds, as a sort of first 
 principle, that to abandon the Formula was to betray the 
 faith. We may think how strong and general the in- 
 disposition was thus to regard the matter, when even 
 Pope Liberius consented to sign a creed in which it was 
 omitted {vid. Athan. Histor. Arian. /[i fin.). 
 and by This disincHnation on the part of Catholics to dogmatic 
 terms, definitions was not confined to the instance of the 
 ofioovaoov. It was one of the successful stratagems of 
 the Arians to urge upon Catholics the propriety of con- 
 fining their statement of doctrine to the language of 
 Scripture, and of rejecting uTroo-Tao-f.?, ovcria, and similar 
 terms, which when once used in a definite sense, that is, 
 scientifically, in Christian teaching, would become the 
 protection and record of orthodoxy, 
 especially ^^ ^hc instancc of the word vTroa-raai';, we find Atha- 
 \tldit° nasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and other Catholic Con- 
 fessors of the day, recognising and allowing the two 
 acceptations then in use, in the Council which they held 
 in Alexandria, a.d. 362. 
 
of the [1.1a. <f>v(m. 339 
 
 Such a reluctance to fix the phraseology of doctrine yet this 
 
 cannot be logically taken to imply an indisposition towards of care- 
 lessness 
 dogma itself; and in matter of fact it is historically con- *•>'»" 
 
 temporaneous with the most unequivocal dogmatic state- 
 ments. Scientific terms are not the only token of science. 
 Distinction or antithesis is as much a charactei-isticof it 
 as definition can be, though not so perfect an instrument. 
 The Epistles of Ignatius, for instance, who belongs to the 
 Apostolical age of the Church, are in places unmistakeably 
 dogmatic, without any use of technical terms. Such is 
 the fragment preserved by Athanasius (de Syn. 47) : 
 Elt; laTpo<i earl crapKiKO<i koX Tryef/iart/co?, yevrjTcx; Koi 
 ayevr]To<;, &c. I refer the reader to the remarks on those 
 Epistles made in Tract ii. in this volume ; also supra, p. 51 ; 
 but the subject would admit of large illustration. 
 
 Indeed no better illustration can be given of that in- Athanasius 
 
 r r 1 • 1 1*111 dogmatic, 
 
 tnnsic mdependence of a fixed termmology which belongs though 
 to the Catholic Creed, than the writings of Athanasius professing 
 
 " science. 
 
 himself, the special Doctor from whom the subsequent 
 treatises of Basil, the two Gregories, and Cyril are 
 derived. This great author scarcely uses any of the 
 scientific phrases which have since been received in the 
 Church and have become dogmatic ; or, if he introduces 
 them, it is to give them senses which have long been 
 superseded. A good instance of his manner is afforded 
 by the long passage, Orat. iii. 30-58, which is full of 
 
340 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 theology, with scarcely a dogmatic word. The case is 
 the same with his treatment of the Incarnation. No one 
 surely can read his works without being struck with 
 the force and exactness with which he lays down the 
 outlines and fills up the details of the Catholic dogma, as 
 it has been defined since the controversies with Nestorius 
 and Eutyches, who lived in the following century ; yet the 
 word ^eoToK09, which had come down to him, like 6fioovcno<;, 
 by tradition, is nearly the only one among those which he 
 uses, which would now be recognised as dogmatic. 
 
 ^piSiT Sometimes too he varies the use which he makes of 
 
 %stasis. such terms as really are of a scientific character. An 
 
 instance of this is supplied by hypostasis, a word to which 
 
 reference has already been made. It was usual, at least 
 
 in the West and in St. Athanasius's day, to speak of one 
 
 hypostasis, as of one usia, of the Divine Nature. Thus 
 
 the so-called Sardican Creed, A.D. 347, speaks of fila 
 
 vTroaracn';, rjv avrol oi aiperiKol ovaiav Trpocrayopevovai. 
 
 Theod. Hist. ii. 8 ; the Roman Council under Damasus, 
 
 On^hyto- ■^■^- 37i'Says that the Three Persons are t^? ai^Tij? uTroo-ra- 
 
 tf^ht o"e&)9 KcCi ovaia^i ; and the Nicene Anathematism condemns 
 
 century, those who Say that the Son i<ysv€To i^ erepa? vTroa-rda-eoyi rj 
 
 ovaiat ; for that the words are synonymes I have argued 
 
 after Petavius against Bull, in one of the Dissertations to 
 
 which I have already referred, vid. supr. p. 78. Epiphanius 
 
 too speaks oi iJ.ta {jiroa-raa-K, Hear. 74, 4, Ancor. 6 (and 
 
 though he has at, vTroa-Tda-eK Hear. 62, 3. 72, I, yet he is 
 
of the /jLLa ^ucrts. 341 
 
 shy of the plural, and prefers Trarrjp ivvrr6cj-TaTo<;, vio<i 
 evvn-oaraTO'i, &c., ibid. 3 and 4. Ancor. 6, and rpia as Har. 
 74,4, where he sa.ysrplaevv'jr6crraTaTr)<; aiiTfjftviroarda-eai;. 
 Vid. also Iv virouTdaei Te\et6Tr]To<;. Hcer. 74, 12. Ancor. 7 
 ei alibi) ; and Cyril of Jerusalem of the /jLovoei8r](i vTr6aracn<; 
 of God, Catech. vi. 7, z^i^f. also xvi. 12 and xvii. g (though 
 the word may be construed one out of three in Cat. xi. 
 3), and Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xxviii. g, where he is 
 speaking as a natural, not as a Christian theologian. 
 
 In the preceding century Gregory Thaumaturgus had 3°^ '" 
 laid it down that the Father and Son were vTroa-rdaei, ev ; '^""'"■''■ 
 and the Council of Antioch, between a.d. 264 and 272, 
 calls the Son ovcria koX viroaTaaei, deov 6eov v'lov. Routh, 
 Reliq. t. 2, p. 466. Accordingly Athanasius expressly 
 tells us, " Hypostasis is usia, and means nothing else but 
 avTo TO 6v," ad Afros, 4. Jerome says that " Tota ssecu- 
 larium litterarum schola nihil aliud hypostasin nisi usiam 
 novit." Epist. xv. 4. Basil, the Semi-Arian, that "the 
 Fathers have called hypostasis usia." Epiph. Hcer. 73, 
 12 Jin, And Socrates says that at least it was fre- 
 quently used for usia, when it had entered into the 
 philosophical schools. Hist. iii. 7. 
 
 On the other hand the Alexandrians, Origen {in Joan, '^l^^y 
 ii. 6 et alibi), Ammonius {ap. Caten. in Joan. x. 30, if ^™"'' 
 genuine), Dionysius {ap. Basil. deSp. S. n. 72), and Alex- 
 ander {ap. Theod. Hist. i. 4), speak of more hypostases 
 than one in the Divine Nature, that is, of three; and ap- 
 parently without the support of the divines of any other 
 school, unless Eusebius, who is half an Alexandrian, be 
 an exception. Going down beyond the middle of the 
 
342 On Si. Cyril's Formula 
 
 fourth century and the Council of a.d. 362 above referred 
 to, we find the Alexandrian Didymus committing him- 
 self to bold and strong enunciations of the three Hypos- 
 tases, beyond what I have elsewhere found in patristical 
 literature. 
 Both one It is remarkable that Athanasius should so far innovate 
 byAthan- ou the custom of his own Church, as to use the word in 
 each of these two applications of it. In his In illud 
 Omnia he speaks of ra? rpet? viroaTdaeii; reXeta?. He 
 says, yata 57 6eoTr)<i, koL e?? deo^ iv rpialv vTro(7Td(Teai,Incayn. 
 c. Arian. if the work be genuine. In contr. Apoll. i. 12, 
 he seems to contrast ovaia and ^vcrt? with inr6cTTacri(;, 
 saying roofi.oovaiovei'axJiv KaS' viroaTaaiv ovk. eirihe.ypii.evdv 
 ia-Ti, aXKa Kara (pvcnv. Parallel instances occur in Expos. 
 Fid. 2, and in Orat. iv. 25, though the words may be 
 otherwise explained. On the other hand, he makes 
 usia and hypostasis synonymous in Orat. iii. 65, 66. Orat. 
 iv. I and 33 fin. Vid. also Quod Unus est Christus, and 
 the fragment in Euthym. Panopl. p. i, tit. 9 ; the 
 genuineness of both being more than doubtful, 
 who inno- There is something more remarkable still in this inno- 
 the vation, in which Athanasius permits himself, on the 
 
 Alexan- 
 drian practice of his Church. Alexander, his immediate pre- 
 
 usage, ^ ^ 
 
 decessor and master, published, a.d. 320-324, two formal 
 letters against Arius, one addressed to his namesake of 
 Constantinople, the other encyclical. It is scarcely pos- 
 sible to doubt that the latter was written by Athanasius; 
 it is so unlike the former in style and diction, so like the 
 writings of Athanasius. Now it is observable that in the 
 former the word hypostasis occurs in its Alexandrian 
 
of the fjiCa (j>v(n<;. 343 
 
 sense at least five times ; in the latter, which I attribute 
 to Athanasius, it is dropt, and usia is introduced, which 
 is absent from the former. That is, Athanasius has, on 
 this supposition, when writing in his Bishop's name a 
 formal document, pointedly innovated on his Bishop's 
 theological language, and that the received language of 
 his own Church. I am not supposing he did this without 
 Alexander's sanction. Indeed, the character of the Arian 
 polemic would naturally lead Alexander, as well as Atha- 
 nasius, to be jealous of the formula of the rpel<; viroaTacrei^, 
 which Arianism was using against them ; and the latter 
 would be confirmed in this feeling by his subsequent 
 familiarity with Latin theology, and the usage of the 
 Holy See, which, under Pope Damasus, as we have 
 seen, a.d. 371, spoke of one hypostasis, and in the previous 
 century, a.d. 260, protested by anticipation, in the person 
 of Pope Dionysius, against the use which might be 
 made, in the hands of enemies, of the formula of the 
 three hypostases. Still it is undeniable that Athanasius 
 does at least once speak of three, though his practice is 
 to dispense with the word and to use others instead of it. 
 Now then we have to find an explanation of this diffe- 
 rence of usage amongst Catholic writers in their applica- ^jja^g"' 
 tion of the word. It is difficult to believe that so accurate general 
 a thinker as Athanasius really used an important term in the k™, 
 two distinct, nay, contrasted senses ; and I cannot but 
 question the fact, so commonly taken for granted, that 
 the divines of the beginning of the fourth century had 
 appropriated any word whatever definitely to express either 
 the idea of Person as contrasted with that oi Essence, or of 
 
344 On St. Cyril's Fonmda 
 
 Essence as contrasted with Person. I altogether doubt 
 whether we are correct in saying that they meant by 
 hypostasis, in one country Person, in another Essence. I 
 think such propositions should be carefully proved, in- 
 stead of being taken for granted, as at present is the case. 
 Meanwhile, I have an hypothesis of my own. I think they 
 used the word in East and West with only such a slight 
 variation in its meaning, as would admit of Athanasius 
 speaking of one hypostasis or three, without any great 
 violence to that meaning, which remained substantially 
 one and the same. What this sense is I proceed to explain. 
 
 which de- The Schoolmen are known to have insisted with great 
 one^ ^ earnestness on the numerical unity of the Divine Being ; 
 
 Supreme 
 
 Being, each of the Three Divine Persons being one and the same 
 God, unicus, singularis, et totus Deus. In this, however, 
 they did but follow the recorded doctrine of the Western 
 theologians of the fifth century, as I suppose will be 
 allowed by critics generally. So forcible is St. Austin 
 upon the strict unity of God, that he even thinks it neces- 
 sary to caution his readers against supposingthat he could 
 allow them to speak of One Person as well as of Three in 
 the Divine Nature, de Trin. vii. ii. Again, in the Creed 
 Quicunque, the same elementary truth is emphatically in- 
 sisted on. The neuter unum of former divines is changed 
 into the masculine, in enunciating the mystery. " Non 
 tres asterni, sed unus aeternus." I suppose this means, 
 that Each Divine Person is to be received as the one God 
 as entirely and absolutely as He would be held to be, if 
 
of the fiia (jwcrL'i. 345 
 
 we had never heard of the other Two, and that He is not 
 
 in any respect less than the one and only God, because 
 
 They are Each that same one God also ; or in other 
 
 words, that, as each human individual being has one 
 
 personality, the Divine Being has three. 
 
 Returning then to Athanasius, I consider that this as indivi- 
 dual, per- 
 same mystery is implied in his twofold application of the sonai, 
 
 word hypostasis. The polytheism and pantheism of the 
 heathen world imagined, — not the God whom natural 
 reason can discover, conceive, and worship, one, indi- 
 vidual, living, and personal, — but a divinitas, which was 
 either a quality, whether energy or life, or an extended 
 substance, or something else equally inadequate to the 
 real idea which the word, God, conveys. Such a divinity 
 could not properly be called an hypostasis or said to be 
 in hypostasi (except indeed as brute matter in one sense 
 may be called an hypostasis), and therefore it was, that 
 that word had some fitness, especially after the Apostle's 
 adoption of it, Hebr. i. 3, to denote the Christian's God. 
 And this may account for the remark of Socrates, that 
 it was a new word, strange to the schools of ancient 
 philosophy, which had seldom professed pure theism, or 
 natural theology. "The teachers of philosophy among 
 the Greeks," he says, " have defined Msia in many ways; 
 but of hypostasis they have made no mention at all. 
 Irenasus the grammarian affirms that the word is bar- 
 barous." Hist. iii. 7. The better then was it fitted to 
 express that highest object of thought, of which the 
 " barbarians " of Palestine had been the special wit- 
 nesses. When the divine hypostasis was confessed, the 
 
 23 
 
346 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 word expressed or suggested the attributes of individu- 
 ality, self-subsistence, self-action, and personality, such 
 as go to form the idea of the Divine Being to the natural 
 as the God theologfian ; and, since the difference between the theist 
 
 of natural a ^ • 
 
 theology, and the Catholic divine in their idea of His nature is 
 simply this, that, in opposition to the Pantheist, who 
 cannot understand how the Infinite can be Personal at 
 all, the one ascribes to Him one personality and the other 
 three, it will be easily seen how a word, thus characterised 
 and circumstanced, would admit of being used, with but 
 a slight modification of its sense, of the Trinity as well 
 as of the Unity, 
 and also as Lct US take, by way of illustration, the word /torn?, 
 anJeach^ which, when applied to intellectual beings, includes the 
 Three idea of personality. Dionysius of Alexandria, for in- 
 Persons. stance, speaks of the yw.ova9 and the r/sta? : now, would it 
 be very harsh, if, as he has spoken of " three hypostases 
 ev /jAivdBi," so he had instead spoken of " the three 
 /MovdSe';," that is, in the sense of Tpi,<Tvir6cTraro<; /j,ovd<;, as 
 if the intrinsic force of the word monas would preclude 
 the possibility of his use of the plural fiovdSe'; being 
 mistaken to imply that he held more monads than one ? 
 To take an analogous case, it would be about the same 
 improper use of plural for singular, if we said that a 
 martyr by his one act gained three victories, instead of 
 a triple victory, over his three spiritual foes. 
 
 This then is what I conceive Athanasius to mean, by 
 sometimes speaking of one, sometimes of three hypo- 
 stases. The word hypostasis neither means Pei'son nor 
 Essence exclusively ; but it means the one personal God 
 
of the fji[a (ftvcTL?. 2>A1 
 
 of natural theology, the notion of whom the Catholic 
 corrects and completes as often as he views Him as a 
 Trinity ; of which correction Nazianzen's language (wi/ 
 avTO<! Kara rrjv ^vatv Koi Tfji> viroaraaiv, Orat. xxviii. 9), 
 completed by his usual formula {vid. Orat. xx. 6) of the 
 three hypostases, is an illustration. The specification of 
 three hypostases does not substantially alter the sense of 
 the word itself, but is a sort of catachresis by which this 
 Catholic doctrine is forcibly brought out (as it would be 
 by the phrase " three monads "), viz. that each of the 
 Divine Persons is simply the Unus et Singularis Deus. 
 If it be objected, that by the same mode of reasoning, 
 Athanasius might have said catachrestically not only three 
 monads or three hypostases, but three Gods, I deny it, and 
 for this reason ; because hypostasis is not equivalent to 
 the simple idea of God, but is rather a definition of 
 Him, and that in some special elementary points, as 
 essence, personality, &c., and because such a mere im- 
 proper use or varying application of the term would not 
 tend to compromise a truth, which never must even in 
 forms of speech be trifled with, the absolute numerical 
 unity of the Supreme Being. Though a Catholic could 
 not say that there are three Gods, he could say that the 
 definition of God applies to unus and tres. Perhaps it 
 is for this reason that Epiphanius speaks of rpta ivinro- 
 araTa, avvvirocTTaTa, rij? avTrjt; viroaTd<Tea)<;. Hcer. Ixxiv. 4 
 {vid. Jerome, Ep. xv. 3), in the spirit in which St. Thomas, 
 I believe, interprets the " non tres ieterni, sed unus 
 seternus," to turn on the contrast of adjective and sub- 
 stantive. 
 
34^ On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 Latitude Pctavius makcs a remark which is apposite to my 
 
 in the ■ i i 7 ^r« • 
 
 sense of present purpose. " Nomen Dei, he says, ae inn. in. 
 9, § 10, " cum sit ex eorum genere quae concreta dicuntur 
 formam significat, non abstractam ab individuis pro. 
 prietatibus, .... sed in iis subsistentem. Est enim 
 Deus substantia aliqua divinitatem habens. Sicut homo 
 non humanam naturam separatam, sed in aliquo individuo 
 subsistentem exprimit, ita tamen ut individuum ac per- 
 sonam, non certam ac determinatam, sed confuse infinite, 
 que representet, hoc est, naturam in aliquo, ut diximus, 
 consistentem ... sic nomen Dei proprie ac directe divini- 
 tatem naturamve divinam indicat, assignificat autem eun- 
 dem, ut in quapiam persona subsistentem, nullam de tribus 
 expresse designans, sed confuse et universe." Here this 
 great author seems to say, that even the word " Deus " 
 may stand, not barely for the Divine Being, but besides 
 " in quapiam persona subsistentem," without denoting 
 which Person ; and in Hke manner I would understand 
 hypostasis to mean the monas with a like undeterminate 
 notion of personality (without which attribute the idea 
 of God cannot be), and thus, according as one hypostasis 
 is spoken of, or three, the word may be roughly trans- 
 lated, in one case " personal substance," or " being with 
 personality," in the other " substantial person," or " per- 
 son which is in being." In all cases it will be equivalent 
 to the ^eoT5j9, the fiovd';, the divine oiicria, &c., though 
 with that peculiarity of meaning which I have insisted 
 on. 
 illustrated Thcsc remarks might be illustrated by a number of 
 nasius, &c. passagcs from Athanasius, in which he certainly implies 
 
of the jj-ia <fivcrL<;. 349 
 
 that the fiovd';, that is, the indivisible, numerically one 
 God, is at once Father and Son ; that the Father, who is 
 the fjLovdi, gives to the Son also to be the fiovd<i ; and to 
 have His (the Father's) hypostasis, i.e. to be that hypo- 
 stasis, which the Father is. For instance, he says that 
 the fj,ova<; de6Tr]To<; is dhiaipeTO';, though Father and Son 
 are two; — Orat. iv. i, 2. He speaks of the ravrorrj^ ri}? 
 OeoTrjTOi, and the ev6rri<i rrj:; ovcr/a?, Orat. iii. 3 ; of the 
 ivorrj^ Trj<s o/Motdscreaiv, de Syn. 45 ; of the TainoTrji rov 
 ^&)T09, de Deer. 24; of "the Father's hypostasis being 
 ascribed to the Son," Orat. iv. 33; of the TrarpiKr) deorrji; 
 being to elvai rov vlov, Orat. iii. 3 ; of to elvai rov vlov 
 being t?}? tov 7raTpo<; oucrta? iBiov. ibid. ; of the Son being 
 the TraTpiKrj t'StoTT??, Orat. i. 42 ; of the Father's ^eoTjy? 
 being in the Son, de Syn. 52 (whereas the Arians made 
 the two ^eoTijTe? different in kind) ; of the Son's Oeorrjf; 
 being the Father's, Orat. iii. 36 ; of the Son's TraTpiKr} 
 6e6rr]^, Orat. i. 45, 49 ; ii. 18, 73 ; iii. 26 ; of the Son's 
 irarpiKr) cjjvai';, Orat. i. 40 ; of the Son being to jraTpiKov 
 <f>m, iii. 53 ; and of the Son being the TrXrjpai/xa t/J? 6e6- 
 TrjTo<;, Orat. iii. i. Vid. also Didym. Trin. i. 15, p. 27; 
 16, p. 41; 18, p. 45 ; 27, p. 80; iii. 17, p. 377 ; 23, p. 409. 
 Nyss. Test. c. Jud. i. p. 292 ; Cyril, c. Nest. iii. p. 80 b. 
 
 7- 
 
 Since, as has been said above, hypostasis is a word more usia has 
 peculiarly Christian than nsia, I have judged it best to meaning, 
 speak of it first, that the meaning of it, as it is ascertained 
 
3 so On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 on inquiry, may serve as a key for explaining other 
 parallel terms. Vsia is one of these the most in use, 
 certainly in the works of Athanasius, and we have his 
 authority, as well as St. Jerome's, for stating that it had 
 been simply synonymous with hypostasis. Moreover, in 
 Orat. iii. 65, he uses the two words as equivalent to 
 each other. If this be so, what has been said above 
 in explanation of the sense he put on the word hypo- 
 stasis, will apply to usia also. 
 
 This conclusion is corroborated by the proper mean- 
 ing of the word usia itself, which answers to the English 
 word "being." But, when we speak of the Divine 
 Being, we mean to speak of Him, as what He is, 6 mv, 
 including generally His attributes and characteristics, 
 and among them, at least obscurely. His personality. 
 By the " Divine Being " we do not commonly mean a 
 mere aniuia mundi, or first principle of life, or system of 
 laws. Usia then, thus considered, agrees very nearly in 
 sense, from its very etymology, with hypostasis. Further, 
 this was the sense in which Aristotle used it, viz. for 
 what is " individuum," and " numero unum;" and it 
 must not be forgotten that the Neo-Platonists, who 
 exerted so great an influence on the Alexandrian Church, 
 professed the Aristotelic logic. Nay, to St. Cyril him- 
 self, the successor of Athanasius, whose formula these 
 remarks are intended to illustrate, is ascribed a defini- 
 tion, which makes usia to be an individual essence : ovata, 
 irpd<yiJ,a avdinrapKTOv, fir) Beofievov irepov ■7rpo<; ttjv eavTov 
 
 ^njjspfj.. criJo-Tao-tj'. Vid. Suicer. Thes. in vac. 
 
 Athlnasms. Yet this is the word, and not hypostasis, which Athana- 
 
of the fiia (j)V(Ti<;. 351 
 
 sius commonly uses, in controversy with the Arians, to 
 express the divinity of the Word. In one passage alone, 
 as far as I recollect, does he use hypostasis : ov rrjv v-iro- 
 (TTacnv ^((opii^wv rov 9eov Xoyov airo tov eK M.apia<; avOpdi- 
 ■7T0V. Orat. iv. 35. His usual term is usia : — for instance, 
 rrjv Oeiav ovaiav rov \6yov r^vaifjuevov (fivaec rS eavrov 
 iraTpL In Illud Omnia, 4. Again, 77 ova-t'a avrrj ttj? 
 ovai.a'; Trj<; irarpucfj'i eari ryivvrj/ia. de Syii. 48 ; — two re- 
 markable passages, which remind us of the two ovaiat 
 and two <j)v(rei(;, used -by the Alexandrian Pierius (Phot. 
 Cod. iig), and of the words of Theognostus, another 
 Alexandrian, ■^ rov vlov ovaia sk tj}? tov iraTpo'i ova[a<! 
 e^v. ap. Athan. de Deer. Nic. c. 25. Other instances of 
 the usia of the Word in Athanasius are such as the 
 following, though there are many more than can be 
 enumerated: — Orat. i. 10, 45, 57, 59, 62, 64 fi)i.; ii. 7, 
 9, II, 12, 13, 18, 22, 47, 56. 
 
 In all these instances tisia, I conceive, is substantially asasyn- 
 equivalent to hypostasis, as I have explained it, viz. ex- ?5>m°«k 
 pressing the divine /j.ovd<; with an obscure intimation of 
 personality inclusively ; and here I think I am able to 
 quote the words of Father Passaglia, as agreeing (so far) 
 in what I have said. " Quum hypostasis," he says, de 
 Trinitate, p. 1302, " esse nequeat sine substantia, nihil 
 vetabat quominus trium hypostasum defensores hypost- 
 asim interdum pro substantia sumerent, prsesertim ubi 
 hypostasis opponitur rei non subsistenti, ac efficientias." 
 I should wish to complete his admission by adding, 
 " Since an intellectual usia ordinarily implies an hypost- 
 asis, there was nothing to hinder usia being used, when 
 
352 On Si. Cyril's Formula 
 
 hypostasis had to be expressed." Nor can I construe usia 
 in any other way in the two passages from In Illud 
 Omnia, 4, and de Syn. 48, quoted above, to which may 
 be added Orat. ii. 47, init. where Athanasius speaks of 
 the Word as rrjv ovcrtav eavrov yiveoaKcov fiovoyevfj cro(f)iav 
 KoX r^evvriiia tov ■7rarp6<;. Again he says, Orat. iv. I, that 
 he is ef oicrLa<; ovctlcoBtji; koL. ivovcrio'i, e^ ovto<; aiv. 
 
 If we want a later instance, and from another school, 
 of usia and hypostasis being taken as practically synony- 
 mous, when contrasted with the economia, we may find 
 one in Nyssen c. Eunom. Orat. v. p. 169. 
 
 and_^Ays!s After what I have said of tisia and hypostasis, it will 
 
 also, ■ 
 
 not surprise the reader if I consider that physis also, in 
 the Alexandrian theology, was equally capable of being 
 applied to the Divine Being viewed as one, or viewed as 
 three, or as each of the three separately. Thus Athana- 
 sius says, fjLia rj OeLa ^ucrt?. contr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin. and 
 de Incarn. V. fin. Alexander, on the other hand, calls 
 the Father and Son ra? ttj viroaTcia-ei Bvo (f>vaei<; (as 
 Pierius, to whom I have already referred, uses the word), 
 Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 15 ; and so Clement, also of the Alex- 
 andrian school, rj viov Invent; tj tw fiovfo iravroKpuTopt, Trpoa- 
 e'^eaTdrrj, Strom, vii. 2. In the same epistle Alexander 
 speaks of the /ji,eaiTevov(ra<pvai,<; fj,ovoy6V]j<; ; and Athanasius 
 speaks of the j>vai<; of the Son being less divisible from 
 the Father than the radiance from the sun, de Syn. 52, 
 vid. also Orat. i. 51. Cyril too, Thesaur. xi. p. 85, speaks 
 of rj yevvTjcracra <f>v<Ti<; and 97 yevvrjdeicra e^ avTrj^; ; and in one 
 
of the jjLta ^ucrts. 353 
 
 passage, as Petavius, de Trin. iv. 2, observes, implies three 
 ^va-eK in one ovaia. Cyril moreover explains as well as 
 instances this use of the word. The <\>v(7i<; tov \6yov, he 
 says, signifies neither hypostasis alone, nor what is com- 
 mon to the hypostases, but rrjv koiv^v ^vcnv iv ttj tov \6yov 
 iiTocTTda-ei o\i,kq)<; deapovfievrjv. ap. Damasc. F. 0. iii. II. 
 And thus Didymus speaks of the avaWoiWo? (j)iia-i,<; iv 
 TavT0T7}Ti Tcov 7rpo9-(07rcov ea-Toxra. Trin. i. g. 
 
 ElSo^ is a word of a similar character. As it is found in and eisoj. 
 John V. ^y, it may be interpreted of the Divine Essence or 
 of Person ; the Vulgate translates " neque speciem ejus 
 vidistis." In Athan. Orat. iii. 3, it is synonymous with 
 6e6Tr)<; or usia ; as ibid. 6 also ; and apparently ibid. 16, 
 where the Son is said to have the eZSo? of the Father. And 
 so in de Syn. 52. Athanasius says that there is only one 
 etSo? 6e6Tr)To<;. Yet, as taken from Gen. xxxii. 31, it is 
 considered to denote the Son ; e.g. Athan. Orat. i. 20, 
 where it is used as synonymous with Image, elKwv. In 
 like manner He is called "the very etSo? rj}? deorrjTO'i." 
 Ep. ^g. 17. But again in Athan. Orat. iii. 6, it is first 
 said that the etSo? of the Father and Son are one and the 
 same, then that the Son is the etSo? of the Father's Beorr]^, 
 and then that the Son is the eZSo? of the Father. 
 
 So much on the sense of the words ovaia, inroaTaa-fi, These 
 
 ^ . terms in- 
 
 <l}va-K, and et8o9, among the Alexandrians of the fourth and ?ppiicai>i= 
 fifth centuries, as denoting fully and absolutely all that the [""^T^^ 
 natural theologian attaches to the notion of the Divine U^manity, 
 Being, — as denoting the God of natural theolog}', with 
 
354 On St. Cyril's Forimda 
 
 only such variation of sense in particular passages as the 
 context determines, and as takes place when we say, " God 
 ofheaven," "God of our fathers," "God of armies," "God 
 of peace ; " (all of which epithets, as much as " one " or 
 "three," bring out respectively different aspects of one and 
 the same idea,) and, when applied to the second Person of 
 the Blessed Trinity, meaning simply that same Divine 
 Being, Deus singularis et unicus, in persona Filii. Now 
 then the question follows, which brings us at once upon 
 the Formula, which I have proposed to illustrate ; viz., 
 since the Word is an ovaia, v-rrocrTacn';, or (j}vai,<;, can the 
 man, dv6panros, — the manhood, humanity, human nature, 
 flesh, — which He assumed, be designated by these three 
 terms in a parallel full sense, as meaning that He became 
 all that " a human being " is, man with all the attributes 
 and characteristics of man ? Was the Word a man in 
 the precise and unrestricted sense in which any one of us 
 is a man ? The Formula denies it, for it calls Him fiia 
 (pvai^ aeaapKcoiievT], not ^iio ^vasit; ; and in the sense 
 which I have been ascribing to those three terms, it 
 rightly denies it ; for in the sense in which the Divine 
 Being is an usia, &c.. His human nature is not an usia, 
 &c. ; so that in that sense there are not two (^i/crets, but 
 one only, and there could not be said to be two without 
 serious prejudice to the Catholic dogma. 
 
 10. 
 
 yet they I havc Said, " in the sense in which the Divine Being is 
 applied, an Msm;" for doubtless this and the other terms in ques- 
 
of the jjiia (f)V(Ti<;. 355 
 
 tion need not be, and are not always taken in the sense 
 which attaches to them in the above passages. 
 
 1. Hypostasis, for instance, is used for substance as e.g. Hypo- 
 
 1 • • • ■ TT t • * 1 stasis. 
 
 opposed to appearance or imagination, in Hebr. xi. i. And 
 in Hke manner Epiphanius speaks of the Word's crap/co? 
 inrocTTacnv oKtjBiv^v. Hcer. 6g, 59. And Irenseus, of 
 " substantia carnis," Hcby. iii. 22, which doubtless in the 
 original was hypostasis, as is shown by the ov hoicrja-ev, aXX' 
 viroarda-ei aXr]9el,a<;, ibid. v. I. In a like sense Cyril of 
 Jerusalem seems to use the word, Cat. vii. 3, ix. 5, 6, x. 2. 
 And Gregory Nyssen, Antirrh. 2^ fin. and apparently in 
 the abstract for existence, c. Jud. p. 291. And Cyril of 
 Alexandria, whose Formula is in question, in his contro- 
 versy with Theodoret. ^'ytrrao-t? is used for it by Athan. 
 c. Apoll. i. 5, ii. 5, 6, &c. Vid. also Max. 0pp. t. 2, p. 303, 
 and Malchion ap. Routh. Rell. t. 2, p. 484. The two 
 words are brought together in Hippol. c. Noet. 15 fin. 
 (where the word hypostasis is virtually denied of the 
 human nature), and in Nyss. Test. c. Jud. i. p. 292. 
 Also, 57 aap^ ovK virocrraait; IStoa-varaTO^ ijeyovei. 
 Damasc. c. Jacob. 53. For ISioa-verraTo^, vid. Didym. 
 Trin. iii. 23, p. 410. Ephraem, ap. Phot. Cod. 229, p. 
 785 fin. Max. 0pp. t. 2, pp. 281 and 282. 
 
 2. If even hypostasis may be found of the Word's huma- and «««, 
 nity, there is more reason to anticipate such an applica- 
 tion of the other terms which I have classed with it. 
 Thus as regards usia : 5eo? wv ofiov re koI dvOpcoiro^ 
 reXetos auros, Ta? Bvo avTov ovaia^ iiriaTcoaaTo rj/uv, 
 
 says Melito ap. Routh. Rell. 1. 1, p. 115. And Chrysostom, 
 ovyi ra? ovcrl,a<; crvyx^cov, in Psalm. 44, p. 166 ; also in 
 
356 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 Joann. Horn. ii. 2. Vid. also Basil, in Eunom. i. 18. 
 Nyssen, Antirrh. 30. Cyril. 2 ad Succ. p. 144. But the 
 word (i.e. substantia) is more common in this sense in 
 Latin writers : — e.g. Tertullian. de Cam. Christ. 13, 16, &c. 
 Prcescr. 51. Novat. de Trin. 11 and 24. Ambros. de Fid. 
 ii. 77. Augustin. Epist. 187, 10. Vincent. Commonit. 13. 
 Leon. Epist. 28, p. 811. As to Alexandrian writers. 
 Origan calls the Word's soul, substantia, Princip. ii. 6, n. 
 3, as Eusebius, voepa oiaLa, de Const. L., p. 536. Peta- 
 vius quotes Athanasius as saying, to awfia kowtjv e'xpv 
 roi^ Tracrt rrjv ovaiav, de Incarn: x. 3, § 9, t. 6, p. 13, but 
 this may be external to the union, as a'irap-)(r)v Xa^wv e'/e ri;? 
 ova-ia^ Tov avdpw-nov, Athan. de Inc. et c. Ar. 8 fin. 
 and>/5j/i«; 3. The word physis has still more authorities in its 
 favour than usia ; e.g. <^vaei<; hvo, deo<i xal dvOpa)Tro<;, Greg_ 
 Naz. Orat. xxxvii. ii. Epist. loi, pp. 85, 87. Epist. 102, 
 p. 97. Carm. in Laud. Virg. v. 149. de Vit. sua, v. 652. 
 Greg. Nyssen. c. Apoll. t. 2, p. 696. c. Eunom. Orat. 5, 
 p. 168. Antirrh. 27. Amphiloch. ap, Theod. Eran. i. 66. 
 Theod. Hcsr. v. 11, p. 422. Chrysostom, in 1 Tim. Horn, 
 7, 2. Basil. Seleuc. Orat. 33, p. 175. And so natura, in 
 Hilar. Trin. xi. 3, 14, in Psalm. 118, lit. 14, 8. Vid. also 
 Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, &c. For other instances, 
 vid. Cone. Chalc. Act. 2, t. 2, p. 300. Leon. Epist. 165. 
 Leont. c. Nestor, ap. Canis. t. i, p. 548. Anastas. Hodeg. 
 X. p. 154 (ed. 1606), Galas, de D. N. (in Bibl. P. Paris. 
 Quart. 1624), t. 4, p. 423. As for Alexandrian writers, I 
 do not cite Origan {e.g. in Matth. t. 3, pp. 852, 902, t. 4, 
 Append, p. 25, &c.), because we cannot be sure that the 
 word was found in the original Greek. But we have 6eo<; 
 
of the ixCa (j>vai<;. 357 
 
 ^v ^ixjei, Kol yiyoVev dvOpwrro'; ^va-ei, Petr. Alex. ap. 
 Routh. Rell. t. 3, pp. 344-346. And 'Ev eKarepuK ral'i 
 tj}vaeari, u('o? rov 0eov. Isid. Pelus. Epist. i. 405. And 
 Athanasius himself, ^ M'Op^v tov SouXou is ^ voepa rij? 
 avOprntrcov avcrTdcr6co<i (fivcri^ aiiv rfi opyaviKr} KaraaTaaei. 
 c. Apoll. ii. I. Vid. also i. 5, ii. 11. Orat. ii. 70, iii. 43. 
 Nor must it be forgotten that Cyril himself accepted the 
 two <j)i/a-ec<! ; vid. sf)me instances at the end of Theod. 
 Eran. ii. Vid. also c. Nest. iii. p. 70, d. e. and his Answers 
 to the Orientals and Theodoret. 
 
 II. 
 
 However, though we could bring together all the in- but not in 
 stances which Antiquity would furnish on the point, still sense, 
 the fact would stand, first, that these terms did not be 
 long to the Word's humanity in the full sense in which 
 they were used of His Divine nature; secondly, that they, 
 or at least (pvcn<;, were not ordinarily applied to it in any 
 sense by Catholic writers up to the time of Cyril. 
 
 That they did not apply to it, especially />/iys»s, in that especially 
 full sense in which it belonged to His divinity, was plain 
 on considering what was said of Him in Scripture. He 
 differed from the race, out of which His manhood was 
 taken, in many most important respects, (i) He had no 
 human father. Matt. i. 20 ; Luke i. 34, 35. Gregory 
 Nyssen, with a reference to this doctrine, says, " He first, on 
 
 ,^ Scripture 
 
 was not a man wholly {pi o\ov), not a man like others grounds, 
 altogether {koiv6<;), but He was as a man." Antirrh. 21. 
 (2) He had no human ■^ye/j.oviKov, or sovereign principle 
 
358 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 of action in the soul ; for if there were two icvpia or 
 rjr^ejjLoviicd, there were two beings together in Him, which 
 is a tenet contrary to the whole tenor of the Gospels, 
 and when put forth by some early Gnostics, was con- 
 demned, as it would seem, by St. John, i Epist. iv. 3_ 
 (3) He was sinless ; and, though sin is not part of our 
 nature, yet St. Paul does call us by nature children of 
 wrath, ^vaei, Eph. ii. 3, which would be a reason for 
 being cautious of applying the term to the Word's 
 humanity ; and, though it is true that St. Paul elsewhere 
 speaks of the law of conscience being (jjva-ei, Rom. ii. 14, 
 15, yet St. Jude speaks of a base knowledge also being 
 ipva-iKov, V. 10. (4) We may consider in addition how 
 transcendent was His state of knowledge, sanctity, &c. 
 
 (5) His body was different in fact from ours, as regards 
 corruptibility, as would appear from Acts ii. 31, xiii. 35. 
 
 (6) It had a life-giving virtue peculiar to itself, Matt. vii. 
 23 ; John ix. 6. (7) After the resurrection it had tran- 
 scendent qualities ; — came and vanished ; entered a 
 closed room; ascended on high, and appeared to St. 
 Paul on his conversion, while it was in heaven. 
 
 12. 
 next, on But bcsidcs this argument from the sacred text, there 
 
 grounds of . ,. , 
 
 reason. Seemed a necessity from the nature of the case to lay 
 down restrictions so great, on the sense in which the 
 Word took our common nature, as almost to deprive it of 
 that name. Xhe divine and human could not be united 
 without some infringement upon the one or the other. 
 
of the jxCa. (f)v(TLS. 359 
 
 There were those indeed, who, like some early teachers of 
 the Gnostic family, whom I just now spoke of, and the 
 Nestorians at a later date, escaped from the difficulty by 
 denying the union ; but, granting two contraries were to 
 meet in one, how could that union be, without affecting, 
 in its own special attributes and state, either the human 
 or the divine ? Which side of the alternative was to 
 be followed, is plam without a word ; ovk ev crco/xari wv 
 efioXvvero, says Athanasius, aXXa /xaXXov koI to acofia 
 rjyta^ev. Incarn V. D. 17. There is a similar passage, 
 Nyssen, ^MitVrA. 26. tov yap fifierepov pinrov, &c. Here 
 we are concerned with the alternative itself. Either the 
 Word must be absorbed into the man, or the man taken 
 up into the Word. The consideration of these opposite 
 conclusions will carry us nearly to the end of our dis- 
 cussion ; I shall pursue the separate investigation of 
 them under the letters a and b. 
 
 (a) The former of these was the conclusion in which re- The divine 
 
 physis must 
 
 suited the speculations of the Sabellians and Samosatenes, j^J*'" '•>« 
 
 ^ fulness of 
 
 who explained away the " incarnate Word " into a mere butesT 
 divine attribute, virtue, influence, or emanation, which 
 dwelt in the person of one particular man, receiving its 
 perfect development in him, and therefore imperfect be- 
 fore the union, changed in the act of union, dependent 
 on him after the union. Eusebius (whose language, 
 however, is never quite unexceptionable) may be taken 
 as the spokesman of the Catholic body on this point. 
 " The indwelling Word," he says, " though holding fami- 
 liar intercourse with mortals, did not fall under the 
 sympathy of their affections ; nor, after the manner of 
 
360 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 a man's soul, was fettered down by the body, or changed 
 for the worse, or came short of His proper divinity." 
 de Laud. C. p. 536. And then he has recourse to an 
 illustration, common with the Fathers, and expressed by 
 Eustathius of Antioch thus : — " If the sun, which we see 
 with our eyes, undergoes so many indignities, yet without 
 disgrace or infliction, do we think that the immaterial 
 Wisdom is defiled or changes His nature, though the 
 the temple in which He dwells be nailed to the Cross, or 
 suffers dissolution, or sustains a wound, or admits of 
 corruption ? No, the temple is affected, but the stainless 
 usia remains absolutely in its unpolluted dignity," ap. 
 Theod. Eran. iii. p. 237. Vid. also Vigil. Thaps. c. Eutych. 
 ii. g, p. 727. And Anast. Hodeg. 12, in controversy with 
 Apollinarians, Eutychians, &c., who were involved in 
 the same general charge, 
 therefore (6) But, on the Other hand, if the divinity remains un- 
 
 the human , i , i . . . ^ 
 
 /Aj-JK must changed, change must happen to the humanity: and 
 
 have a re- "^ 
 
 stricted accordingly, the Fathers are eloquent upon the subject of 
 
 meaning. o ./ ' t j- j 
 
 this change, which from the very nature of the case, and 
 independent of the direct testimony of scripture and tra- 
 dition, was necessary. To say nothing of the celebrated 
 passages in Nyssen, who has no special connexion with 
 the Alexandrian Church, I shall content myself with a 
 passage from Origen : " Si massa aliqua ferri semper in 
 igne sit posita, omnibus suisporisomnibusquevenisignem 
 recipiens, et tota ignis effecta, si neque ignis ab ea cesset 
 aliquando, neque ipsa ab igne separetur, nunquidnam 
 dicimus banc . . . posse frigus aliquando recipere ? . . . 
 . . . Sicut . . . totam ignem effectam dicimus, quoniam 
 
of the fiCa (l>vat<;. 361 
 
 nee aliud in ea nisi ignis eernitur, sed et si quis contingere 
 atque attreetare tentaverit, non ferri, sed ignis vim sen- 
 Hat ; hoe ergo modo, etiam ilia anima, quae, quasi ferrum 
 in igne, sic semper inVerbo, semper in Sapientia, semper 
 in Deo posita est, omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intel- 
 ligit, Deus est," &c. de Princ. ii. 6, n. 6; vid. contr. Cels. iii. 
 41, p. 474. Hence Isidore, another Alexandrian, says that 
 the Word called flimself bread, because He, as it were, 
 baked His human substance — {ttjv ^vfir^v tov avOpanreiov 
 ^vpd/jLaTo'i ; vid. <j)vpa/j,a also Hippol. Elench. p. 338) — 
 "in the fire of His own divinity." Epist. 1.^60. Passages 
 from Cyril, Damascene, &c., might be quoted to the same 
 effect, e.g. Cyr. Quod unus, p. 776. Damasc. c. Jacob. 
 p. 409. Hence it was usual with Athanasius and other 
 Fathers to call the incarnation a deacn'i or deoirouqcn'; of the 
 dvOpcinrovov {vid. Concil. Antioch. infr. p. 374. Athan. de 
 Deer. 14 fin. de Syn. 51. Orat. i. 42, &c. &c.), from the 
 great change which took place in its state, or rather 
 difference in its state from human nature generally. 
 
 13- 
 
 But, if the humanity assumed was thus extricated from How then 
 the common usia or phy sis, to which, under other circum- human 
 
 physis at 
 
 stances, it would have belonged, and, being grafted upon ^u? 
 the Word, existed from the very first in a super-natural 
 state, how could it be properly called nature ? In the 
 words of Damascene, 19 /tev ^uo-t? t^? a-apKo'i Oeovrat, oii 
 aapicol Se rfjv <f>vcnv rov Xoyov. Oeol fih' to ■irpoaKfiiJ.ixa, 
 ov a-apKovrai, he. c. Jacob. 52, p. 409. It is but in accord- 
 
 24 
 
362 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 ance with this train of thought to lay down, that there 
 
 is only one nature in Christ. Here, then, we see the 
 
 meaning of Cyril's Formula. 
 
 Hence the It means (3), first, that when the Divine Word became 
 
 CyrU's man, He remained one and the same in essence, attri- 
 
 Formula. 
 
 butes, and personality ; in all respects the same as 
 before, and therefore )xla (f)vcri(;. 
 
 It means (b), secondly, that the manhood, on the con- 
 trary, which He assumed, was not in all respects the same 
 nature as that massa, usia, physis, &c., out of which it 
 was taken, i, from the veiy circumstance that it was only 
 an addition or supplement to what He was already, not 
 a being complete in itself; and 2, because in the act of 
 assuming it. He changed it in its qualities. 
 
 This added nature, then, was best expressed, not by a 
 second substantive, as if collateral in its position, but 
 by an adjective or participle, as aeaapKcofiivij. The 
 three words answered to St. John's o X6709 aap^ iyevero, 
 i.e. creaapKODfievo'i rjv. 
 
 14. 
 
 Illustration We havc an apposite illustration of this account of the 
 cH of " Formula in an early passage of history, as contained in the 
 
 Antioch, i . i 
 
 fragmentary documents which remam to us of the Great 
 Council of Antioch, a.d. 264-272 (to which I have already 
 referred), in which Paul of Samosata was condemned, 
 Malchion being the principal disputant against him. 
 Paul denied that the Divine Being was in Christ in 
 essence or personality ; I say " in essence or person- 
 
of the fjiia ^ucri?. 363 
 
 ality," for, as I have explained above, since the Divine 
 Essence cannot be without personahty, to deny the one 
 was to deny the other, and the further question, whether 
 that personahty was single or trine, did not directly come 
 into controversy. By such a doctrine, both points of 
 Cyril's subsequent formula were sacrificed : — (a) the 
 divine physis in Emmanuel was explained away, and (6) 
 the flesh, being denied its hypostatic union, was no 
 longer V7rep(j)vij<i, but remained in its strictly natural usia, 
 as any other individual of our race who was in the divine 
 favour. The Synodal Epistle strikes at (a) the former of 
 these errors ; and the fragments of Malchion's disputa- 
 tion (b) at the latter. 
 
 15- 
 (a) Paul said that the Word was not incarnate as an which 
 
 teaches 
 
 usia, but only as a quality: the Fathers 01 the Council theun- 
 
 ' •' 1 J' > alterable- 
 
 therefore declare that, on the contrary. He really was an "^f j|!|,'^^ 
 usia and hypostasis (for they use the terms as equivalent) '"'"■ 
 Routh. Rell. t. 2, p. 466 ; a ^wcra evepjeia evvjr6crTaTo<;, 
 p. 469 ; the Creator of the universe, p. 468 ; and Son 
 and God before the creation, p. 466 ; and that He became 
 incarnate aTpeirTto'i. Still further to destroy the notion 
 of a separation into two beings, they call this pre-existing 
 Word Christ, p. 474, and they assert that He is ev kuI rh 
 avTo rfj ovaia, from first to last, on earth and in heaven. 
 In thus speaking, they are evidently entering a protest 
 against another contemporaneous aspect of the same doc- 
 trine, into which even Catholics had, as far as language 
 
364 On St. Cyrifs Formula 
 
 goes, been betrayed. The opinion I have in mind is 
 that of the ■irpo<^opiKo<s X0709, or that the "Word or Son, 
 at first nascent or inchoate, had been perfected by the 
 Incarnation. Not only had Tertullian said, speaking of 
 the " Fiat Lux " at creation, " Hasc est naXxvitdiS perfecta 
 serm6nis," c. Prax. 7, but Hippolytus even, that the 
 "Word, before His incarnation and Ka6' eavrov, was not 
 riXeio^ v[6<;, though TeXeio<! Xo-yo? av fiovoyev^';," c. Noet. 
 15. Vid. supr. pp. 272, 280. 
 together Now, all thcse points, the oneness and identity of the 
 
 withCatho . . . 
 
 lie doctors Word Considered m usia, His unalterableness in His in- 
 
 generally, 
 
 carnation. His perfection from eternity. His one sonship, 
 and the impiety of dividing Word and Son, or holding two 
 sons, were traditional matters for Catholic teaching and 
 preaching (against those who imagined some change or 
 other in His nature or state), from the date of this Council, 
 two hundred years before Cyril, down to that of the 
 Council of Chalcedon, after his death, to say nothing of 
 other periods of history. Cyril comes in merely as one 
 instance of the inculcation of this doctrine out of a hun- 
 dred like his. His peculiarity is his using the term physis 
 of the Word (which, as I have instanced supr. p. 352, 
 was a specially Alexandrian word for usia or hypostasis), 
 and yet not using it for our Lord's humanity, 
 with Atha- All this may be illustrated from Athanasius, who, in 
 controversy not only with ApoUinarians, but with teachers 
 of the Samosatene school, had to protest against any 
 degradation of the Word's nature, and therefore to main- 
 tain His unity, His unchangeableness, and His perfection. 
 " They fall into the same folly as the Arians," he says, 
 
 nasius 
 
of the fiCa (j)vai^. 365 
 
 " for the Arians say that He was created that He might 
 create ; as if God waited till creation, for His probole (iva 
 irpo^aXrjTai), as these say" (vid. e.g. Tertullian supr.), 
 " or His creation, as those " (the Arians). He goes on to 
 condemn the notion that o \6yo<;, ev to3 dew areX^? jevvr)- 
 6el<s, is reXeioi; (vid. Hippolytus supr.); " He was not any- 
 thing, that He is not now, nor is He what He was not " 
 (here is the " one»and the same " of the Council supr.), 
 "otherwise He will have to be imperfect a.nd alterable.'' 
 Oral. iv. 11, 12. Again : " The world was made by Him ; 
 if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that 
 Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, 
 for by Him it came into being." ig. " As the Father is 
 one," he says, " so also the /jLovoyevij<; is one." 20. Tavrov 
 6 u(o? Kal X070?. 29. " Those men degrade the Divine 
 incarnation and think as heathens do, who conceive that 
 it involves an alteration, rpoTrij, of the Word ; . . . but 
 let a man understand the divine mystery, to be one and 
 simple," 32. Again : " God's Word is one and the same ; 
 as God is one, His Image is one, His Word one, and one 
 His Wisdom." Oral. ii. ^6. Elsewhere he says, " God's 
 Word is not merely irpo^opiKo^, nor by His Son is meant 
 His command," e.g. Fiat lux, "but He is reXeto? iic reXeiov," 
 ibid. ii. 35, Vid. also iii. 52, Epiph. Hcer. 76, p. 945, Hilar. 
 Trin. ii. 8. Also Didym. Trin. i. 10, fin. 20, p. 63, 32, 
 p. 99, iii. 6, p. 357. Nyssen, Antirrh. 21 and 56. 
 
 So again, avro^ arpeirro'; jjksvmv koI /xr] aX\oLov/Mevo<; iv and other 
 
 " ' a I > ' \.^,/ /Ai_ Fathers, 
 
 TJ; avOpmirivrj oiKovofua kul ttj evaapKO) irapovo'ia, Athan. 
 Orat. ii. 6. And so again co7ttr. Apoll. ii. 3, 7. And 
 so Pseudo-Athanasius, ap. Phot. : " The Word took flesh 
 
366 On St. Cyril's Fortnula 
 
 to fulfil the econoijiy, and not ei's av^rjcriv ovcria'i." And 
 so, OvcrLa fievovcra otrep eVrt, Chryst. in foan. Horn. xi. I, 
 Naz. Orat. 29, ig, Procl. ad Arm. p. 615, Maxim. 0pp. 
 t. 2, p. 286. And so, " Manens id quod erat, factus quod 
 non erat," August. Cons. Ev. i. 53. Vid. also Hilar. Trin. 
 iii. 16 ; Vigil, c. Eut. i. 3, p. 723. And in like manner Leo, 
 " Sitnplex et incommutabilis natura Deitatis [in Verbo] tota 
 in sua sit semper essentia (usia), nee damnum sui recipiens 
 aut augmentum, assumptam naturam beatificans." Epist. 
 35, 2. And again, " In se incommutabilis perseverans ; 
 deitas enim, quae illi cum Patre communis est (i.e. 17 
 (j)vai,<; rov 0eov Xoyou) nullum detrimentum omnipotentiae 
 subiit (i.e. fiLa ea-riv) ; . . . quia summa et sempiterna 
 essentia (i.e. ovaia fj-ia)," &c. &c. Leon. Serin. 27, i. 
 who there- Moreovcr, I do not think it a refinement to suggest 
 b°uTeYh"" that this was one reason why so many of the Fathers in- 
 conception terprct Lukc i. 35 of the Word, not of the Spirit. It 
 
 to the ope- , . . , ~ _ _ . , . 
 
 ration of was their Wish to enforce His personal being and omni- 
 
 theWord. . _ '^ . f 
 
 potent life before and in the first beginnings of the 
 economy ; as is done by Athanasius by saying \6yo<; iv tco 
 TTvev/jiaTt eifKaTTe to aSijjba. Serap. I, 31, and elsewhere 
 by referring to Prov. ix. i ; e.g. Orat. ii. 44, and so Leo, 
 Epist. 31, 2. Thus Irenseus (after insisting on the real 
 existence of both natures, and saying, " if what had 
 existed in truth, ouk e/jLeive Trvev/xa after the incarnation, 
 truth was not in Him ") proceeds to say that the " Verbum 
 Patris et Spiritus Dei viventem et perfectum effecit 
 hominem." Hcer. v. i. Hilary too, after laying down 
 " Forma Dei manebat," Trin. ix. 14, adds, " ut manens 
 Spiritus Christus, idem Christus homo esset," with a 
 
of the jMta <j>v(rL<;. 367 
 
 reference to the passage in St. Luke. Clement, too, says, 
 contrasting the personality of the Christian X0709 with the 
 Platonic, o X0709 eavrov yevva, Strom, v. 3. This doctrine 
 of one vloTTf'i with a double yevvTiai';, must not be con- 
 founded with the Sabellian tenet of the vioTraTwp, which 
 related to the Trinity, not the Incarnation. It is with the 
 same purport that the creed in Epiphanius speaks of the 
 Son as "not in man, but et? eavrov a-apxa avatrXaaavTa, 
 eh ixiav a'^iav evorrjra." Ancor. fin. 
 
 16. 
 
 So much on the light thrown upon the fj,i,a cf)V(TK (viz. Thus 
 rov 6eov Xoyov), by the language of other Feathers. Cyril, by the One 
 
 too, in like manner, does but teach that the ^ucrt? of the 
 Word is fiia, one and the same. His " One nature of 
 God " implies, with the Council of Antioch, a protest 
 against that alterableness and imperfection, which the 
 anti-Catholic schools affixed to their notion of the Word. 
 The Council says "one and the same in usia : " it is not 
 speaking of a human usia in Christ, but of the divine- 
 The case is the same in Cyril's Formula ; he speaks of a 
 /xta 6ela ^vctk in the Word. He has, in like manner, 
 written a treatise entitled "Quod unus sit Christus;" 
 and in one of his Paschal Epistles he enlarges on the 
 text, "Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day the same and 
 for ever." His great theme in these works is, not the 
 coalescing of the two natures into one, but the error of 
 making two sons, one before and one upon the Incarna- 
 tion, one divine, one human, or again of degrading the 
 
 nature 
 denotes 
 
368 On St. Cyrils Formula 
 
 divine usia by making it subject to the humanity. Vid. 
 also his Answers adv. Oriental, el Theod. passim. 
 the Word's Thus, for instance, he says to Nestorius : " It is at once 
 
 eternity, . • j 
 
 ignorant and impious even to imagine that the Word 
 of the Father should be called to a second beginning of 
 being, or to have taken flesh of the Holy Virgin, as some 
 ViinA oi rool of his own exislence," c. Nest. i. p. 7. Vid. 
 also ibid. p. 5, c. 
 
 unity, So to Successus, "There is one Son, one Lord, before the 
 
 incarnation and after ; the Word was not one Son, and 
 the child of the Virgin another ; but avrb'; iiceu'o^ 6 
 irpoaiwvLO'i, man, not by change of nature, but by econo- 
 mical good pleasure." Ep. i, pp. 136-7. Vid. c. Nest. 
 iv. fin. XpicTTov eva Koi vlov kol Kvpiov airoreTeKeKe rov 
 avTov ovra deov Ka\ avOptoirov, ibid. ii. 58. " The nature 
 of the Word remained what it was," ibid. i. p. 15. 
 MefjLevrjKe iv avOpwTroTrjTi 6e6<i, ibid. iii. p. 73. " He is 
 one, Ka\ ov Bl.'x^a aapK6<;, who in His own nature is e^w 
 aapKo<;, ibid. p. 45. -EI? voeiTUL fiera (TapKo^;," ibid. 55. 
 Vid. also ii. p. 60 A, and ad Succ. Ep. 2, p. 145. 
 
 And when he is formally called on to explain his For- 
 mula, his language is still more explicit in the same sense. 
 
 unaiter- " He remained what He was, (^jvaei, Oe6<;; and He remained 
 one Son ; but not without flesh," ad Succ. Ep. 2, p. 142. 
 "The (j}vaK of the Word has not changed into ttjv t^? 
 crapKo ; (pvaiv, nor the reverse ; but each remaining and being 
 recognised ev IBlottiti t§ kuto, (pvcriv by an ineffable union, 
 He shows to us jj.t,av vlov (f>vai,v, but that (pvaiv aeaapKW- 
 /j-ivrjv," ibid. "Had we," he continues, "stopped without 
 adding aea-apKco/Mevrj, they might have had some pretence 
 
of the [ixa. <j>v(TLi;. 369 
 
 for speaking, but ^ ev avOpcoiroTrjTi, xeXeioT?;? and tj Kaff 
 rifia^ ova-ia is conveyed in the word a-ea-apKwfievr)," ibid. 
 p. 144, &c. 
 
 17- 
 
 (b) Now we come in the next place to o-ecrap/cM/iei'j^, xhe same 
 and must return to the Council of Antioch and Paul of telches 
 Samosata, and to Malchion, who was appointed by the word's 
 Council to dispute with him. occupies 
 
 ^ the huma- 
 
 Malchion views Paul's doctrine in its consequences "''y- 
 to the humanity assumed. He accuses him of denying 
 oiffiaxrOai ev tc5 o\(p acoTf/pi, rov vVov rov fiovoyevfj, Routh. 
 Rell. t. 2, p. 476 ; rrjv (ro^tav avyye'yevrfaOai rm avOpwinva 
 oicricoB&'i, p. 484 ; Bi eavTrjt; eTnBeBrj/MrjKei'at, oiiataSaii; ev toj 
 <7cofiaTi, p. 485 ; ovcruav eivai ovo'Ko/j.ei'rjv ev crwfiaTi,, p. 485 ' 
 6eov crvvov<7io}/jbevov to5 av6panr(p, p. 486 ; that is, of denying 
 that the divine usia in its fulness had simply taken posses- 
 sion of, occupied, and permeated an individual of our race, 
 and that all that was in His human nature, totum quan- 
 tumcumque, was lived in by, and assumed into, the usia 
 of the Word. What had been from eternity an usia only 
 in itself, now manifested itself as ev rrj Kricrei or ev rot? 
 'yevrjToii; ; whereas Paul held nothing more than that a 
 human usia had received the Divine Wisdom Kara iroio- 
 TTjTa, p. 484. In a fragment of Africanus (a.d. 220), we 
 find a statement parallel to Malchion's, the same promi- 
 nence being given to the Divine Nature in contrast with 
 the economy. 'Ev ttj oiKovofiia, &)? Kara r^v oiiaiav oXrjv 
 ov<Ticodel<;, dv0pQ)Tro<; Xeyerai, ibid. p. 125 ; that is. His 
 
370 On St. CyrU's Formula 
 
 absolute and whole divinity, not an emanation, or virtue, 
 or attribute, simply filled, energetically appropriated, 
 and sovereignly ruled a human nature as an adjunct ; 
 and he refers to Col. ii. 9, in which it is said that in Him, 
 that is, in the human nature, dwells the whole fulness 
 of the Divinity aco/j-uTiKwi;, substantially. Vid. the 
 striking passage in Cyril, c. Nest. i. p. 28, a. b. and 
 •7ra-)(vveTaL, Damasc. c. Jacob, p. 409. In these state- 
 ments, the usia of the Word is put so prominently for- 
 ward as to imply prima facie that in His economy there 
 is no usia besides it. Compare with them Athanasius's 
 words, in his de Decretis : — " As we, by receiving the 
 Spirit, do not lose our proper usia, so the Lord, when 
 made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God : for 
 He was not lessened by the envelopment of the -body, 
 but rather deified it and rendered it immortal ; " 14. If 
 we were to bring out in a formal statement the impression 
 which such a parallel creates, it would be this — that 
 the Word had one usia, divine ; and we one usia, human ; 
 and that as our proper usia remains one and the same, 
 /iia (^ivai^, though it received grace, so the divine usia 
 remained one and the same, though it took upon it 
 humanity, as an adjunct or possession. And, in like 
 manner, Didymus, on Acts ii. 36, after contrasting the 
 usia of the Word with the Word as " conformed to our 
 humiliation," says, " To describe a thing as being in this, 
 way or that, is not to declare its usia;" Trin. iii. 6. 
 ?hehuma- Now there is another way of expressing the same doc- 
 takenup trine, viz., to say, not that the Word came as an usia 
 Word's into a created nature, but became an usia to, or the usia 
 
 jtsia, 
 
of the fiCa <f)vaL<s. 371 
 
 of, a created nature. In this mode of statement it is not 
 said that the Word ovaicoOr] ev t^ KTiaei, but f] ktictk 
 ovaimOr] in the Word ; but the meaning is the same, for in 
 both cases only one Usia is spoken of, who, besides being 
 what He is in and for Himself, kuO' eavrbv, i<f> eavrov, &c., 
 also makes Himself, and serves as, an usia to the created 
 nature which He assumes. Thus (for illustration, but 
 illustration only), fire oiiaiwdri in iron, or is in iron, be- 
 cause its real and substantial presence is in every part 
 of the mass, which is simply mastered by it ; and iron 
 ovcnddt] in fire, or is in fire, in the sense that it is trans- 
 formed into a new nature, which depends for what it is 
 solely on the presence of the iire. Accordingly Nazianzen, 
 after saying deov S' oXov /xerecr^ei' avOpai'iTov ^vai^, that is 
 6eb<; oiiaLwdrj ev ^vcret avdpdirov, goes on to speak of human 
 nature as ova-icoOela-' (i.e. ev deS) wairep avyac<; i]Xio^, de 
 Vit. sua, V. 642, the material body of the sun being 
 flooded with light. Here then, as little as in the former 
 form of speech, are two usias spoken of. 
 
 This latter mode of speaking will be illustrated by the asanaio- 
 
 r o -J gously the 
 
 parallel use of it by Athanasius in relation to the creation ^['^^^'"ta- 
 generally, not to the hypostatic union. He says (analo- Hu^mi? 
 gously) that the whole universe depends for its stability 
 upon the Word ; that the 0uo-(? twv jevrjTcbv, as having 
 its hypostasis i^ ovk ovtcov {i.e. from what has no ovala), 
 is evanescent, and must be protected against itself. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Creator, ovaimaa'; t7]v ktLo-iv in His Word, 
 does not abandon it rfj eavrri<; <\>iia-ei ^epeadai, &c., c. 
 Gent. 41, vid. Didym. Trin. iii. 4, p. 351. 
 
 Contrast 
 
 And this illustration enables us to advance a step between 
 
 physis 
 and usia. 
 
372 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 further. Even in Nazianzen's verses supr. usia is con- 
 trasted with physis as with something inferior to itself; 
 the contrast is brought out more pointedly in the last 
 statement of Athanasius, and it will appear that, if there 
 were reasons for backwardness in calling the Word's 
 humanity an usia, lest it should introduce the notion of a 
 second and independent being, so there were even stronger 
 reasons against calling it a. physis. 
 
 The Physis is a word of far wider extent of meaning than 
 
 proper 
 
 meaning usiu, and may be said to be a predicate of which usia may 
 
 oi physis 
 
 be made the subject. When applied to the Supreme Being, 
 it means His attributes ; as, Ihiov 'yvrnpio'iiarrji; deiw; ^vcreo)? 
 Tj (piXavOpcoTTua, Nyssen. Orat. Caiech. 15. When applied 
 to the universe, it means phenomena ; hence, those who 
 investigate them, as distinct from ontologists, whose sub- 
 ject is usia, are called physicists. When applied to man, 
 it means his moral disposition, &c., as the poet's "Naturam 
 expellas furca," &c., and as we speak of good and ill 
 nature. When applied to the moral (as well as to the 
 material) world, it means the constitution or laws which 
 characterise it ; Butler saying, that " the only distinct 
 meaning of the word is stated, fixed, settled," Anal., part i. 
 ch. i. Hence, though in the Catholic doctrine of the 
 Holy Eucharist, the substance of the bread ceases to be, 
 the natura, as being what schoolmen have called the 
 accidents, may be said to remain, as in the Epistle to 
 Csesarius ascribed to Chrysostom, in which we read. 
 
of the \Lia. <f)vcris. ^73 
 
 "divina sanctificante gratia, mediante Sacerdote, dignus 
 habitus est, [panis] dominici corporis appellatione 
 etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit." 
 
 But if physis or natura is thus to be taken for the shows the 
 
 delicacy 
 
 attributes and propeities of humanity generally, as con- ?f apply- 
 
 ing 
 trasted with usia or essence, it became a grave question J^™ 
 
 His 
 
 whether, in applying it to the Word's humanity, there ''"'™°"5'- 
 was not the risk oT that very degradation of the divine 
 usia, against which the Catholic writers, as we have seen, 
 so strongly protested. If an human usia involved the 
 risk of two beings or personalities, a human physis im- 
 plied a contamination with human passions and excesses. 
 St. Hilary, while he adopts the word, illustrates the abuse 
 which might be made of it. " Si assumpta caro," he says, 
 " id est, totus homo, passionum est permissa naturis," 
 &c. Trin. x. 24. Tertullian, on the other hand, taking 
 the word in the same general sense, repudiates it, and 
 adopts substantia (usia) instead, making natura equiva- 
 lent to culpa. He says that the Word, in taking flesh > 
 abolished, "non carnem peccati sed peccatum carnis, non 
 materiam sed naturam, non substantiam sed culpam." de 
 Cam. Christ: 16. Leo corrects this language pointedly, 
 saying, " Assumpta est natura non culpa." Serm. 22, 3. 
 Athanasius, too, as the Greek Fathers and Catholics 
 generally, reserves the word physis for our moral consti- 
 tution as it came from the Creator, and refers sin to the 
 will of the individual. He says that it is " the impiety 
 of the Manichees to say that the t^uo-t? of the a-dp^, and 
 not merely the Trpa^K, is sin." c. Apoll. i. 12-19 ; vid. 
 also ii. 6-9, and Vit. Ant. 20. 
 
374 On Si. Cyril's Formula 
 
 which is But, on the other hand, in matter of fact, the humanity 
 
 m a state 
 
 above of the Word was not left in its natural state, but as the 
 
 nature, 
 
 Council of Antioch had said, TeOeoiro'vrjTai ; since then it 
 was beyond all doubt in a state above nature or super- 
 natural, why (as I have said above) should it be any 
 longer called a nature ? It was that which would have 
 been a nature, had it not been destined to be united from 
 the first to the Word ; but in fact it had been taken out 
 of the massa, the (f>vpafj,a, twv 'yevrfrSiv, and been re- 
 fashioned, as Isidor said, supy., "by fire of the divinity." 
 "The body itself," says Athanasius, "which had a 
 mortal (^oaiv, rose again virep cjjvcnv, on account of the 
 Word which was in it, and lost the corruption which is ' 
 Kara ^v<Tiv, and became incorruptible, being clad in the 
 Word, which is virep avOpcoirov." ad Epict. i.e. That 
 which had a special fulfilment after the resurrection, 
 was analogously true in the incarnation itself. 
 
 When then Cyril said a-ea-ap/ctofievr], he meant to express 
 that our Lord's humanity had neither the ^ye/xoviKov of 
 an tisia, nor the imperfections and faults of a physis. 
 
 19. 
 
 andthere. No wouder then, these things being considered, that, 
 
 fore not » , 
 
 commonly alter we have done our utmost, we shall be unable to 
 
 called 
 
 M^sis, discover more than a few instances in the early Fathers, 
 compared with the multitude of opportunities which the 
 subject-matter of their works admits, of dogmatic state- 
 ments verbally contrary to Cyril's Formula, while, on the 
 other hand, that Formula admits, or even requires by its 
 
of the [lia <f)V(ri?. 375 
 
 very wording, an explanation absolutely consistent with 
 the Catholic dogma, as expressed, at least in Alexandria, 
 up to his time. No wonder that, while the whole body 
 of theologians admitted the eK Svo ^vaecov, it remained 
 for a Pope, who saw with a Pope's instinctive sagacity ''".i-''' 
 the need of the times, to explain the old truth, in which o°chaice- 
 all parts of Christendom agreed, under the comparatively ''°"' 
 new formula of tMfe eV hval <^va-eai. To prove a negative, 
 difficult at all times, cannot be expected here ; but as I have 
 given specimens of the Catholic use of physis or natuva, 
 in application to the humanity of the Word, which, 
 though not near all which could be found, are sufficient 
 to justify the Council of Chalcedon in adopting it into 
 their formal definition of faith ; so now, in conclusion, I as proved 
 will, in addition to the general considerations which I sarfy 
 have enlarged on in explanation of Cyril's Formula, set 
 down some instances of the absence of the word physis 
 in great theological authorities and others during the 
 first four centuries, in denoting the Word's humanity, 
 where it might naturally have been expected. 
 
 20. 
 I. Thus Athanasius, in a remarkable passage, in which whoap- 
 
 . . , . f. . propriate 
 
 his eagerness to avoid ascribing human imperfection to the term 
 the Word's humanity makes him speak as if he would divinity, 
 deny to it a will (which is contrary to his categorical state- 
 ment elsewhere, de Incarn. et c. Ar. 21), uses physis simply 
 for His divine nature. " He set up anew," he says, "the 
 form of man in Himself, in the spectacle of a flesh which 
 
376 On St. CyriVs Formula 
 
 had no fleshly wills or human thoughts, in an image of 
 renovation. For the will is of the OeoTiq'; alone; since the 
 whole ^uo-t? of the Word was there." c. Apoll. ii. lo. 
 And he argues, against the Arian objection from " The 
 Lord created me," &c., in Prov. viii. 22, not simply that 
 it refers to the Word's human usia, but that it does not 
 refer to His usia (as if He had no usia but one), that it 
 refers to something happening Trepl iKeivov, something 
 adventitious, an adjunct or circumstance, which is not 
 such as at all to warrant the inference that " what is 
 said to be created is at once in nature and usia a creature." 
 Orat. ii. 45. 
 and des- 2. The forcc of this last expression irepl iKeivov will be 
 
 cribe the 
 
 humanity seen in the de Deer. 22, where he not only denies that the 
 
 as an -^ . 
 
 rnern'"''' divine usia admits of accidents, but that it has anything 
 " about it " necessary for its perfection ; e^coOiv riva irepi- 
 ^o\r)v e^eiv, Kal KaXinrrecrOai, rj elval riva irepl aviov. 
 Such a irepi^oKr) then, or KaXvfifia, he considers the 
 humanity. Hence, in spite of the Apollinarian perversion 
 of the idea, we find it called a irepi^oXij, Theod. Eran. i. 
 p. 23 ; KoXvfifia, Athan. Sabell. Greg. 4 ; -TrpoKoXvp.p.a, 
 Theod. ihid. also Gent. vi. p. 877 ; KaraireTaa-jjua, Athan. 
 ad Adelph. 5, Cyril. Cat. xii. 26. xiii. 22. Cyril. Alex. Quod 
 unus, p. 761. •jrpoireraa-fj.a, Athan. Sabell. Greg. 4. irapa- 
 Treracr/Ma, Theod. ibid. p. 22. (ttoXtj, ibid. p. 23. Velamen, 
 Leon. Epist. 59, p. 979. Serm. 22, p. 70. 25, p. 84. Vid. 
 also the striking illustration, Athan. Orat. ii. 7, 8. 
 as an ad- 3- ^ ^^^^^ term, which became a term of science, was 
 ^""''*' ■TrpoaXfjfj.fia and the parts of its verb ; 6 Trpo? avrbv \ri<f>6ei'i, 
 Athsin.Orat.iv. Z-o •7rpo(T\T](f>0el'idv6pa)'7ro<!,l>iyssen.Antirrh. 
 
of the jjiCa Even's. ^yy 
 
 35. TO \rj<f)9ev, Cyril, c. Nest. iii. p. 69. to nrpocrXa^bv koX 
 TO ■7rpo<r\ri<f)6ev, Naz. Orat. xxxvii. 11. -n-poa-Xa^cov, Isid. 
 Ep. i. 323. KaTo. 'rrpoa-Xriy^iv, Cyril, ad Succ. Ep. 2, p. 1422. 
 irpoa-Xrjfip.a Naz. de Vit. sua, v. 648. Damasc. F. 0. iii. i. 
 
 4. These words denote the humanity in i-elation to ^^^' 
 the divine Msia; another word, "first-fruits," which is 
 taken from St. Paul, considers it in relation to that uni- 
 versal human phy%is, from which it was taken ; but 
 marks still the same reluctance in theologians to call it 
 distinctly by the latter name. ^Airapxh e« t^? ovaia^ 
 
 tS)v avOpmiroav, says Athanasius, de Incarn. et c. Ar. 8. 
 And so Orat. iv. 33. Didym. Trin. iii. gfin. Cyril, c. Nest. 
 i. p. 5. Nyssen. Antirrh. 15 fin. 
 
 5. The same reluctance is evidenced by the omission "0'.?=.*"- 
 of the phrase 6/j,oov(rio^ tjixIv, in relation to the humanity. '""' "^• 
 This phrase is found in Eustathius and Theophilus ap. 
 Theod. Eran. i. p. 56, ii. p. 154, and in Amphilochius 
 
 ap. Phot. Cod. 229, p. 789 ; as is 6fjb6<^v\o<; in Procl. ad 
 Ann. pp. 613, 618, and ofj.oyev^'i Athan. vS. D. 10. But 
 the word o/u.oovcrio'; itself Athanasius singularly avoids 
 in this last passage, though he has just used it in ex- 
 pounding John XV. I, &c. And he still more remarkably 
 avoids it in his ad Epict. and contr. Apoll., where it was 
 the natural amendment upon ofioovaio's ttj deoTrjTi, 
 which he is combating ; yet he does not use it once, 
 nay, he scaixely once, if ever, uses even ef oucrta? 
 Mapi,a<;, substituting for it simply e'/e Mapia<;. 
 
 6. In like manner, in the antithesis between the divine and omit 
 
 ' the ob- 
 
 and human natures, which is of constant occurrence in l^^^^"' 
 the Fathers, the word physis for the latter is scarcely Sltlret 
 
 25 
 
27^ On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 found, but dvOpcoTTOTrji;, (rap^, olKovofiia, &c. For instance, 
 Athanasius says, " The Word was by nature Son of God, 
 but by economy son of Adam.'' de Inc. et c. Ar. 8. " He 
 was by nature and usia the Word of God, and, according to 
 the flesh, man." ad Epict. 12. Or, as Basil of Seleucia 
 says, speaking of texts which refer to His mission, '■' These 
 refer to His economy, not to His usia." Orat. 32, p. 171. 
 I set down some instances of this contrast : — 
 
 1. Oeo'; iv avOposTroTijri. Cyril, c. Nest. iii. p. 84. 
 
 2. 0609 iv crapKi. Athan. Orat. ii. 71. ad Epict. 10. 
 
 3. 060? iv aafiaTi. Orat. ii. 12. ad Epict. 10. Nyssen. 
 Antirrh. 55. 
 
 4. Srjfj.i.ovp'yo'; iv crcofiaTi,. Athan. ad Epict. ID. 
 
 5. 11(09 iv aoofiaTi. Orat. i. 44. 
 
 6. Xo'709 iv awfian. Sent. D. 8. 
 
 7. Kvpi,o<s iv amfiaTt. Orat. i. 43. 
 
 8. \oyo<; iv aapxi. ibid. iii. 54. 
 
 g. Kvpi,o<; and his a-dp^. Nyssen. Antirrh. 44. 
 
 10. Xd709 and his adpl^. Athan. Orat. i. 47. iii. 38. 
 
 11. ^,0709 and his dv9panro<;. ibid. iv. 7. 
 
 12. X0709 and his ivavOpmirrfait;. Cyril, c. Nest. iv. p. 109. 
 
 13. Xo'709 and his oIkovo/llm. Didym. Trin. iii. 21. Cyril. 
 c. Nest. iii. p. 58. 
 
 14. V109 and his olKovofiia. Athan. Orat. ii. 76. 
 
 15. his ovcria and his oiKovofiia. ibid. ii. 45. iii. 51. 
 
 16. his ovcria and his BtaKovla. ibid. i. 12. 
 
 17. his ovarla and his i7riSrjfii.a. Ovig&n. Caten. in Joan. 
 i. p. 45. 
 
 18. his ovala and his iTn^dveta. Origen. c. Cels. viii. 
 12. 
 
of the i^Ca ^v(TL<s. 379 
 
 19. his ovaia and his raTretvoT???. Didym. Trin. iii. 6. 
 
 20. his ovcTia a.ndhis SodXiKT) fjLopijii]. Nyssen. Antirrhet. 
 25- 
 
 21. his ovata and his avdpwirivov. Athan. Or at. iii. 51. 
 
 22. his ovarla and his avdpcoTro^. Origen. c. Ce/s. vii. 
 16. 
 
 23. his vTroaraai,^ and his avdpairo'i. Athan. Orai. iv. 
 
 35. 
 
 24. his (/>i;o-t? and his dvOpairo';. Origen. in Joan. torn, 
 i. 30. 
 
 25. his (^wo-i? and his avOpmiroTr)^. Cyril. 5cAo/. 25. 
 
 26. his ^1^0-49 and his (Ta)p,a. Athan. Orat. ii. p. 57. 
 
 27. his (^vcrt? and his a-dp^. Athan. Orat. iii. 34. Cyril. 
 c. Nest. V. p. 132. 
 
 28. his de6Tr]<i and his a-dp^. Didym. Trin. iii. 8. 
 
 29. his evaapKO? e-TriSrjfiLa. Athan. Orat. i. 59. 
 
 30. his evaapKO'; irapova-ia. ibid. i. 8, 49, &c. &c. In- 
 carn. 20. Sent. D. g. Ep. ^g. 4. Serap. i. 3, 9. Cyril. Cai. 
 iii. II et alibi. Epiph. Hcer. 77, 67, &c. &c. 
 
 31. his craip,aTiKri irapova-ia. Athan. Orat. ii. 10. 
 
 It may seem to some readers that the word dvdpcono'i, The term 
 which occurs among these instances, expresses the doc- equivalent 
 trine of a human nature even more strongly than ^vo-t? "nature." 
 could do, and even with some sort of countenance of the 
 Nestorian doctrine of a double personality. But the word 
 is in too frequent use with the Alexandrian and other 
 divines to admit of the suspicion. I will set down one or 
 two specimens of the parallel use of homo among the 
 Latins. "Deus cum homine miscetur; hominem induit." 
 Cyprian. Idol. Van. p. 538. "Assumptus a Dei Filio 
 
380 On St. Cyril's Formula 
 
 homo." Hilar, in Ps. 64. 6, " Assumptus homo in Fihum 
 Dei." Leon. 5«rm.28, p. loi. "Smms," the Word's, "homo." 
 ibid. 22, p. 70. "Hie homo." Leon. Ep. 31, p. 855. " Ille 
 homo, quem Deus suscepit." Augustin. Ep. 24, 3. 
 Paraiieiof The word "assumptus" in some of these passages is the 
 phraseo- Latin of the '7rpoa\ri<p6ei<; spoken of above, and reminds us 
 of Hilary's division of the Word's attributes into naturalia 
 and assumpta, from which we might draw an additional 
 illustration, did we choose to pursue it, of the early theo- 
 logical language, and that the more striking, because, 
 as we have seen, that Father has no difficulty of using 
 the word natura, when the occasion calls for it, of the 
 Word's humanity. Vid. the Benedictine Preface in Hilar. 
 Opera. 
 
 21. 
 
 StS'"" '^° recapitulate the conclusions to which we have 
 arrived, concerning the sense of the Formula, fila ^uo-i? 
 aecrapKWfievT]. 
 
 1. ^vo-t? is the Divine Essence, substantial and per- 
 sonal, in the fulness of its attributes — the One God. 
 And, Tov Xoyov being added, it is that One God, con- 
 sidered in the Person of the Son. 
 
 2. It is called /ita (i) because, even after the Incarna- 
 tion, it and no other nature is, strictly speaking, iSia, 
 His own, the flesh being " assumpta ; " (2) because it, 
 and no other, has been His from the first; and (3) 
 because it has ever been one and the same, in nowise 
 affected as to its perfection by the incarnation. 
 
 3. It is called crea-apKm/Mevr], in order to express the de- 
 
 The 
 
 Word's 
 
 nature 
 
 and incar- 
 nate. 
 
of the fjiia (fyvcTLS. 381 
 
 pendence, subordination, and restriction of His humanity, 
 which (i) has neither ■^yefioviKov nor personsthty ; (2) has 
 no distinct vl6r'q<;, though it involved a new yevvrjerK; ; 
 (3) is not possessed of the fulness of characteristics which 
 attaches to any other specimen of our race. On which 
 account, while it is recognised as a perfect nature, it may 
 be spoken of as existing after the manner of an attribute 
 rather than of a substantive being, which it really is, as in 
 a parallel way Catholics speak of its presence in the 
 Eucharist, though corporeal, being after the manner of a 
 spirit. 
 
 22. 
 
 It only remains to add concerning the Formula, that, in Fortunes 
 spite of the misapprehensions to which it has given rise. Formula. 
 and the suspicion with which it has been viewed, it is of 
 recognised authority in the Catholic Church. Whether 
 Athanasius himself used it, is a contested point. Flavian 
 admitted it at the Latrocinium, a.d. 449, in the pre. 
 sence of its partisans, the Eutychians, who condemned 
 and murdered him there. It was indirectly recognised 
 at the fourth General Council at Chalcedon, a.d. 452, in 
 the Council's reception of Flavian's confession, which 
 contained it. It was also received in the fifth General, 
 and in the Lateran of a.d. 649. But, for this point of 
 history, I refer the reader to Petavius de Incarn. iv. 6, 
 who brings together all that has to be said upon it in the 
 course of a few pages. 
 
 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to observe, that my 
 
382 On St. Cyril's Formula of the [iCa <j)vo-is. 
 
 reason for not referring in the above inquiry to the works 
 of the Areopagite, to the disputation between Dionysius 
 and Paul of Samosata, to Hippolytus contr. Befon. et 
 Helic. and some other works and fragments, has been a 
 disbehef of their genuineness. 
 
VI. 
 
 THE ORDO ;DE TEMPORE IN THE ROMAN 
 
 BREVIARY. 
 
 (From the "Atlantis" of February, 1870.) 
 
 (383) 
 
THE ORDO DE TEMPORE. 
 
 I DO not know where to find, what doubtless is to 
 be found somewhere, a perfect analysis of the 
 Ordo de Tempore, (that is, Ihe succession of ec- 
 clesiastical seasons,) as it stands in the Catholic 
 Calendar. The Ordo has to deal with some con- 
 siderable difficulties, and its disposal of them is very 
 beautiful. I sometimes fancy I could interest a reader 
 in it, and I will try ; and though I must do so in my 
 own way for want of a better, and though in con- 
 sequence I am obliged to speak under correction of 
 any authoritative exposition of it, if such exists, still I 
 do not think I can be much out in my analysis, even 
 though it be incomplete. 
 
 The Ordo de Sanctis is invariable through the year. 
 Each saint has his day, which is never changed year after 
 year, except by an accidental transference or postpone- 
 ment. Here, the only call for arrangement and adjust- 
 ment in it rises out of the necessity of reconciling this 
 Ordo with the Ordo de Tempore. For the Ordo de Tem- 
 pore is far from invariable year after year ; on the con- 
 trary, as I have intimated, it even disturbs the tranquil 
 course of the Ordo de Sanctis. It is on this account 
 especially that the yearly Directory called the " Ordo 
 
 (385) 
 
386 The Or do de Tempore. 
 
 Recitandi " is necessary; for the Ordo de Tempore is not 
 only variable itself, but it interferes with the harmonious 
 succession of Saints' Days in the Ordo de Sanctis. If we 
 look at the table of Transferred Saints' Days in the yearly 
 "Ordo Recitandi," we shall find that they are all occasioned 
 by the collision between the two Ordines, de Sanctis and 
 de Tempore. For instance, in the present year (1869), 
 St. Thomas was thrown out of his day, March 7, because 
 it was the Fourth Sunday in Lent; and the Seven Dolours 
 lost its Friday because it was the Feast of St. Joseph. 
 
 Left to itself, the Ordo de Sanctis is invariable, but the 
 Ordo de Tempore is never the same two years running. 
 Its chief features indeed, viewed relatively to each other, 
 are always the same — Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, 
 Lent, Easter, and Pentecost come in succession ; but 
 these seasons are not fixed to determinate days in the 
 civil year, as the Festivals of the Saints are. Easter 
 Day is in one year upon one day in March or April, in 
 another year on another. The coincidence then of days 
 in the civil year and in the ecclesiastical year has to be 
 reduced to rule ; and this is done, I consider, very 
 beautifully by the provisions of the Calendar, as I 
 propose to show in these pages. 
 
 I. 
 
 The first and chief difficulty in the Ordo de Tempore is 
 obviously this — that Easter Day depends upon, is later 
 than, the full moon in March or in April, and the full 
 moon is not fixed to any certain day in either month. 
 The lunar month is about 29 days, the civil varies from 
 
The Or do de Tempore. 387 
 
 28 to 31. As the full moon is not constant to one day of 
 either month, neither is the Easter Day. Next, there is 
 this additional disturbance, that Easter Day is always 
 kept on a Sunday, the Sunday after the full moon (mean 
 time) which follows upon March 21. Thus, even were 
 the day of the full moon fixed to a given day of a given 
 month in the civil calendar, say March 22, Easter Day 
 would not on thai account be a fixed day, for it must be 
 a Sunday, and the Sunday after that March 22 may be 
 any one of the seven following days. Easter Day then is 
 variable, first, because the full moon may fall on any one 
 day out of 29 civil days, and next because Sunday may 
 fall on any day out of the seven, which followthe full moon. 
 Nor is this the whole of the difficulty. Easter Day is 
 one great centre of feasts and seasons in the ecclesiastical 
 year ; but there is another such centre, and that is 
 Christmas Day. And though Christmas Day is fixed in 
 the civil year. Advent Sunday, which precedes and de- 
 pends upon it, is not. It is the fourth Sunday before 
 Christmas Day; and since Christmas Day, as being fixed 
 in the month, may be any one of the seven days of the 
 week, it follows that Advent Sunday may be one or other 
 of seven days of the month. When, for instance, Christ- 
 mas Day is Monday, the fourth Sunday in Advent is the 
 day before, that is, December 24, and the first Sunday 
 in Advent, or Advent Sunday, will be December 3. 
 When Christmas Day is Tuesday, then Advent Sunday 
 will be December 2, and so on through the seven days. 
 The range of Advent Sundays, then, is from November 
 27 to December 3 inclusive. 
 
388 The Or do de Tempore. 
 
 Christmas with Advent, then, and Easter, are the two 
 centres of the sacred year, with an assemblage or body of 
 seasons and feasts about each of them, and all inserted 
 and having a place, a shifting place, in the civil year ; 
 and the problem to be solved in the Ordo de Tempore is 
 how to overcome the disarrangement caused by the vary- 
 ing distance from each other of these two oscillating 
 bodies, standing in relation, as they do, to the course of 
 weeks and months. When are we to cease, for example, 
 to date with a reference to Christmas ? When with a 
 reference to Easter ? Were both Christmas with Advent, 
 and Easter, fixed, there would be nothing more to settle ; 
 but the interval between Advent Sunday and the follow- 
 ing Easter Sunday varies year by year, and also the 
 interval between Easter and Advent ; and it has to be 
 determined when the one peiuod is to end and the other 
 to begin. And there is this additional difficulty, that 
 the Easter before a given Advent being always a different 
 day in the .year from the Easter after Advent, there are 
 three dates to be taken into account, and reduced to 
 system, one Advent and two Easters. 
 
 Now let us see how these variations are actually ad- 
 justed ; that is, what is the abstract scientific arrange- 
 ment, which, year by year as it comes, is to be appealed 
 to and applied. I speak of the scientific theory of 
 arrangement for obvious reasons ; for instance, leap-year 
 introduces a disturbance, which must be neglected in the 
 theory — that is the sun's doing. The moon is the cause 
 of a disturbance of a different sort, viz., though many 
 consecutive days are, on this year or that, possible Easter 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 389 
 
 days, still Easter days do not actually proceed in course 
 year by year in regular succession. I mean the 6th of 
 April is not Easter Day in one year, the 7th in year two, 
 the 8th in year three, and so on ; but for the scientific 
 theory I shall place them in sequence, that is, following, 
 not the chronological order, as it is sometimes called, or 
 order in fact, but the logical, or order in system. Nor 
 am I concerned with the condition of mean time. 
 
 I observe first, as a matter of fact, to be taken as a 
 datum and not to be proved here, that Easter Day may 
 fall on any one of thirty-five successive days, that is, on 
 any day of five successive weeks, from March 22 to April 
 25, both inclusive. Let us suppose, then, a column made 
 of these thirty-five days, one after another, March 22, 23, 
 24, &c., and so on to April 22, 23, 24, 25. This is the 
 Easter Day range. 
 
 Next, I shall place two other columns of dates, one on 
 each side of this central column, and each of them de- 
 pendent upon it. 
 
 The one on the left of the Easter column shall be the 
 Septuagesima column. Septuagesima Sunday is always 
 nine weeks or sixty-three days before Easter Sunday. 
 As then there are thirty-five days on which Easter Sun- 
 day may fall, so there are thirty-five days on which Sep- 
 tuagesima Sunday may fall. The first of these, counting 
 back nine weeks from Easter Day, March 22 (and taking 
 no account of leap-year), is January 18 ; and the last, 
 counting back from Easter Day, April 25, is February 21. 
 
390 The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 This is the Septuagesima range of days, on the left of 
 the Easter column. 
 
 The column on the right of the Easter column will 
 
 consist of the Post-Pentecostal range ; and the Sundays, 
 
 which are marked down it, must be the days on which 
 
 may fall the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost. This is the last 
 
 proper Pentecost Sunday ; there is no proper 24th, &c., 
 
 and the " ultima" is shifting. Up to the 23rd Sunday, 
 
 the order of Sundays after Easter Day is as regular and 
 
 invariable as the nine Sundays back to Septuagesima 
 
 before Easter Day. How many Sundays is it from Easter 
 
 Day to the 23rd after Pentecost ? Seven to the day of 
 
 Pentecost, or Whit-Sunday, and twenty-three more to the 
 
 23rd after it ; that is, altogether thirty Sundays or weeks 
 
 — invariable, I say, following one the other in fixed order_ 
 
 This is the column to the right of the Easter column. 
 
 Here then we have the whole Paschal period, from 
 Septuagesima Sunday to the 23rd Sunday after Pente- 
 cost ; nine weeks before Easter Day and thirty weeks 
 after, altogether thirty-nine weeks, or precisely nine 
 calendar months, or three-quarters of a year. Though 
 the Paschal period, as I have called it, varies year by 
 year in its place in the civil year, because Easter Day 
 varies, the Paschal period does not vary in its length, it 
 is always nine calendar months precisely. There is a 
 fixed succession of thirty-nine weeks from Septuagesima 
 Sunday to the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost. 
 
 One other result is this : that as Septuagesima falls 
 in January or February, and Easter Day falls in March 
 or April, so does Pentecost 23rd fall always in October 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 391 
 
 or November. Nay, further than this, since it is exactly 
 nine calendar months from Septuagesima to Pentecost 
 23rd, it follows that, whatever be the day of the month 
 in January or February on which Septuagesima falls, on 
 the same day of the month in October or November 
 respectively does Pentecost 23rd fall. Thus, if Septua- 
 gesima is January 18, then Pentecost 23rd is October 
 18 ; if the forme* falls on February i, the latter falls on 
 November i ; if the former on February 21, then the 
 latter on November 21. And all along the two series 
 of possible Septuagesima and possible 23rd Pentecost 
 Days, the number of the day of the month on which 
 Septuagesima Sunday falls is the same as the number 
 of the day of the month on which, in the same year, 
 the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost falls. 
 ■ Now, then, we can fill up the dates in the third 
 column or 23rd Pentecost, which is on the right of the 
 Easter column. We shall have to go through thirty- 
 five days from October 18 to November 21 ; putting 
 October 18 against January 18, and so on till we end 
 with November 21 against February 21. Thus : — 
 
 Septuageiima Sunday. 
 
 Easter Day. 
 
 23rd Sunday after Pentecost. 
 
 January 18 
 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 &c., &c. 
 
 March 22 
 „ 23 
 „ 24 
 » 25 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 October 18 
 
 19 
 
 I, 20 
 
 „ 21 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 to 
 February 19 
 „ 20 
 >. 21 
 
 to 
 April 23 
 ' „ 24 
 - 25 
 
 to 
 
 November ig 
 20 
 21 
 
392 
 
 The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 Now, in order to apply a test to what I have said, let 
 us have recourse to the "Ordo Recitandi," as in use 
 with us, for the six years from 1849 to 1851 and from 
 1853 to 1855. It will be found to bear out the con- 
 clusions, at which I have arrived theoretically. 
 
 
 Septuagesima. 
 
 Easter. 
 
 Pentecost 23rd. 
 
 1849 
 
 1850 
 185 1 
 
 1853 
 
 - 1854 
 
 1855 
 
 February 4 
 January 27 
 February 16 
 January 23 
 February 12 
 February 4 
 
 April 8 
 March 31 
 April 20 
 March 27 
 April 16 
 April 8 
 
 November 4 
 October 27 
 November 16 
 October 23 
 November 12 
 November 4 
 
 The years 1852 and 1856 were leap-years, which 
 ought to throw out the exact correspondence of Sundays 
 by one day ; and hence, in accordance with the above 
 rule, we find from the " Ordo Recitandi " in fact, that 
 Septuagesima was February 8, but Pentecost 23rd was 
 November 7 in 1852, and Septuagesima January 20, 
 and Pentecost 23rd October ig, in 1856. 
 
 So much on the connexion of Easter Day with 
 Septuagesima and Pentecost 23rd ; but can nothing be 
 done to make the actual succession of Easter Days less 
 variable than it seems to be at first sight ? Yes, some- 
 thing, as I proceed to show. 
 
 Let it be observed, that as Christmas Day is a fixed 
 day of the month, it may be on any day of the week ; it 
 runs through seven days, and, as the days in the year 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 393 
 
 exceed fifty-two weeks by one day, a fixed day in any 
 month travels forward along the days of the week in a 
 succession of years. Thus (neglecting leap-years), if the 
 25th of December, Christmas Day, be on Monday in 
 this year, it will be on Tuesday next year, and on Wed- 
 nesday the year after, and so on to Sunday inclusive ; 
 and, after completing the week, it will next year be on 
 Monday again, ahd so on for ever. In consequence, the 
 Fourth Sunday in Advent, being the Sunday immediately 
 before Christmas Day, will travel backwards, in those 
 same successive years, along the days of the month ; 
 when Christmas Day is on Monday, the 4th Advent 
 Sunday will be on the 24th ; when Christmas Day is on 
 Tuesday, it will be on the 23rd ; and so on successively 
 the 22nd, 2ist, 20th, 19th, and i8th, and so on, over 
 and over again, for ever. And again. Advent Sunday, 
 which is three weeks before that fourth Sunday, will be 
 successively, as I have said already, on December 3, 2, 
 I, November 30, 29, 28, 27, in never-ending routine. 
 To these seven days Advent Sunday is tethered. The 
 feast of St. Andrew is just in the middle of them, Novem- 
 ber 30, with three possible Advent Sundays before it, and 
 three after. 
 
 Now let us observe what we have hereby gained. 
 Advent begins with a Sunday, and must be one of a 
 certain seven days ; but Pentecost 23rd, which ends what I 
 have called the Paschal period, is also a Sunday ; therefore 
 there must be also a whole number of weeks without any 
 days over, between the last Sunday of the Paschal period 
 and Advent Sunday, which is the commencement of the 
 
 26 
 
394 T^h^ Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 Christmas period. If, for instance, Advent Sunday falls 
 on November 27, Pentecost 23rd cannot fall on any 
 whatever of the thirty-five possible days from October 18 
 to November 21, which constitute the range of the latter 
 Sunday, but it must fall on such a day out of the thirty- 
 five as will secure a round number of weeks between it 
 and November 27. 
 
 How many such days are there in its whole range ? 
 Of course, one in seven. Therefore out of the thirty-five 
 possible days for Pentecost 23rd, only five are actually 
 possible in this particular case of Advent Sunday falling 
 on November 27. The possible days, counting backwards, 
 are November 20, 13, 6, October 30, and 23. And in 
 like manner when Advent Sunday is November 28, there 
 are only five possible days on which the previous Pentecost 
 23rd can fall ; and so on in the case of all the Advent Sun- 
 day month-days, November 29, 30, December i, 2, and 3. 
 
 And, since Easter Sunday and Septuagesima Sunday 
 vary, as regards the day of the month, with Pentecost 
 23rd, it follows that out of the whole thirty-five possible 
 days on which Easter may fall there are only five days 
 possible, when Advent Sunday is November 27; and the 
 same is true for all the other days of the month which are 
 possible for Advent Sunday. It seems then that in every 
 year Easter Day is one out of five days, and which the 
 five days are is determined (practically) by the day on 
 which the following Advent Sunday falls. And this is 
 true of Septuagesima Sunday also. 
 
 Moreover, as the day of the month on which Advent 
 Sunday falls, depends on the day of the week on which 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 395 
 
 Christmas Day falls, on Christmas Day also depend the 
 five days which in every year are possible for all three, 
 Septuagesima, Easter Day, and Pentecost 23rd. 
 
 Once more ; it is awkward to make a day at the end of 
 the year, December 25, the index or pivot of days and 
 seasons which have gone before it. I observe then that 
 (neglecting leap-year) as December 25 falls on this or 
 that day of the vweek, the preceding January i falls on a 
 day in correspondence with it, so that, according to the 
 day of the week on which the first day of any year falls 
 are the five possible days determined for Septuagesima, 
 Easter, and Pentecost 23rd in that year. When December 
 25 is on a Monday, then New Year's Day preceding was 
 on Sunday ; when on Tuesday, New Year's Day was on 
 Monday, &c. I shall call the seven years which succes- 
 sively begin with Sunday, Saturday, Friday, &c., years 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and then we have the following 
 table :— 
 
 1 
 
 d 
 m 
 
 ►—1 
 
 Septuagesima. 
 
 Easter Day. 
 
 Pentecost 
 23rd. 
 
 Advent 
 Sunday. 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. April. 
 
 Oct. Nov. 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 Th. 
 
 18, 25. 
 
 JL, 8,15 
 
 22,29. 5,12,19 
 
 18,25. i. 8,15 
 
 Nov. 2g 
 
 Fr. 
 
 E 
 
 We. 
 
 19, 26. 
 
 2, 9, 16 
 
 23, 30. 6, 13, 20 
 
 19,26. 2, 9,16 
 
 ,. 30 
 
 Th. 
 
 F 
 
 Tu. 
 
 20, 27. 
 
 3. 10. 17 
 
 24,31. 7,14,21 
 
 20,27. 3.10,17 
 
 Dec. I 
 
 We. 
 
 G 
 
 Mo. 
 
 21,28. 
 
 4,11,18 
 
 25. I, 8,15,22 
 
 21,28. 4,11,18 
 
 ,. 2 
 
 Tu. 
 
 A 
 
 Su. 
 
 22, 29. 
 
 5,12,19 
 
 26. 2, 9, 16, 23 
 
 22,29. 5. 12, 19 
 
 .. 3 
 
 Mo. 
 
 B 
 
 Sa. 
 
 23.30- 
 
 6, 13, 20 
 
 27. 3, 10, 17, 24 
 
 23, 30. 6, 13, 20 
 
 Nov. 27 
 
 Su. 
 
 C 
 
 Fr. 
 
 24.31- 
 
 7,14,21 
 
 28. 4,11,18,25 
 
 24,31. 7,14,21 
 
 „ 28 
 
 Sa. 
 
39^ The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 This table, which has been formed from the preceding 
 analysis, will be found to agree with the Tabula Paschalis 
 of the Missal and Breviary, the letter of the alphabet by 
 which I have denoted the year, being the Litera Domini- 
 calis of the Tabula. However, that Tabula has no occa- 
 sion to mention, nor does mention, Pentecost 23rd, or its 
 connexion with Septuagesima, of which I have made such 
 use above, and shall also avail myself in what follows. 
 
 Hitherto I have been speaking of the Christmas period 
 only in its bearings upon the Paschal period : now let me 
 speak of it for its own sake. 
 
 The Paschal period varies in its dates in the civil year, 
 but never in its length ; it is always thirty-nine weeks, 
 or nine calendar months. But, unlike Easter Day, Christ- 
 mas Day is fixed ; is its period fixed also, or does it vary 
 in its length ? I cannot answer this question till I know 
 what is meant by the Christmas period ; do we mean by it 
 (i) that season which the Paschal nine months interrupt, 
 that divided season, lying at the extremities, the be- 
 ginning and the end of one and the same year, and which, 
 because divided, has no proper title to be called a period at 
 all ? or do we mean (2) that continuous lapse of weeks 
 lying partly at the end of one year and partly at the be- 
 ginning of the next ? Let us take these two cases sepa- 
 rately, and the second case first. 
 
 The actual continuous Christmas period lying partly in 
 one year, partly in the next, between Pentecost 23rd of 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 397 
 
 one year and Septuagesima of the next, is not only vari- 
 able in length, but too variable to admit of being reduced 
 to rule. 
 
 At first sight it admits of as many as twenty-five 
 different lengths ; for every year, as I have shown, allows 
 of five possible dates for Septuagesima and Pentecost 
 23rd ; now the continuous Christmas period is from the 
 Pentecost 23rd of this year to the Septuagesima of the 
 next ; since then the Pentecost 23rd may be any one out 
 of five dates, and the next Septuagesima also any one of 
 five, there result twenty-five possible lengths of the con- 
 tinuous Christmas period. Nor is there any easy rule 
 for determining the succession of their variations in con- 
 secutive years. I do not propose any formula then for 
 determining the length of the continuous Christmas 
 period ; for it depends on two conditions, practically 
 independent of each other, the dates of the previous and 
 of the succeeding Easter. 
 
 Some idea of these variations will be gained by the 
 inspection of them as they occurred between 1848 and 
 1857 :- 
 

 1848-9. 
 
 1849-50. 
 
 1850-1. 
 
 1851-2. 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1. Before Ad- 
 vent. 
 
 2. Advent to 
 Epiphany. 
 
 3. After Epi- 
 phany. 
 
 2 
 
 s 
 4 
 
 Nov. 19 
 Nov. 26 
 
 Dec. 3 
 10 
 17 
 24 
 31 
 
 Jan. 7 
 
 14 
 21 
 28 
 
 Nov. 4 
 II 
 18 
 25 
 
 Dec. 2 
 
 9 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 Jan. 6 
 
 13 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 Oct. 27 
 
 Nov. 3 
 
 10 
 
 . 17 
 
 24 
 
 Dec. I 
 8 
 
 IS 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 Jan. 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 Feb. 2 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 Nov. 16 
 23 
 
 30 
 Dec. 7 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Jan. 4 
 
 11 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 Feb. I 
 
 Sum Total 
 
 II 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 1852-3. 
 
 1853-4- 
 
 i8S4-5- 
 
 1855-6. 
 
 1B56-7. 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Weeks. 
 
 Weeks. 
 
 Weeks. 
 
 1. Before Ad- 
 vent. 
 
 2. Advent to 
 Epiphany. 
 
 3. After Epi- 
 phany. 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 2 
 
 Nov. 7 
 
 14 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Dec. 5 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 Jan. 2 
 
 9 
 16 
 
 5 
 6 
 5 
 
 Oct. 23 
 
 30 
 
 Nov. 6 
 
 13 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 Dec. 4 
 
 II 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 Jan. I 
 
 8 
 
 IS 
 
 22 
 
 29 
 
 Feb. 5 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 4 
 
 4 
 6 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 Sum Total 
 
 II 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 12 
 
 II 
 
 16 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 399 
 
 However, in spite of this irregularity in the continuous 
 Christmas pei-iod, it has some kind of intelligible shape, 
 thus : — 
 
 In the first place, since we know the earliest and latest 
 possible dates of Pentecost 23rd andSeptuagesima,wecan 
 ascertain the longest and shortest measure of the Christ, 
 mas period. Pentecost 23rd may be as early as October 
 18 ; Septuagesifna as late as February 21 ; this whole 
 interval from October 18 in one year to February 21 in 
 the next, is one hundred and twenty-five days, or eigh- 
 teen weeks. Again, Pentecost 23rd may fall on November 
 21, and the following Septuagesima as early as January 
 18, that is, at an interval from it of fifty-seven days, or 
 eight weeks. Thus eighteen weeks is the longest, and 
 eight weeks the shortest continuous Christmas period. 
 
 Next, this period, whatever its length, is made up of 
 three parts : i. The central portion, which I might call 
 the Tempus Natale, from Advent Sunday to the first 
 Sunday after Epiphany. 2. The Ante-natal portion 
 been Pentecost 23rd and Advent Sunday. 3. The Epi- 
 phany or Post-natal, between the first Sunday after 
 Epiphany and Septuagesima. 
 
 Now the possible length of each of these three is easy 
 to ascertain, i. The Natal Time is ordinarily six weeks 
 (i.e. except when Advent Sunday falls on December 3, for 
 then, the Epiphany falling on Saturday, the Natal portion 
 loses a week). 2. The Ante-natal portion varies from one 
 week (viz. when Pentecost 23rd falls on November 20 or 
 21, and is the " ultima " Sunday) to six weeks (viz. when 
 Pentecost 23rd falls between October 18 and 22 inclusive, 
 
400 The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 and there are twenty-eight Sundays after Pentecost). 3. 
 The Post-natal portion also varies from one week to six; 
 for, if the Sunday after Epiphany be January 11, 12, or 13, 
 and the following Septuagesima be January 18, 19, or 20, it 
 is one week; andif the former of these Sundays be January 
 7-9, and the latter February 18-21, then there will be all 
 the six Sundays, as they stand in the Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 It appears then that the longest Christmas period con- 
 sists of six, six, and six weeks ; that is, eighteen weeks, 
 which agrees with my former calculation ; and the shortest 
 is one, six, and one, that is, eight weeks, which also agrees 
 with what I have determined above. 
 
 Now, secondly, let us consider the Christmas weeks, as 
 contained in one and the same year, that is, as partly at 
 the beginning of it, and partly at the end : can we deter- 
 mine the length of these two portions taken together ? 
 Certainly we can, and, as it would seem at first sight, 
 without any difficulty; for, as the Paschal period takes up 
 exactly nine calendar months or thirty-nine weeks, there 
 are three months or thirteen weeks left for the Christmas. 
 And, as to the separate portions, they are always the same, 
 tliough not in the same place in the civil year; for, in order 
 to allow for the variation of the date of Easter Day (which 
 ranges through thirty-five days or five weeks), of the six 
 Sundays after Epiphany, those are omitted year by year, 
 which would interfere with an early Septuagesima, and are 
 introduced instead between Pentecost 23rd and Advent. 
 This is so simple an arrangement, that it would seem as 
 
The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 401 
 
 if it could have no difficulty, and there would be nothing 
 to observe upon it ; for as many weeks as are taken out 
 of the Christmas three months by an early Septuagesima 
 of any year, just so many are paid back to it by the cor- 
 responding early Pentecost 23rd of that year ; however, 
 the arrangement does not run quite smoothly, as the 
 following table shows : — 
 
 Varia- 
 tions. 
 
 Epiphany Sundays 
 
 Septua- jjj Pente- 
 
 Epiphany Sun- 
 days intercalated 
 
 Ill 
 
 g^ 
 
 before Septua- 
 gesima. 
 
 GESIMA COST 23 
 
 39 Weeks or 
 9 Calendar Months. 
 
 after Pentecost 23 
 
 and before Pent. 
 
 ult. 
 
 
 I 
 
 I. [2 dropped] 
 
 Jan. 18 Oct. 18 
 
 3. 4. 5. 6. 
 
 28 
 
 Nov. 29 
 
 2 
 
 I. [2 dropped] 
 
 » 19 » 19 
 
 3. 4. s. 6. 
 
 28 
 
 1. 30 
 
 3 
 
 I. [2 dropped] 
 I. 2. 
 
 11 20 ,, 20 
 ,, 21 ,, 21 
 
 3. 4. 5. 6. 
 
 3. 4. s. 6. 
 
 28 
 28 
 
 Dec. I 
 II 2 
 
 4 
 
 s 
 
 I. 2. 
 
 II 22 ,1 22 
 
 3. 4- 5- 6- 
 
 28 
 
 II 3 
 
 6 
 
 I. 2. [3 dr.] 
 
 II 23 II 23 
 
 4. 5- 6. 
 
 28 
 
 Nov. 27 
 
 7 
 
 I. 2. [3 dr.] 
 
 II 24 •> 24 
 
 4. 5- 6- 
 
 27 
 
 1, 28 
 
 B 
 
 I. 2. [3 dr.] 
 
 1, 25 „ 25 
 
 4. 5- 6. 
 
 27 
 
 ,1 29 
 
 9 
 
 I. 2. I3 dr.] 
 
 „ 26 „ 26 
 
 4. 5. 6- 
 
 27 
 
 „" 3° 
 
 xo 
 
 I. 2. [3 dr.] 
 I. 2. 3- 
 
 11 27 ,1 27 
 .1 28 „ 28 
 
 4. 5- 6. 
 4. S. 6. 
 
 27 
 27 
 
 Dec. I 
 II 2 
 
 II 
 
 12 
 
 I. 2. 3. 
 
 ■1 29 „ 29 
 
 4. 5- 6- 
 
 27 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 I. 2. 3. [4] 
 
 1. 30 ,, 30 
 
 5.6. 
 
 27 
 
 Nov. 27 
 
 14 
 
 I. 2. 3- [4] 
 
 11 31 11 31 
 
 5.6. 
 
 26 
 
 II 28 
 
 15 
 
 I. 2. 3- [4I 
 
 Feb. I Nov. I 
 
 S. 6. 
 
 26 
 
 I. 29 
 
 16 
 
 I. 2. 3. [4I 
 
 » 2 ,1 2 
 
 5.6. 
 
 26 
 
 II 30 
 
 17 
 
 I. 2. 3. [4] 
 I. 2. 3- 4- 
 
 .1 3 » 3 
 II 4 II 4 
 
 5.6. 
 5.6. 
 
 26 
 26 
 
 Dec. I 
 
 2 
 
 iS 
 
 19 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4- 
 
 II ■ 5 II 5 
 
 5.6. 
 
 26 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. [5] 
 
 .1 6 „ 6 
 
 6. 
 
 26 
 
 Nov. 27 
 
 21 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. [5] 
 
 1. 7 11 7 
 
 6. 
 
 25 
 
 II 28 
 
 22 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. [5] 
 
 1. 8 1, 8 
 
 6. 
 
 25 
 
 II 29 
 
 23 
 
 I. 2. 3- 4- [5] 
 
 II 9 11 9 
 
 6. 
 
 25 
 
 ^" 3° 
 
 24 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. [5] 
 I. 2. 3- 4- S- 
 
 11 10 11 10 
 II ^r 11 II 
 
 6. 
 6. 
 
 25 
 25 
 
 Dec. I 
 11 2 
 
 25 
 
 z6 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 
 
 II 12 „ 12 
 
 6. 
 
 25 
 
 „" 3 
 
 27 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. S. [6] 
 
 II 13 11 13 
 
 0. 
 
 25 
 
 Nov. 27 
 
 28 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5- [6] 
 
 » 14 II 14 
 
 0. 
 
 24 
 
 II 28 
 
 29 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4- 5- [6] 
 
 ,1 15 1, 15 
 
 0. 
 
 24 
 
 M 29 
 
 30 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5. [6] 
 
 I. 16 II 16 
 
 0. 
 
 24 
 
 ,." 30 
 
 31 
 
 1. 2. 3. 4. 5- [6] 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5- 6- 
 
 11 17 ,, 17 
 II 18 II 18 
 
 0. 
 0. 
 
 24 
 24 
 
 Dec. I 
 II 2 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5- 6. 
 
 II 19 II 19 
 
 0. 
 
 24 
 
 3 
 
 34 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5- 6- 
 
 II 20 1, 20 
 
 —I.* 
 
 23 
 
 Nov. 27 
 
 35 
 
 I. 2. 3. 4. 5- 6- 
 
 II 21 II 21 
 
 — I. 
 
 23 
 
 II 28 
 
 * The expression " — i" means that the Pent. 23 is merged in or becomes the 
 * ultima " before Advent, and a week suppressed. 
 
402 The Ordo de Tempore. 
 
 It will be observed in this table, that of the six 
 Epiphany Sundays (whether in their place or inter- 
 calated before Advent), in five years out of seven, one is 
 dropped, that is, there is no place for it. The rtason 
 is this : the Calendar contemplates only one Sunday 
 after Christmas ; it does not contemplate a second, as if 
 the Epiphany certainly fell in the week of that first 
 Sunday after Christmas, and the first Sunday after 
 Epiphany were the next Sunday immediately upon that 
 first Christmas Sunday. But, in matter of fact, in five 
 years out of seven, there are two Sundays between 
 Christmas day and the first Sunday after the Epiphany. 
 For this second Sunday the Calendar makes no pro- 
 vision or room ; it is as if it had reckoned it as one of 
 the six Epiphany Sundays, and it (the Sunday) had, in 
 those five years, got (as it were) by accident on the 
 wrong side of the Epiphany. The consequence is, that 
 in those years in which there is a Sunday too much 
 before the Epiphany, there is no room for the whole 
 number of Sundays after Epiphany, and one Epiphany 
 Sunday has to be suppressed. 
 
VII. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE 
 RHEIMS AND DOUAY VERSION OF 
 HOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 {From the "Rambler" of July, 1859.) 
 
 (403) 
 
THE RHEIMS AND DOUAY VERSION 
 OF pOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 IN attempting to trace the history, and to ascertain 
 the present state, of the text of the Rheims and 
 Douay version of Holy Scripture, we cannot avoid 
 avaiHng ourselves of the elaborate work on the subject, 
 recently published by a dignitary of the Irish Establish- 
 ment. We mean Archdeacon Cotton's Attempt to show 
 what has been done by Roman Catholics for the Diffusion of 
 the Holy Scriptures in English, published at the Oxford 
 University Press in 1855. 
 
 Not that it needs any apology for using the investiga- 
 tions of a learned Protestant, or for feeling grateful to 
 him, so far as he has anticipated the necessity of researches 
 of our own, by such minute, exact, and persevering dili- 
 gence as he has taken in a subject-matter which could not 
 be of any the slightest personal interest to himself. But, 
 painful as it is to say it, in spite of his stating in his pre- 
 face, that " the design of his book is not controversial but 
 literary," he has made it the vehicle of so much incidental 
 insinuation, sometimes unfair, sometimes ignorant, always 
 ill-natured, to the disadvantage of Catholic ecclesiastics, 
 that we are unable to regard him with that unmixed re- 
 
 (405) 
 
4o6 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 spect, and to use him with that ready and unfaltering con- 
 fidence.which would be natural in those who, like ourselves, 
 have long known his claims, both as a gentleman and a 
 scholar, on public estimation. Perhaps, however, it is 
 well that he should have allowed his animus against the 
 Catholic Church to appear so distinctly ; otherwise, from 
 admii-ation of the long and patient pains with which he 
 has prosecuted an irksome labour, we might have been 
 led to such full reliance on his statements as it is never 
 right to place on any writer whatever, much less on one 
 who, whatever his personal worth, is naturally open to 
 the prejudices of his creed and party. As .things stand, 
 while we shall use him in the following pages, we are 
 warned at the same time to verify his various state- 
 ments, as far as may be, and where this cannot be done, 
 not to adopt them without distinct reference to him as 
 our authority. At the same time, in so difficult and 
 intricate an inquiry, we have no right to anticipate that, 
 whatever be our care, we shall succeed, whether we 
 use him or not, in guarding against inaccuracies and 
 errors of our own in matters of detail. 
 
 § I. RHEIMS AND DOUAY BIBLE. 
 
 The circumstances under which the existing Catholic 
 translation of Holy Scripture was made are rendered 
 familiar to us by Mr. Tierney's edition of Dod's History, 
 not to refer to other authorities. The College or Seminary 
 of Douay had been founded in 1568 by the exertions of 
 Cardinal Allen, some time fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 
 A few years afterwards, its members were obliged, by 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 407 
 
 the political troubles of Flanders, to migrate for a time 
 to France, and to establish themselves at Rheims. One 
 of their first works in the service of their countrymen 
 was an English version of Holy Scripture. The divines 
 chiefly concerned in the translation of the New Testa- 
 ment were the aforesaid Dr. William Allen, afterwards 
 Cardinal ; Dr. Gregory Martin, of St. John's College, 
 Oxford ; Dr. Richard Bristow, of Christ Church and 
 Exeter ; and John Reynolds, of New College. Martin 
 translated the text, and the rest revised; the Annotations 
 were written by Bristow and Allen. Martin was also the 
 translator of the Old Testament, the notes to which were 
 written by Dr. Worthington, who, according to Dr. Cotton, 
 eventually joined the Oratory. This, however, was not 
 the case ; for we find his name in Alegambe's Script. 
 Soc. Jes. p. 438. He joined the Society, "setate jam 
 grandsevus," dying in 1626. Martin died of an illness, 
 the consequence of his labours, in the very year in which 
 his New Testament made its appearance-. 
 
 The reasons which actuated them in their work are 
 detailed in the Prefaces with which both Old and New 
 Testaments are introduced to the reader. "Now since 
 Luther's revolt also," says the preface to the New Testa- 
 ment, " diverse learned Catholics, for the more speedy 
 abolishing of a number of false and impious translations 
 put forth by sundry sects, and for the better preservation 
 or reclaim of many good souls endangered thereby, have 
 published the Bible in the several languages of almost 
 all the principal provinces of the Latin Church, no other 
 books in the world being so pernicious as heretical trans- 
 
4o8 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 lations of the Scriptures, poisoning the people under 
 colour of divine authority, and not many other remedies 
 being more sovereign against the same (if it be used in 
 order, discretion, and humility) than the true, faithful, 
 and sincere interpretation opposed thereunto. . . . We, 
 therefore, having compassion to see our beloved country- 
 men, with extreme danger of their souls, to use only such 
 profane translations and erroneous men's mere fantasies, 
 for the pure and blessed word of truth, much also moved 
 thereunto by the desires of many devout persons, have 
 set forth for you, benign readers, the New Testament to 
 begin withal, trusting that it may give occasion to you, 
 after diligent perusal thereof, to lay away at least such 
 their impure versions as hitherto you have been forced 
 to occupy." 
 
 The preface to the whole Bible speaks to the same 
 effect : " Now since Luther and his followers have pre- 
 tended that the. Catholic Roman faith and doctrine should 
 be contrary to God's written word, and that the Scriptures 
 were not suffered in vulgar languages, lest the people 
 should see the truth, and withal these new masters cor- 
 ruptly turning the Scriptures into diverse tongues, as 
 might best serve their own opinions, against this false 
 suggestion and practice. Catholic pastors have, for one 
 especial remedy, set forth true and sincere translations 
 in most languages of the Latin Church." 
 
 The translation was made, as we have noticed, soon 
 after the establishment of the college ; but, owing to a 
 " lack of means," as the preface says, in their " poor 
 estate in banishment," " to publish the whole in such 
 
Version of Holy Scriptui'e. 409 
 
 sort as a work of so great charge and importance " 
 required, it " lay by them," the New Testament till 1582, 
 the Old till i6og-io. At these dates the versions of the 
 New and Old Testaments were respectively published in 
 quarto ; that of the New at Rheims, that of the Old at 
 Douay, whither they returned in the course of the year. 
 The Old Testament came to a second edition (quarto) 
 in 1635, without alterations or corrections. The New 
 Testament came to a second edition (quarto) in 1600, 
 with some few alterations and corrections ; to a third 
 (i6mo) in 1621 ; and to a fourth (quarto) in 1633. After 
 these there was no new edition of either Old or New 
 Testament for above a hundred years, when at length, in 
 1738, the fifth was published (folio) of the New Testa- 
 ment. In this reprint the spelling is modernised, and 
 the text and annotations have a few verbal alterations, 
 but in substance it is the edition of 1600 and 1633. A 
 sixth edition of the New Testament (folio) was published 
 fifty years afterwards (1788) at Liverpool, with the 
 original preface and annotations, after the edition of 1738". 
 
 In 1816-1818 an edition, or editions, of the whole Bible 
 were published in Ireland, in which, as regards the New 
 Testament, the Rhemish text and annotations were mainly 
 adopted. This edition was printed in different places, 
 with duplicate sheets, and various cancels; and the 
 Old Testament follows mainly, both in text and notes, 
 Dr. Challoner's revision, which will be described lower 
 down. This may be considered the seventh edition of 
 the original Rhemish version of the New Testament. 
 
 An eighth edition, both text and notes, was published 
 
 27 
 
4 1 o The Rheiins and Douay 
 
 in New York, in octavo, in 1834, by a Protestant party, 
 which hoped to make use of it as a weapon in contro- 
 versy against Catholics. It professes to be " exactly 
 printed from the original volume." 
 
 Such is the history of the Rheims and Douay Bible, of 
 which there have been two editions of the Old Testa- 
 ment, i6og-io and 1635, and eight (including the New 
 York Protestant reprint) of the New, 1582, 1600, 
 1621, 1633, 1738, 1788, 1816-1818, and 1834. This 
 version comes to us on the authority of certain divines 
 of the Cathedral and College of Rheims and of the 
 University of Douay, confirmed by the subsequent in- 
 direct recognition of English, Scotch, and Irish bishops, 
 and by its general reception by the faithful. It never 
 has had any episcopal imprimatur, much less has it 
 received any formal Approbation from the Holy See. 
 
 § 2. DR. CHALLONER'S BIBLE. 
 
 We now come to review the labours of Dr. Challoner, 
 Vicar-Apostolic of the London district, in the middle of 
 last century. 
 
 Before that time the need of a revision of the Rheims 
 and Douay version had been felt and acknowledged. 
 During the greater part of the seventeenth century, 
 indeed, from 1635 till the first years of the eighteenth, 
 the inconvenience was borne of necessity ; for no reprint 
 was, during that long time, called for ; but when, at 
 length, the old edition was exhausted and a new one 
 required, then the latent dissatisfaction of Catholics with 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 4 1 1 
 
 the existing version showed itself, for two translations 
 of the New Testament successively appeared in rivalry 
 of the Rheims, and as substitutes for it. The former of 
 these new translations was that of Dr. Cornelius Nary, 
 in the year 1718 ; the latter, that of Dr. Witham of 
 Douay. Of these two translators, Dr. Nary was parish- 
 priest of St. Michan's, Dublin ; and the version which 
 he published ha«d the approbation of four Irish divines, 
 of Paris and of Dublin. The translator observes of 
 " the Douay Bible and the Rheims Testament," that 
 the "language is so old, the words so obsolete, the" 
 orthography so bad, and the translation so literal, that 
 in a number of places it is unintelligible, and all over so 
 grating to the ears of such as are accustomed to speak, 
 in a manner, another language, that most people will 
 not be at the pains of reading them." 
 
 An additional reason which Dr. Nary assigns for a new 
 translation is the inconvenience of the folio or quarto 
 size, in which the hitherto editions (excepting the third 
 of the New Testament) had been published. " They 
 are so bulky," he says, " that they cannot conveniently 
 be carried about for public devotion ; and so scarce and 
 dear, that the generality of people neither have, nor can 
 procure them for their private use." 
 
 Dr. Witham, the latter of these two translators, was 
 president of Douay College in 1730. He too complains 
 of the obscurity arising out of the literal renderings of 
 the Douay translators. " They followed," he says, " with 
 a nice exactness the Latin text, which they undertook 
 to translate, at the same time always consulting and 
 
412 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 comparing it with the Greek, as every accurate translator 
 must do, not to mistake the true sense of the Latin text. 
 They perhaps followed too scrupulously the Latin, even 
 as to the placing of the words ; but what makes that 
 edition seem so obscure at present, and scarce intelligible, 
 is the difference of the English tongue, as it was spoken 
 at that time, and as it is now changed and refined ; so 
 that many words and expressions, both in the translation 
 and annotations, by length of time are become obsolete, 
 and no longer in use." 
 
 These two translations appeared in 1718 and 1730 ; 
 and in 1738, as I have said above, in spite of them, a 
 new edition of the Rheims was published, probably, says 
 Dr. Cotton, in London. However, though they were 
 superseded, the force of the considerations which led to 
 their publication seems to have been felt, and resulted 
 in the revision of the Rheims and Douay text by Dr. 
 Challoner in 1749 and following years. That this pious 
 prelate, to whom the English Church is so much in- 
 debted, concurred in the dissatisfaction which Nary and 
 Witham felt with the text itself, is proved from the very 
 fact of his altering it. That he recognised the justice 
 of the complaint which they urged against the size 
 which had been selected for the Rheims and Douay, 
 may be argued from the circumstance, that he prints 
 his own edition, not in folio or quarto, but in i2mo. 
 
 The first edition of Dr. Challoner's revision was pub- 
 lished in 1749. It consisted of the New Testament 
 only, and professed in the title-page to be " newly 
 revised and corrected according to the Clementine edition 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 4 1 3 
 
 of the Scriptures" (the standard Vulgate). The appro- 
 bation of two English divines is prefixed to the volume, 
 but of no Bishop, which perhaps was unnecessary, con- 
 sidering he was a co-adjutor Bishop himself. In the 
 next year, 1750, he published an edition of the whole 
 Bible, including, therefore, a second edition of the New 
 Testament. In 1752 he published a third edition of 
 the New Testament; in 1763-4, a second edition of both 
 Testaments, which included a fourth edition of the New. 
 In 1752 he published a fifth edition of it ; which was 
 followed in 1777 by a sixth, according to Mr. C. Butler, 
 and the last in the editor's lifetime ; for he died of 
 the shock caused him by Lord George Gordon's riots, 
 and the trouble in which he was involved in consequence. 
 This was in the beginning of 1781, when he was in his 
 ninetieth year. 
 
 As to the alterations of text which he introduced, he 
 has given us no preface or other notice which would 
 serve as our informant of the principle, the source, or 
 the extent of them. On an inspection of the text itself, 
 we find them to be very considerable. We say so on a 
 comparison, as regards the Old Testament, of the edition 
 of 1750 with the Douay of 1635, in seven passages taken 
 at random, viz. Gen. i. i-io ; Exod. xv. i-io ; Judges 
 xiii. i-io; 3 Kings xviii. 18-27; Job xxxviii. 30-39 5 
 Psalm cvi. 21-30; and Ezek. xxxiii. i-io. In these 
 passages, reckoning roughly, there are altogether 170 
 variations in 70 verses : 11 in the first passage, 20 in 
 the second, 32 in the third, 35 in the fourth, 21 in the 
 fifth, 25 in the sixth, and 26 in the seventh. The varia- 
 
414 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 tion in the number of alterations in the several passages, 
 compared one with another, may partly be accounted 
 for by the vaiying length of the verses of which they 
 are composed, and partly from the greater or less diffi- 
 culty of translating. The principle of the alterations 
 seems to be, that of making the text more intelligible to 
 the reader; and, with this object, old words and old col- 
 locations are supei'seded by modern, and less usual ones 
 are exchanged for those which are more in use and even 
 familiar. 
 
 Thus, for " God also said," Challoner corrects " And 
 God said;" for "Be a firmament," "Let there be." 
 "It was so," for "it was so done;" "Then Moses 
 sung,'' for "Then sang Moses." For "song," "can- 
 ticle ; " for " to whom," " to her ; " for " sicer," " strong 
 drink." " I have not troubled," for " not I have 
 troubled ; " " call ye," for " invocate ye ; " " fasten," for 
 " compact ; " " wilt," for " shalt," in the sense of simple 
 futurity; "food," for "meat;" "give glory to," for 
 " confess to ;" "affliction," for "tribulation ; " "indeed," 
 for " certes; " " I will require his blood," for " his blood 
 I will require ; " " The word of the Lord came," for 
 "was made;" "be converted," for " convert." There 
 seems no desire to substitute Saxon words for Latin, for 
 " set forth " is altered into " declare ; " nor, perhaps, to 
 approach the Protestant version, though there often is an 
 approach, in fact, from the editor's desire to improve the 
 English of his own text. Thus, for " between waters 
 and waters," he writes " the waters from the waters ; " 
 for "named Manue," he has adopted "whose name was," 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 4 1 5 
 
 &c. ; for "having a wife barren," "and his wife was 
 barren ; " for " the waters were quiet," " the waves were 
 still ; " for " were moved," " reeled ; " for " if thou speak 
 not that the impious may keep himself from sin," " if 
 thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way." 
 On the other hand, there are instances in which he leaves 
 both the Douay and Protestant versions, which agree 
 together, for a re«dering of his own. Thus for "terrible " 
 he puts "awful;" for "fill the appetite," "satisfy the 
 appetite ; " for the inverted sentence " his blood will I 
 require," " I will requii-e his blood." 
 
 At the same time, it can scarcely be denied that, in 
 these specimens of Dr. Challoner's edition, there do seem 
 to be cases in which he adopts the Protestant version 
 by preference. Thus, for " the gathering of waters 
 together," he writes "the gathering together of the 
 waters;" for "hastened," "made haste;" for "the 
 house of thy father," " thy father's house ; " for "if Baal, 
 follow him," " if Baal, then follow him ; " for " till mid- 
 day," "even till [until, Pr.] noon; " for " the depths have 
 overwhelmed," "the depths have covered." And un- 
 doubtedly he has sacrificed force and vividness in some 
 of his changes ; as, for instance, in his dispensing with all 
 inversions of words, as, "his blood will I require," as 
 already quoted ; in altering "the haven of their will " of 
 the Douay into "the haven which they wished for; " "fill," 
 into "satisfy;" "marvellous" into "wonderful; " "mak- 
 ing traffic " into " doing business ; " " the blast of the 
 storm stood," in a poetical passage, into " there arose a 
 storm of wind." It is observable that for " our Lord " 
 
41 6 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 (as in "the commandments of our Lord,'' "if our Lord 
 be God," " the word of our Lord came," &c.) he uses 
 " the Lord " passim. 
 
 So much of particular passages : — Looking at Dr. 
 Challoner's labours on the Old Testament as a whole, we 
 may pronounce that they issue in little short of a new 
 translation. They can as little be said to be made on the 
 basis of the Douay as on the basis of the Protestant ver- 
 sion. Of course there must be a certain resemblance 
 between any two Catholic versions whatever, because they 
 are both translations of the same Vulgate ; but, this con- 
 nexion between the Douay and Challoner being allowed 
 for, Challoner's version is even nearer to the Protestant 
 than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in grammati- 
 cal structure, but in phraseology and diction. We will 
 take Psalm Hi. as an example, selected at hazard; and 
 we will go through it in the three versions, member by 
 member, denoting the three by the initials of Douay, 
 Protestant, and Challoner respectively. 
 
 i. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. D. P. The fool 
 said in his heart, there is no God. C. 
 
 2. They are corrupt. D. Corrupt are they. P. They are corrupted. 
 C. 
 
 and become abominable in iniquities. D. C. ajid have done abomin- 
 able iniquity. P. 
 
 There is not that doth good. D. There is none that doeth [doth C] 
 good. P. C. 
 
 3. God hath looked forth from heaven. D. God looked down from 
 heaven. P. C. 
 
 upon the children of men. D. P. on the children of men. C. 
 to see if there be that understandeth. D. to see if there were any that 
 did understand. P. C. 
 
Version of Holy Scriphire. 417 
 
 or D. C. that. P. 
 
 seeketh after God. D. did seek God. P. C. 
 
 4. All. D. C. Every one. P. 
 
 of them, omitted by D. of them. P. C. 
 
 have declined. D. is gone back. P. have gone aside. C. 
 
 they are become unprofitable together. D. C. they are altogether 
 become filthy. P. 
 
 there is not that doth good, no there is not one. D. there is none 
 that doeth [doth. C] good, no, not one, P. C. 
 
 5. Shall they not all . . . know. D. C. Have ... no know- 
 ledge. P. 
 
 that work iniquity. D. the workers of iniquity. P. C. 
 that devour my people as food of bread. D. who eat up my people as 
 they eat bread. P. C. 
 
 6. God they have not invocated. D. they have not called upon God. 
 P. C. 
 
 there have they trembled for fear. D. C. there were they in great 
 fear. P. 
 
 where no fear was. D. P. where there was no fear. C, 
 
 because God hath dissipated the bones. D. for God hath scattered the 
 bones. P. C. 
 
 of them that please men. D. C. of him that encampeth against thee. 
 P. 
 
 they are [have been. C] confounded. D. C. thou hast put them to 
 shame. P. 
 
 because God hath despised them. D. P. C. 
 
 7. Who will give out of Sion the salvation of Israel. D. C. O that the 
 salvation of Israel were come out of Zion. P. 
 
 when God shall convert the captivity of his people. D. when 
 God bringeth [shall bring. C] back the captivity of his people. 
 P. C. 
 
 Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. D. P. C. 
 
 Now, on this collation we observe : i. That there is 
 (with one exception) no instance of difference between 
 the Douay and Protestant in which Challoner leaves the 
 Douay but he leaves it for the Protestant. The excep- 
 
4 1 8 The Rheims aud Douay 
 
 tion is in V. 4, where, for the Douay " declined," he does 
 not substitute the Protestant " gone back," but " gone 
 aside." 
 
 2. Next, we observe that, of the nine instances in 
 which Challoner sides with the Douay against the Pro- 
 testant, eight are cases of mere construction of the Latin 
 Vulgate, not of diction, viz. "become abominable in," v. 
 2, "or," V. 3, " all," V. 4, " unprofitable," t'Siff., "shall not 
 . . . know," V. 5, " trembled," v. 6, " please men," ibid,., 
 and " who will give," v. 7. Such fidelity to the Douay 
 was a simple matter of duty. 
 
 3. Subtracting these from the nine cases in which 
 Challoner sides with the Douay against the Protestant, 
 we have only one remaining in which he does so freely 
 and by his own choice, viz. " confounded " for " put to 
 shame," v. 6. 
 
 4. It is true there are other cases in which Challoner 
 abstains from the Pi-otestant, but in these the Protestant 
 agrees with the Douay. There are three of these, that 
 is to say, three instances of the Douay siding with the 
 Protestant against Challoner ; and thus there are more 
 instances of the Douay siding with the Protestant than 
 of Challoner siding with the Douay. 
 
 5. On the other hand, there are eleven instances in 
 which Challoner leaves the Douay for the Protestant. 
 
 We really cannot say whether this Psalm supplies a 
 fair instance of the general character of Challoner's Old 
 Testament, though we have taken it at random ; but, 
 after all allowances for the accident of the selection, it is 
 difficult to avoid the conclusion, that at this day the 
 
Version of' Holy Scripture. 419 
 
 Douay Old Testament no longer exists as a received 
 version of the authorised Vulgate. 
 
 So much as to the Old Testament ; as to the New, we 
 are not in possession of Dr. Challoner's first edition (1749), 
 but we have compared with the Rheims of 1738 (which is 
 the edition of the New Testament immediately before his 
 own) his third edition of 1752, correcting it back into the 
 text of his first, b^ means of the collations between the 
 editions of 1749 and 1752, which Dr. Cotton has made. 
 We have made the comparison in three places, taken at 
 random — Luke viii. i-io ; John xiii. 6-15 ; and Heb. iv. 
 
 I-IO. 
 
 In the first of these three passages there are about 
 twenty-two corrections of the Rheims ; of these fifteen 
 are adoptions of the Protestant version, and seven alter 
 the Rheims, yet differ from the Protestant. 
 
 In the second passage, John xiii. 6-15, there are but 
 seven corrections of text ; of these, at least six are made 
 in accordance with the Protestant version, and one of 
 these is even an insertion of a word, not in the Vulgate, 
 which the Protestant inserts. As these changes are re- 
 markable, we cite them. They are, "what I do," for 
 " that which I do ; " " but thou shalt know hereafter," 
 for " hereafter thou shalt know;" "Thou shalt never 
 wash my feet," for " Thou shalt not wash my feet for 
 ever; " " for so I am," instead of "for I am so ; " "your 
 Lord and Master," for " Lord and Master ; " " you also 
 ought," for " you ought." 
 
 As regards the third passage, instead of a collation 
 throughout, we will set down a few verses as a specimen : 
 
420 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 Verse i. 
 
 Rheims, 1738. Let us fear therefore, lest perhaps forsaking the 
 promise of entering into his rest, some of you be thought to be 
 wanting. 
 
 Protestant. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of 
 entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 
 
 Challoner, 1749. Let us fear therefore, lest, the promise being 
 left of entering into his rest, any of you should be thought to be 
 wanting. 
 
 Verse 3. 
 
 Rheims. For we, that have believed, shall enter into the rest, as he 
 said. As I sware in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest ; and truly 
 the works from the foundation of the world being perfected. 
 
 Protestant. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said. 
 As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest : although 
 the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 
 
 Challoner. ■ For we who believed shall enter into rest; as he said. As 
 I have sworn in my wrath. If they shall enter into my rest ; and this, 
 when the works from the foundation of the world were finished. 
 
 Verse 6. 
 
 Rheims. Because then it remaineth that certain enter into it, and 
 they, to •whom first it was preached, did not enter because of incredulity . 
 
 Protestant. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter 
 therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because 
 of unbelief. 
 
 Challoner. Seeing then it remaineth that some are to enter into it, 
 and they, to whom it was first preached, did not enter in because of 
 unbelief. 
 
 A comparison of these verses again suggests to us 
 some of the rules which Dr. Challoner kept in view in 
 approximating, or not approximating, to the ProtestTint 
 
Version of Holy Scriphire. 421 
 
 version. As we have said, he could not be unfaithful to 
 the Vulgate : he never would leave its literal sense for the 
 Protestant text, which, on the other hand, is translated 
 from the Greek. Hence, in the contrast of the Greek 
 ioKT) ri<i and the Latin existimetur aliquis, he keeps 
 to the Rheims ; and in like manner, in va-TeprjKevai as 
 contrasted with deesse, and in Kairoi, yevrjOevrav with et 
 quidem openbuspe<iifectis. It is remarkable, however, that 
 in one case, where the Rheims is with the Greek, he 
 leaves it for the Protestant, which is not faithful to the 
 Greek, viz. ei<} rrjv KaTa-rravaw, in requiem. In one case 
 he modifies the interpretation which the Rheims gives of 
 the Vulgate by the Protestant, relictdpollicitatione. Again, 
 one object with him was to popularise the style ; hence 
 he puts unbelief for incredulity. Hence he alters the we 
 that have of the Rheims, not to the we which have of 
 the Protestant, but into we who have. Hence, too, he 
 retains the enter into it of the Rheims, where the Pro- 
 testant has enter therein; and the did not enter of the 
 Rheims, where the Prgtestant translates entered not. Yet 
 he is not always consistent : herein or therein occurs else- 
 where in his revision ; and unto for to very frequently. 
 Vide also Cotton, note t, p. 49. In John vi. 53 he has 
 altered the " Unless ye eat " of the Rheims into the less 
 accurate or obsolete Protestant rendering, " Except ye 
 eat." Vide also John iii. 3. 
 
 We have already implied that Dr. Challoner made cor- 
 rections of his own editions of the New Testament as they 
 successively issued from the press. The second edition 
 (1750) differs from the first, according to the collations 
 
42 2 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 which Dr. Cotton has printed, in about 124 passages; the 
 third (1752) in more than 2000. These alterations, Dr. 
 Cotton tell us, are all in the direction of the Protestant 
 version ; how far this is the case, and in what sense, 
 the above examination of particular texts may serve to 
 explain. 
 
 Challoner's text was the first which was published with 
 an episcopal sanction ; for it must be borne in mind that 
 he was a Bishop, and the coadjutor of the Vicar-Apos- 
 tolic of London, at the time of his first edition. 
 
 § 3. DR. troy's bible. 
 
 Dr. Challoner died in 1781 ; while he lived, no editions 
 were published but such as followed his Revision. A few 
 years, however, after his death, as we have noticed above, 
 there was a return to the original Rheims of the New 
 Testament, which was published in a sixth edition at 
 Liverpool in 1788. But this had been preceded by an 
 edition at Dublin which, as being the first of a series 
 of editions of the New Testament upon a new revision 
 of the Rheims version, requires some distinct notice. It 
 was made on the basis of Dr. Challoner's, but still with 
 considerable changes of text. The revisor was the Rev. 
 Bernard Macmahom, a Dublin priest, who published his 
 first edition in 1783, in i2mo, with the formal approbation 
 of his Archbishop, Dr. Carpenter. There is reason for 
 supposing that it professed to be a continuation of Dr. 
 Challoner's labours ; for, as that venerable prelate pub- 
 lished successively three corrected editions of the New 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 423 
 
 Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 (for the subsequent 
 editions ai'e not new coiTections, but almost facsimiles 
 of the preceding : vide Cotton, p. 20, &c.)> so this new 
 Dublin edition is called, in the Archbishop's approba- 
 tion prefixed to it, " the fourth edition revised and cor- 
 rectedanew." This is Dr. Cotton's conjecture also, though 
 he accompanies it, as is not unusual with him, with a 
 gratuitous piece af ill-nature. If the " fourth " does not 
 mean this, it is difficult to say to what previous edition 
 it refers ; for, at the time that it was published, there 
 had been already five editions of the Rheims. Leaving 
 this point, we are told by Dr. Cotton that the varia- 
 tions from Challoner's text, in the Gospels, are about 50; 
 in the Acts and subsequent books, above 500. Eight 
 years aftei'wards, in 1791, the same clergyman was 
 selected by Dr. Troy, his then Archbishop, to superintend 
 an edition of the whole Bible in quarto; and on this occa- 
 sion, according to the same authority, he introduced into 
 the New Testament above 200 changes more, calling it 
 the "fifth edition." In 1794 it was reprinted in folio, 
 forming " the sixth ; " a " seventh edition " of the New 
 Testament was published in i2mo in 1803, with above 
 100 variations from the text of 179 1, in favour of that of 
 1783 ; and an " eighth " in 1810, in i2mo also, after the 
 text of the seventh. 
 
 Thus we have five editions of the revision of Mr. 
 Macmahon, with the titles of fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, 
 and eighth. Of these the editions of 1783, 1803, and 
 1810 are of the New Testament only; those of 1791 and 
 1794 of the whole Bible. The text has also been adopted 
 
424 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 in the Philadelphian edition of the Bible in 1805, which 
 styles itself " the first American from the fifth Dublin 
 edition." 
 
 If we are to follow Dr. Cotton, we ought to notice it as a 
 peculiarity of this revision, that, whereas Dr. Challoner's 
 alterations were in the direction of the Protestaflt version, 
 those of Mr. Macmahon (or of his successors in the 
 editorship) were in the opposite direction. We should 
 not have been surprised at this being the case, without 
 imputing to the English Bishop any wish to favour that 
 version, or to the Irish priest a wish to protest against it. 
 From the respective circumstances of the two countries, 
 it has come about, as we are informed by those who 
 ought to know, that the English language in Ireland 
 has, in its diction and construction, more of a French 
 or Latin character than in England. If this be so, 
 the idioms and words, which each revisor would con- 
 sider to be an improvement on the Rheims, might in one 
 case approximate to the Protestant text, in the other 
 recede from it. However, we are not sure of the accu- 
 racy of Dr. Cotton's alleged fact, nor of the actual 
 operation, in this instance, of the principle to which we 
 have referred it. We doubt whether Macmahon's 
 alterations have a foreign cast, and we doubt whether 
 he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. 
 Challoner. 
 
 As to the character of his alterations, as regards the 
 New Testament, they are sometimes more colloquial 
 than Challoner's, and sometimes not so English, without 
 being foreign. Thus, the Rheims and Challoner speak of 
 
Version of Holy Scriphire. 425 
 
 " the multitude," and the Protestant of " the people," 
 being " put forth,'' when Mr. Macmahon speaks of 
 "the crowd" being "turned out" (Matt. ix. 25). 
 Where the Rheims translates " it shall break him to 
 powder," and the Protestant and Challoner, "it will 
 grind him to powder," Mr. Macmahon writes, " it will 
 dash him to pieces " (Luke xx. 18). Where the Rheims 
 has "they were*in doubt of them, what would befall," 
 Challoner, " they were in doubt concerning them, what 
 would come to pass," and the Protestant, " they doubted 
 of them, whereunto this would grow," Mr. Macmahon 
 has adopted, "they were in doubt what was become of 
 them" (Acts v. 24). The " Barnabas would have taken 
 with them John " of the Rheims, " Barnabas would 
 have taken with him John " of Challoner, " Barnabas 
 determined to take with them John " of the Protestant, 
 is rendered by Mr. Macmahon, " Barnabas had a mind 
 to take along with him John " (Acts xv. 37). And for 
 "that which is the foolish of God" according to the 
 Rheims, and " the foolishness of God " of the Protestant 
 and Challoner, Mr. Macmahon substitutes " that which 
 appeareth foolish of God." 
 
 We could not, then, account for the fact, supposing it 
 to hold, that Mr. Macmahon receded from the Protestant 
 approximations of Challoner's text, by his supposed pre- 
 ference of an English style less vernacular than what 
 is in use among ourselves. However, we are not sure 
 that the fact is as Dr. Cotton represents it. He says, 
 " Of the passages rendered differently from Challoner, 
 
 many recede much further from the authorised version 
 
 28 
 
426 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 than he (Dr. Challoner) did " (p. 55). We do not set 
 our own diligence or accuracy in competition with Dr. 
 Cotton's, still we do but state a fact when we say that 
 our own experiments at collating the two revisions do 
 not bear out the impression which his words convey. 
 The edition, indeed, of the New Testament of 1783 
 hardly exists, and is unknown to us ; but Dr. Troy's 
 edition of 1794, which we have used, " follows," says 
 Dr. Cotton (p. 77), "the quarto Bible of 1791 exactly," 
 the text of which " is the text of Mr. Macmahon's 
 Testament of 1783, with upwards of two hundred addi- 
 tional departures from Challoner " (p. 58). With this 
 New Testament, then, of 1794 we have compared Dr. 
 Challoner's of 1752, and the Rheims of 1621, with the 
 following result. 
 
 In twenty specimens, taken at random, we found that, 
 while in ten of them Dr. Challoner had left the Rheims 
 for the Protestant, and in six Mr. Macmahon (or his 
 editorial successor) had returned from Dr. Challoner's 
 to the Rheims; on the other hand, in four, in which Dr. 
 C. had retained the Rheims, Mr. Macmahon had adopted 
 the Protestant ; that is, on the whole, that out of twenty 
 instances of variation. Dr. Challoner and Mr. Macmahon 
 had left the Rheims for the Protestant in the same/oMy; 
 that Dr. Challoner had adopted altogether ten Protestant 
 renderings, and Mr. Macmahon eight; that Dr. C. had 
 kept the Rheims where Mr. M. had adopted the Pro- 
 testant in four, and that Mr. M. had kept the Rheims 
 where Dr. C. had adopted the Protestant in six. 
 
 Again, taking Hebrews xiii. and collating the three 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 427 
 
 texts of 1621, 1752, and 1794 with the Protestant ver- 
 sion, we find Challoner and Macmahon have eleven dif- 
 ferences from each other ; in two Challoner leaves the 
 Rheims for the Protestant, where Macmahon retains it, 
 viz. in the position, &c. of words in vv. 7 and 11 ; in four 
 Macmahon leaves the Rheims for the Protestant, where 
 Challoner retains it, viz. " carried," g ; " now the God," 
 &c. 20, 21; "working," 21; and "few," 22. In three 
 C. retains and M. leaves both Rheims and Protestant, 
 whei"e the latter two agree together ; and in two M. re- 
 tains the Rheims and C. leaves it, though not for the 
 Protestant. 
 
 Again, in James i. there are nine differences between 
 Challoner and Macmahon ; in which C. retains three of 
 the Rheims, which M. changes, and C. changes into the 
 Protestant yiwe of the Rheims, which M. retains. In the 
 ninth all four renderings are different from each other. 
 
 Again, in St. Jude's Epistle, i-io, out of Macmahon's 
 twenty-six alterations of the Rheims, twenty-four are 
 from Challoner ; but in the other two Challoner retains 
 the Rheims, which Macmahon leaves for the Protes- 
 tant. 
 
 And in 2 Ep. St. John, out of Macmahon's eighteen alte- 
 rations from the Rheims, fifteen are from Challoner, and 
 three are made where C. follows the Rheims. 
 
 On the whole, then, we are not able to corroborate Dr. 
 Cotton's remark as to Mr. Macmahon's dissatisfaction, 
 greater or less, with the Protestant leaning of Dr. Chal- 
 loner's revision of the Rheims, though it is a real per- 
 plexity to us that we should find ourselves differing from 
 
428 The Rh&itns and Douay 
 
 him. So much as regards the New Testament. Asregards 
 the Douay translation of the Old, there seems to be very 
 little difference between the texts of Dr. Challoner and 
 Mr. Macmahon. We have collated seven chapters taken 
 at random : Numb, xxiv., Deuter. i., Esther v., Psalm 
 Ixxviii., Ecclus. v., Isai. xv. and Abdias. In four of 
 these thera is not a single difference between Dr. C. and 
 Mr. M. In Deut: i. the only difference is C.'s " unto " 
 for M.'s " to," in verse 3. In Psalm Ixxviii., the last 
 words " unto all generations," which C. adopts after the 
 Protestant, instead of the " unto generation and gene- 
 ration'' of the Douay, which M. retains. In Abdias 
 the only difference i-s C.'s "speak proudly" after the 
 Protestant, where M. retains the " magnify thy mouth " 
 of the Douay. That is, in one hundred and forty-six 
 verses there are only three, or rather two, differences ; 
 in these Macmahon returns to the Douay, which Chal- 
 loner had left for the Protestant. These collations bear 
 out, as far as they go, Dr. Cotton's remark, that " the 
 text of this edition (the Dublin), so far as concerns the 
 Old Testament, does not differ materially from that of 
 Dr. Challoner's " (p. 58). 
 
 This series of editions, commenced by Mr. Macmahon's 
 New Testament, and extending from 1783 to 1810, may 
 be fitly called Dr. Troy's Bible, from the Approbation 
 which he gave to it in 1791. As that Approbation sums 
 up the history of the version hitherto, and connects his 
 own revision with that of Dr. Challoner, a portion of it 
 shall be given here. " By our authority," the Archbishop 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 429 
 
 says in Latin, " we appi-ove this new English edition of 
 the Holy Bible, . . . which has by our order been care- 
 fully collated by the Rev. Bernard Macmahon with the 
 Clementine Vulgate, also with the Douay Old Testa- 
 ment of 1609, and the Rheims New Testament of 1582, 
 and with the London Old and New Testament of 1752, 
 approved English versions." 
 
 § 4. EDITIONS SINCE DR. TROy's BIBLE. 
 
 Challoner's revision is the first and the last to which the 
 Douay version of the Old Testament has been subjected; 
 the text remains almost verbatim as he left it. What 
 qualifications must be made of this statement, on the 
 score of certain passages in Dr. Troy's Bible, shall be con- 
 sidered when we speak of the now current editions. The 
 same, however, cannot be said of Challoner's New Testa- 
 ment, and for this reason, if for no other, that the texts of 
 his own editions vary from each other ; and, moreover, as 
 he was not the author of all the changes introduced into 
 the later editions (for Mr. C. Butler tells us, '' alterations 
 were made in every " edition, "iaAfs^f/ssaiw/aciJOM," Cotton, 
 p. 50), it is not wonderful that the tendency to fresh 
 changes, which was powerful enough even in his lifetime 
 to introduce itself, in spite of his wishes, into his own work, 
 should have had actual results after his death. Dr. Troy's 
 {i.e. Mr. Macmahon's) emendations have already been 
 spoken of. Subsequent editors have had to choose be- 
 tween this or that of Challoner's three texts of the New 
 Testament, and Dr. Troy's text; and, as might have been 
 
430 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 expected, they have chosen variously. The principal of 
 these editions shall now be enumerated. 
 
 I. Dr. Hay's Bible. 
 
 1. In 1761 an edition of the vi^hole Bible was printed 
 in Edinburgh, 5 volumes, i2mo, under the inspection of 
 Dr. Hay, one of the Vicars-Apostolic in Scotland, so well 
 known by his publications. We introduce Dr. Hay's 
 name on Dr. Cotton's authority, as we do not find it in 
 our own copy, which is of the second edition.^ 
 
 2. In 1804-5 " the same printer (Mr. John Moir) issued 
 a re-impression." About 3000 and 2000 copies were 
 struck off in these two editions. 
 
 3. In 181 1 a great number of unsold copies were pub- 
 lished in Dublin with new title-pages, some engravings, 
 and a long list of subscribers, with the imprint, " Dublin, 
 1811." This may be called the third edition. 
 
 4. In the same year an actual reprint of the New Testa- 
 ment was published by the same Dublin publisher. It 
 also has a list of subscribers ; among whom are Dr. Troy, 
 Dr. Murray, &c. 
 
 5. In 1814 this New Testament came to a fifth edition 
 at Dublin, in i2mo. 
 
 6. And in 1817, it probably supplied the text to the 
 i2mo edition printed at Belfast. 
 
 Of the text of Dr. Hay's New Testament (for, as we 
 
 ^ It appears from a private letter of the date of 1792, which has 
 been shown me by the kindness of Canon Toole, that the actual 
 revisor of this edition was the Rev, James Robertson, of the order of 
 St. Benedict. 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 431 
 
 have said, the text of the Old Testament has not substan- 
 tially varied since Challoner's time), Dr. Cotton says : 
 "It in general folldws Challoner's edition of 1763-4; but 
 occasionally it deserts that edition for the first, of 1749, 
 as in Matt. i. 25, iii. 13, iv. 9, v. 37, vi. 16, viii. 17, x. 22, 
 xxi. 40 ; Acts V. 38 ; Eph. i. 21, and some other places. 
 In a few passages, it agrees with Dr. Troy's Bible of 
 1791, as at Matt. ii. 23, iv. 9 ; Gal. vi. 9, &c." (p. 77). 
 
 2. Dr. Gibson's Bible. 
 
 1. In 1816-17, an edition of the Bible was published at 
 Liverpool, in folio. It bore " on the title-page that it was 
 pubHshed with his (Dr. Gibson's) sanction" (p. no). 
 
 2. In 1822-23, a reprint of this Bible, in folio, was 
 published in London. 
 
 3. In 1829, a third was published in London also, and 
 in folio, and " very handsomely executed." It was put 
 forth under the sanction of Dr. Bramston, then Vicar- 
 Apostolic, and calls itself "the third edition " {ibid.). 
 
 It is not certain that these three editions belong to each 
 other, though the printers and publishers of all three, and 
 the approving Bishop of the first two, are the same, and 
 though the last two distinctly call themselves " the 
 second and third" respectively, if we understand Dr. 
 Cotton (pp. no, 127). Our reason for this remark is, 
 that the second edition is said to be " revised and cor- 
 rected" by two Liverpool clergymen, and that the third 
 edition has not the same episcopal sanction as the first 
 two. 
 
 As to the text of the New Testament, Dr. Cotton tells 
 
432 The Rheiins and Dottay 
 
 .us that, in the edition of 1816-17, it is " taken almost 
 without exception from Challoner's later edition ; "' in 
 the third it "appears to agree with that of Dr. Challoner 
 in 1763-4." These statements coincide. 
 
 3. Dr. Poynter's New Testament. 
 
 1. 1815 ; — A New Testament was published in two 
 sizes, " i2mo and a handsome 8vo " (p. 99). It pro- 
 fesses in the title-page to be " stereotyped from the 
 edition published by authority in 1749," that is, from 
 Challoner's first. It has a preliminary " Address," 
 anonymous, but according to Mr. C. Butler, written by 
 Dr. Poynter. " The superintendence of this edition," 
 says Dr. Cotton, " was confided to the care of the Rev. 
 Dr. Rigby, afterwards Vicar-Apostolic of the London 
 District. . . . The text," he continues, "as was above 
 stated, agrees with that of the edition of 1749. ^ have 
 only detected a single slight variation, viz. at Phil. ii. 
 7." The reading of Dr. Poynter's edition, in this place, 
 is " debased himself," taken from Challoner's text of 
 1752 ; for the reading in those of 1749 and 1750 is 
 " emptied himself" 
 
 2. In 1818, a new edition of this New Testament was 
 prepared by the Rev. Mr. Horrabin, under the sanction 
 of Dr. Poynter. It was in i2mo, and was sold at a low 
 price for the use of the poorer class. 
 
 3. In 1823, the stereotype plates of the edition of 1815 
 wei"e used for an edition published by Mr. Bagster, which 
 is still in cirgulation. 
 
Version of Holy Scriphire. 433 
 
 4. 1825. A fresh edition of Dr. Poynter's New Testa- 
 ment, in 8vo. Dr. Cotton tells us that it follows the 
 edition of 1815 "both in text and notes, with exception of 
 reading ' debased ' instead of " emptied ' at Phil. ii. 7." 
 This perplexes us ; for Dr. Poynter's edition of 1815, and 
 Bagster's from the same plates, in 1823, both of which 
 lie before us, both read "debased" already. We have not 
 the means of coijaparing the edition of 1825 with them. 
 
 5. 1826. A new stereotyped edition of Dr. Poynter's 
 New Testament, in i2mo. It was published at Dublin, at 
 the expense of the Commissioners of Irish Educat'.on, 
 with the imprimatur of the four Archbishops of Ireland. 
 
 6. 1834, 35, 37, 40. The edition of 1826 with new 
 title-pages (Cotton, p. 242). 
 
 7. 1842. The edition of 1825 was " reissued with a 
 new title-page and a new printer's name " (p. 123). 
 
 4. Dr. Troy's Testament without notes. 
 
 I. 1820. This edition is quite distinct from the series 
 of editions on which we have enlarged as Mr. Macmahon's 
 revision. It is quite distinct, too, from Dr. Troy's Bible 
 of 1816-18, which, as regards its New Testament, we have 
 mentioned above (p. 409), as being a reprint, Text and 
 Notes, of the Rhemish. It is remarkable for having no 
 notes at all appended to the verses or chapters. The whole 
 sacred text stands absolutely by itself, a supplement being 
 added with the usual notes, which might or might not, 
 according to the purchaser's pleasure, be bound up with it. 
 Of this edition 20,000 copies were struck off. Dr. Troy, 
 
434 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 in his Approbation, speaks of it as " conformable particu- 
 larly to the text of the Douay English version sanctioned 
 by him, and published in 1791 ; " however, Dr. Cotton 
 tells us that "the text is taken literally from that of 
 Dr. Challoner's second edition, 1750, and is," as he 
 believes, " the first, if not the only, modern representa- 
 tion of that particular text " (p. 120). 
 
 2. 1825. Copies of the above were reissued in London 
 with a new title-page. 
 
 5. Dr. Mtirray's Bible. 
 
 1. 1825. This edition is in 8vo, stereotyped, and its 
 plates are still in use. There have been fresh impressions 
 of it from time to time, in 1829, 33, 40, 44, 47, &c. 
 
 As to the text of the New Testament, " it rather fol- 
 lows Dr. Challoner's early editions of 1749 and 1750 " 
 (Cotton, p. 124). He adds, " The Bible appears to have 
 given great satisfaction to the Roman Catholic public, 
 and to have been made a sort of standard or exemplar for 
 some editions since issued both in Great Britain and Ire- 
 land." 
 
 2. 1833-36. The Glasgow Bible, 8vo, published with 
 the Approbation of the Vicars-Apostolic of England and 
 Scotland. 
 
 3. 1838. Dr. Blake's New Testament, 8vo, Newry, 
 appears to adopt "the text of Dr. Murray, agreeing 
 with the early editions of Challoner " (p. 140.) It was 
 reprinted at Belfast, 1846-7. 
 
 4. 1838. Dr. Denvir's series of reprints at Belfast of 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 435 
 
 the New Testament begin apparently in 1836 ; Dr. Cotton 
 sets down one under the date of 1837. Subsequent re- 
 prints, or fresh issues, ai-e dated 1839, 4^' 43' 45> ^^^ 
 nearly every successive year ; and the whole Bible in 
 1839, 47, &c. In another issue of Bibles his name ap- 
 pears in conjunction with Dr. CroUy's, in 1846, and 52. 
 The text of the New Testament in these editions, at 
 least in that of 1*39, " appears to agree with Dr. Murray's 
 edition of 1825 "(p. 146). We have collated Dr. Murray's 
 text of 1825 with Dr. Denvir's of 1853, in Rom. xiii. 
 There is a variation in verse 11, viz. "time" in edition 
 1853 for " season" in edition 1825. "Time" stands in 
 Troy's edition, 1794 ; but the text is certainly not Troy's, 
 from whose text in the same chapter it has the following 
 variations : " princes " for '' rulers," v. 3 ; " God's minis- 
 ter " for " minister of God," twice in v. 4 ; " to love " for 
 "that you love," v. 8; and "our neighbour" for "the 
 neighbour," v. 10. 
 
 5. 1840. At Philadelphia, U.S., a New Testament, 
 apparently a reprint of Dr. Murray's text of 1825, with 
 the approbation of Archbishops Kenrick and Hughes. 
 
 6. 1846. Dr. MacHale's New Testament. " Both the 
 text and notes seem to agree with Dr. Murray's Bible 
 pubHshed in 1825 " (Cotton, p. 148). 
 
 6. Cardinal Wiseman's Bible. 
 
 1847. This edition is printed in 8vo by Messrs. Richard- 
 son, London and Derby. It has the approbation of Dr. 
 Walsh, Vicar-Apostolic, and Dr. Wiseman, his coadjutor. 
 
436 The Rheims and Dottay. 
 
 The text seems to follow Dr. Troy's of 1791, or of 1803, 
 which inchnes to Mr. Macmahon's original edition of 
 1783. This seems to be Dr. Cotton's account, vide pp. 
 78, 149. Out of twenty-seven instances of variation of 
 text taken at random, we find none to side with Challoner 
 against Troy, twenty-six side with Troy against Challoner, 
 and in one the reading is without precedent, viz. in i 
 John iv. 2 : " Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ 
 to come in the flesh is of God." 
 
 We must not conclude this enumeration of revisions 
 and reprints of the Rheims and Douay, without giving 
 some account of two rival folio editions, which were pub- 
 lished (or rather sold to subscribers in parts) without direct 
 episcopal sanction, though one of them has since risen into 
 great reputation, and has received, first the approbation of 
 the Vicars-Apostolic of Scotland, and of various Arch- 
 bishops and Bishops of Ireland, and lately that of the 
 Archbishop of New York, where it has been republished, 
 together with the recommendation of a great number of 
 North American Bishops, in letters prefixed to the edition, 
 as well as that of our own Cardinal Archbishop and of the 
 late Archbishop of Milan. This is Haydock's Bible, 
 originally published at Manchester and Dublin in 
 1811-12 and 1814; its rival being that of Oswald 
 Syers, published at Manchester in 1811-13. Mr. 
 Haydock and Mr. Syers, the respective publishers, 
 were printers ; but the editor and annotator employed 
 by the former was his own brother, who was a priest, 
 the Rev. George Haydock, to whom the edition owes 
 its celebrity, 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 437 
 
 7. Syers' Bible. 
 
 1811-13. The Bible "bears no approbation of any 
 living ecclesiastical authority ; nor any preface or other 
 introductory matter to explain the principle adopted in 
 this edition, or the sources from which the annotations 
 are derived " (C8tton, p. 91). With the annotations we 
 are not here concerned ; " the text," he continues, " ap- 
 pears rather to agree with that of Dr. Challoner, and in 
 the New Testament it rather follows his early editions, 
 1749 and 1750, than his later ones, 1752, &c." We do 
 not think it very necessary to go to any great pains in 
 verifying what Dr. Cotton has so diligently examined. 
 In Phil. ii. 7, this edition follows Challoner's later edi- 
 tion of 1752 ; otherwise our collations, as far as they 
 have gone, lead us to agree with Dr. Cotton. 
 
 8. Haydock's Bible. 
 
 I. 1811-12 and 1814, fol. The characteristic of this 
 edition is its series of new and copious Annotations. As 
 to the text, the editor professes in his advertisement his 
 intention to " adhere to the text of the Venerable and 
 Right Rev. Dr. Richard Challoner; " on which Dr. Cot- 
 ton remarks, " it is not exactly true that Dr. Challoner's 
 text is followed universally" (p. 87J. As regards the 
 New Testament, the justice of Dr. Cotton's remark will 
 be plain on a very superficial examination, however the 
 
438 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 fact is to be accaunted for. Out of twenty instances 
 taken at hazard, we found Haydock's text to agree with 
 Dr. Troy's of 1794, as against any of Challoner's texts, 
 in eighteen ; to agree with Challoner against Troy in 
 one ; and in one to differ from both. 
 
 2. 1822-24. In 1822 "an 8vo edition of Haydock's 
 Bible with short notes was issued in DubHn ; and two 
 years later, a new title-page was prefixed to it with the 
 date 1824, calling itself ' the second edition.' The book 
 is very carelessly printed, and full of errors. The text of 
 the New Testament seems to have been taken from Dr. 
 Troy's Bible of 1791 and 1794" (Cotton, p. 123). 
 
 3. 1845-48. " A republication of Haydock's Bible at 
 Edinburgh and London, with all its notes, in a hand- 
 some quarto form " {ibid. p. 149), with the approbation of 
 the Vicars-Apostolic of Scotland, with their coadjutors, 
 of the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, and of the 
 Bishops of Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick. This 
 edition was printed from Haydock's earliest impressions 
 of his Bible in 1811, as Dr. Cotton tells us, verbum verbo, 
 in consequence of the wish expressed by Dr. Scott, one 
 of the Scotch Vicars-Apostolic. 
 
 4. 1852-56. This splendid edition, which is published 
 by Messrs. Dunigan of New York, in quarto, is introduced 
 to the public by those many high approbations and recom- 
 mendations to which we have already referred. Dr. Cotton 
 says that "it appears to have been copied from Haydock's 
 first impression of 181 1.'' We do not know how to follow 
 him in this conclusion; but we have not been able to find 
 any information on the subject in the edition itself. Our 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 439 
 
 reason for questioning Dr. Cotton's belief is, that, on 
 taking twenty instances of text at hazard in the editions 
 of 1811-14 and of 1852-56 we found the latter to differ 
 from the former in seven, of which four are altered back to 
 Challoner's editions, one agrees with Cardinal Wiseman's, 
 and two with no edition with which we are acquainted. 
 5. 1853. This edition in quarto, with Haydock's notes 
 abridged, is due to the Very Rev. Dr. Husenbeth, who 
 undertook it, as he informs us, "with the approbation 
 and sanction of his ecclesiastical superior, the Right 
 Rev. Dr. Wareing, and with the concurrent approbation 
 and sanction of all the Right Rev. Vicars-Apostolic of 
 Great Britain." Approbations from the Vicars-Apostolic 
 of England and Scotland follow. 
 
 § 5. CURRENT EDITIONS. 
 
 We may fitly sum up this account of public and autho- 
 rised editions of the Catholic English Bible with a notice 
 of its existing texts and their relation to the text of the 
 original Rheims and Douay. We conceive these texts may 
 be represented by the editions of Cardinal Wiseman in 
 England, and of Dr. Murray and Dr. Denvir in Ireland, to 
 which may be added Mr. Haydock's in the United States, 
 till the learned Archbishop of Baltimore completes the 
 laborious work to which he has so long devoted himself. 
 
 I. The Old Testament. 
 As to the Old Testament, as we have already said, there 
 
440 The Rheims and Donay 
 
 have been no material alterations in its text since the 
 revision or retranslation executed by Dr. Challoner. (i) 
 Dr. Hay's text exactly follows Dr. Challoner's edition of 
 1763-4. So says Dr. Cotton, p. 77; and we can corrobo- 
 rate him as far as this, that, on comparing Challoner's 
 1750 with Hay's, we find that, all through the four 
 volumes of the Old Testament, page answers faithfully to 
 page : e.g. there are 507 pages in each first volume, 
 ending with Ruth ; 487 in the second, ending with 
 Esther ; and so on. So again, p. 300, vol. iii., ends with 
 Eccles. iv. g, in both ; p. 400 in vol. iv. ends with Mai. 
 iii. g, in both, &c. (2) Again, Dr. Gibson's text " is 
 taken from Bishop Challoner" {jhid. p. no). (3) Of 
 Syers's, the same authority says that " the text appears 
 to agree with that of Dr. Challoner." We have collated it 
 with Dr. Challoner's of 1750, in Eccles. x. and Isai. i., and 
 find, as he would lead us to expect, not a single difference 
 of reading between them. (4) Lastly, as to Dr. Troy's 
 Bibles of I7gi and 1816. Speaking of the former of 
 these. Dr. Cotton says : " I have observed a few variations 
 [from Dr. Challoner] in several of the books, as in Dan. ii.," 
 &c., p. 58. In these instances the text of i7gi is followed 
 by that of 1816, which " generally follows Dr. Challoner, 
 but occasionally differs, as in Neh. [2 Esdr.] ix. 17, Job 
 xxvi. 13, Isai. viii. ig, Ezech. xix. 5," p. 115. Considering, 
 then. Dr. Troy is followed by the editions of Haydock, 
 Dr. Murray, Dr. Denvir, and Cardinal Wiseman, pp. 124, 
 146, i4g, which we have taken to represent the cur- 
 rent text or texts of the day, we are safe in saying, 
 first, that Challoner's revision has been hitherto a final 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 441 
 
 one ; next that there is at present, as regards the Old 
 Testament, one, and only one, received text, or very 
 nearly so. 
 
 In verification of Dr. Cotton's statements, we have 
 compared together the text of five passages in the Old 
 Testament, taken at random in five editions : viz. in Dr. 
 Challoner's of 1750, and in the current editions of 1847, 
 Richardsons, Lqpdon (Cardinal Wiseman's) ; of 1853, 
 Dolman, London (Dr. Denvir's) ; of 1854, Duffy, Dublin 
 (Dr. Murray's) ; and of 1856, Dunigan, New .York 
 (Haydock's) ; with the following results : — 
 
 1. 4 Kings XX. i-ii. They all agree verbatim, except 
 ■ that in v. 8, Haydock, instead of " What shall be the 
 
 sign that I shall go up to the temple," reads " What is 
 the sign that I will go up." This is correctly printed 
 after Haydock's text of 1811. Again, in v. 11, where 
 the other four read " in the dial," Haydock, 1856 (after 
 the edition of 1811), reads " on the dial." 
 
 2. Job xiii. i-io. Where Challoner has changed the 
 Douay "or shall it please him," v. 9, into "shall 
 this," the four current editions have gone back to 
 " it." 
 
 3. Psalm X. For " the Psalm of David " of the Douay 
 1635, Challoner reads "a Psalm for David." He is 
 followed by Cardinal Wiseman, Dr. Murray, and Dr. 
 Denvir; but Haydock (after ed. 1811) substitutes "a 
 Psalm to David." 
 
 4. Psalm Ixvii. 12-21. For Challoner's "amongst," 
 V. 14, the four current editions read " among." For the 
 " Sina," V. 18, of Douay, Challoner, Cardinal Wiseman, 
 
 29 
 
442 The Rheims and Douay 
 
 Dr. Murray, and Dr. Denvir, Haydock (after ed. 1811) 
 reads " Sinai." 
 
 5. Isai. xxviii. 20-29. For "the mountain of divisions," 
 V. 21, of Challoner, Murray, Dr. Denvir, and Haydock', 
 Cardinal Wiseman reads "division." In v. 21 Murray, 
 apparently by an error of press, leaves out " that he may 
 do his work, his strange work." The same edition and 
 Dr. Denvir's read " thrash," where the others read 
 " thresh." 
 
 These are all the variations which we have discovered 
 between Dr. Challoner and the four modern editions, in 
 the passages in question. On the other hand, if we would 
 see the concordant divergence of all five from the old 
 Douay of 1635, we may take, the following instances out 
 of the same passages : — 
 
 1. Where the four editions all read, " In the Lord I put 
 my trust, how then do you say to my soul, Get thee away 
 from hence to the mountain like a sparrow ? " in the 
 Douay we find, " I trust in the Lord, How say ye to my 
 soul, Pass over unto the mountain as a sparrow ? " 
 
 2. Where the four editions read, " For they have de- 
 stroyed the things which thou hast made ; but what has 
 the just man done ? " the Douay has, " For they have 
 destroyed the things which thou didst perfect ; but the 
 just, what hath he done ? " 
 
 3. Where the four editions read, " The Lord shall give 
 the word to them that preach good tidings with great 
 power; the king of powers is of the beloved, of the beloved, 
 and the beauty of the house shall divide spoils; " the 
 Douay runs, " Our Lord shall give the word to them that 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 443 
 
 evangelise with great power ; the king of hosts, the 
 beloved of the beloved, and to the beauty of the house 
 to divide the spoils." 
 
 4. And where the four editions read, " And now do 
 not mock, l6st your bonds be tied strait, for I have 
 heard of the Lord, the God of hosts, a consumption and 
 a cutting short upon all the earth. Give ear and hear my 
 voice, hearken and hear my speech ; " the Douay reads, 
 " And now mock not, lest perhaps your bonds be tied 
 strait ; for I have heard of our Lord, the God of hosts, 
 consumniation and abridgment upon all the earth. 
 Hearken with your ears, and hear my voice ; attend, 
 and hear my speech." 
 
 2. The New Testament. 
 
 Now, lastly, we come to the current editions of the 
 New Testament. Of the four current editions which we 
 have been using, Dr. Cotton has given us, as we have 
 said above, the following account : that Dr. Murray's 
 text rather follows Dr. Challoner's early editions of 
 1749-50 ; that Dr. Denvir's agrees with Dr. Murray's ; 
 that Cardinal Wiseman's seems to follow Dr. Troy's of 
 1791 or 1803 and Haydock's ; and that Haydock, pro- 
 fessing to follow Challoner, does not always do so. 
 
 We have thought it sufficient, in corroboration, to 
 take at hazard two passages, i Thess. iii. 1-5 and Apoc. 
 xvi. 1-6. On collating together the text of these in the 
 four current editions of 1847, 1853, 1854, 1856, we find 
 altogether twelve variations between them ; one in the 
 
444 
 
 The Rheims and Douay ■* 
 
 passage of the Thessalonians, eleven in that of the Apoca- 
 lypse. And we are able to trace them all to one or other 
 of Challoner's editions of 1749, 1750, 1752, and of Troy's 
 of 1791, 1794, except three of 1856 (Haydock's, New 
 York). We shall show this best by throwing the varia- 
 tions into a tabular form. 
 
 Var. 
 
 Murray, 
 
 1854, 
 follows. 
 
 Denvir, 
 
 1853. 
 follows. 
 
 Wiseman, 
 
 1847, 
 follows. 
 
 Haydock, 
 
 1856. 
 follows. 
 
 I 
 
 Challoner. 
 
 Troy, 1794. 
 
 T. 1794. 
 
 T. 1794. 
 
 2 
 
 C. 1749. 
 
 C. 1749. 
 
 C. 1752. 
 
 C. 1752. 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 C. 1749. 
 
 C. 1749. 
 C. 
 
 C. 1752. 
 T. 
 
 C. 1752. 
 
 5 
 
 C. 
 
 c. 
 
 T. 
 
 T. 
 
 6 
 
 C. ' 
 
 c. 
 
 T. 
 
 T. 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 c. 
 c. 
 
 c. 
 c. 
 
 T. 1794. 
 T. 1794. 
 
 T. 1794. 
 
 9 
 
 c. 
 
 c. 
 
 T. 1791. 
 
 ? 
 
 10 
 II 
 
 C. 1749. 
 
 c. 
 
 C. 1749. 
 
 C. 1752. 
 T. 
 
 C. 1^752. 
 
 12 
 
 c. 
 
 c. 
 
 T. 1794. 
 
 ? 
 
 It appears from this analysis, as far as it is a fair speci- 
 men of the respective texts, that Dr. Murray and Dr. 
 -Denvir follow Challoner's early editions, and that Cardinal 
 Wiseman and Mr. Haydock follow his later editions and 
 Dr. Troy's ; and this is pretty much what Dr. Cotton has 
 said. As to the three readings, which are referable to 
 no former edition, of which we are possessed, these all 
 occur in no other of the four current editions besides the 
 New York Haydock, and, what is remarkable, they do 
 not occur in the Haydock of 1811-14, which follows in 
 all three passages Dr. Troy's edition of 1794. The pro- 
 
Version of Holy Scripture. 445 
 
 bability is, that the New York editor has fairly used 
 the same liberty of alteration which has been exercised 
 by other editors before him. 
 
 We here close our sketch of the history of the received 
 version, from the date of the Rheims and Douay trans- 
 lators to the present day. The versions of the New 
 Testament, or pwrtions of the Old or New, which have 
 at various times been given to the world by divines and 
 scholars, — such as Mr. Nary, Dr. Witham, and of late 
 years by Dr. Lingard and the Archbishop of Baltimore, 
 — also the Annotations which have accompanied the 
 various editions, demand a separate consideration. 
 
 THE END. 
 
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
A 
 SELECT LIST OF WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 LONDON AND NEW YORK. 
 
 MESSES. LONGMANS, GEEEN, & CO. 
 
 lasm me wniermmtioned Lists of their Publications, wMcA ma,y te 7md post free on 
 application to them at 39 Paternoster Bow, London, B.C. : 
 
 1. Monthly List of New Worics and 
 
 New Editions. 
 
 2. qnartebly llst of announcements 
 
 AND New Works. 
 
 3. Notes on Books; being an Ana- 
 
 lysis OF THE Works published 
 ddeino each quarter. 
 
 4. Catalooue op Soiektifio Works. 
 
 5. Catalogue of Medical and Sur- 
 
 gical Works. 
 
 6. Catalogue of School Books and 
 
 Educational Works. 
 
 7. Catalogue of Books for Ele- 
 
 mentary Schools and Pupil 
 Teachers. 
 
 8. Catalogue of Theological Works 
 
 BY Divines and Members of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 9. Catalogue of Works in General 
 
 Literature. 
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 Parochial and Plain Sermons, Edited by Eev. W. J. Copeland, 
 B.D., late Rector of Farnham, Essex. 8 vols. Sold separately. 
 Crown Svo. Cabinet Edition, 5s. each; Popular Edition, Ss. 6d. each. 
 
 Contents of Vol. I. :— Holiness necessary for Future Blessedness— The Immortality 
 of the Soul— Knowledge of God's Will without Ohedience— Secret Faults— Self-Denial the 
 Test of Beligious Earnestness— The Spiritual Mind— Sins of Ignorance and Weakness — 
 God's Commandments not Grievous — The Religious Use of Excited Feelings — Profession 
 without Practice — Profession without Hypocrisy — Profession without Ostentation — 
 Promising without Doing— Religious Emotion— Religious Faith Rational — The Christian 
 Mysteries— The Self-Wise Inquirer— Obedience the Remedy for Religious Perplexity — Times 
 of Private Prayer — Forms of Private Prayer — The Resurrection of the Body — Witnesses of 
 the Resurrection- Christian Reverence— The Religion of the Day— Scripture a Record of 
 Human Sorrow— Christian Manhood. 
 
 Contents of Vol. II.:— The World's Benefactors— Faith without Sight— The Incar- 
 nation — Martyrdom — Love of Relations and Friends— The Mind of Little Children- 
 Ceremonies of the Church — The Glory of the Christian Church— St. 'Paul's Conversion 
 viewed in Reference to his OflBce — Secrecy and Suddenness of Divine Visitations — Divine 
 Decrees — The Reverence Due to the Blessed Virgin Mary— Christ, a Quickening Spirit- 
 Saving Knowledge— Self-Contemplation— Religious Cowardice— The Gospel Witnesses- 
 Mysteries in Religion — The Indwelling Spirit — The Kingdom of the Saints — The Gospel, 
 a Trust Committed to us — Tolerance of Religious Error — Rebuking Sin— The Christian 
 Ministry — Human Responsibility — Guilelessness— The Danger of Riches — The Powers of 
 Nature— The Danger of Accomplishments— Christian Zeal— Use of Saints' Days, 
 
A SELECT Licii Ojt w \/i^i\.^ 
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 Parochial and Plain Sermons. — Continued. 
 
 Contents of Vol. III.:— Abraham and Lot— Wilfulness of Israel in Rejecting Samuel 
 —Saul— Early Years of David— Jeroboam— Faith and Obedience — Christian Eepentanoe — 
 Contracted Views in Religion— A particular Providence as revealed in the Gospel— Tears 
 of Christ at the Grave of Lazarus— Bodily Suffering— The Humiliation of the Eternal Son 
 — Jewish Zeal a Pattern to Christians— Submission to Church Authoritjf — Contest between 
 Truth and Falsehood in the Church- The Church Visible and Invisible— The Visible 
 Church an Encouragement to Faith— The Gift of the Spirit— Regenerating Baptism— Infant 
 Baptism— The Daily Service— The Good Part of Mary— Religions Worship a Remedy for 
 Excitements — Intercession — The Intermediate State. 
 
 CosTENTS OF VOL. IV. :— The Strictness of the Law of Christ— Obedience without Love, 
 as instanced in the Character of Balaam— Moral Oonsecjuences of Single Sins— Acceptance 
 of Religious Privileges Compulsory— Reliahce on Religious Observances — The Individuality 
 of the Soul— Chastisement amid Mercy— Peace and Joy amid Chastisement— The State of 
 Grace — The Visible Church for the Sake of the Elect— The Communion of Saints — The 
 Church a Home for the Lonely— The Invisible World— The Greatness and Littleness of 
 Human Life— Moral Effects of Communion with God— Christ Hidden from the World — 
 Christ Manifested in Remembrance— The Gainsaying of Korah — The Mysteriousness of 
 our Present Being— The Ventures of Faith— Faith and Love— Watching— ^eping Fast 
 and Festival. 
 
 Contents of Vol. V.:— Worship, a Preparation for Christ's Coming— Reverence, a 
 Belief in God's Presence — Unreal Words— Shrinking from Christ's Coming — Equanimity- 
 Remembrance of Past Mercies— The Mystery of Godliness— The State of Innocence- 
 Christian Sympathy — Righteousness not of us, but in us— The Law of the Spirit — The New 
 Works of the Gospel — The State of Salvation — Transgressions and Infirmities — Sins of 
 Infirmity — Sincerity and Hypocrisy — The Testimony of Conscience — Many called, Few 
 chosen — Present Blessings — Endurance, the Christian's Portion — Affliction, a School of 
 Comfort— The Thought of God, the Stay of the Soul- Love, the One Thing Needful— The 
 Power of the Will. 
 
 Contents of Vol. VI. : — Fasting, a Source of Trial — Life, the Season of Repentance — 
 Apostolic Abstinence, a Pattern for Christians — Christ's Privations, a Meditation for Chris- 
 tians — Christ the Son of God made Man — The Incarnate Son, a Sufferer and Sacrifice — 
 The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World— Difficulty of realising Sacred Privileges — 
 The Gospel Si^ Addressed to Faith— The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Church— 
 The Eucharistic Presence — Faith the Title for Justification — Judaism of the Present Day 
 —The Fellowship of the Apostles — Rising with Christ— Warfare the Condition of Victory 
 — Waiting for Christ — Subjection of the Reason and Feelings to the Revealed Word — 
 The Gospel Palaces— The Visible Temple — Offerings for the Sanctuary — The Weapons 
 of Saints — Faith Without Demonstration — The Mystery of the Holy Trinity — Peace in 
 Believing. 
 
 Contents of Vol. VII.: — The Lapse of Time — Religion, a Weariness to the Natural 
 Man — The World our Enemy — The Praise of Men — Temporal Advantages — The Season of 
 Epiphany— The Duty of Self-Denial— The Yoke of Chrisl^-Moses the Type of Clirist— The 
 Crucifixion — Attendance on Holy Communion — The Gospel Feast— Love of Religion, a new 
 Nature— Religion Pleasant to the Religious — Mental Prayer — Infant Baptism — The Unity 
 of the Church — Steadfastness in the Old Paths. 
 
 Contents of Vol. VIII.:— Reverence in Worship— Divine Calls— The Trial of Saul— 
 The Call of David— Curiosity, a Temptation to Sin— Miracles no Remedy for Unbelief— 
 Josiah, a Pattern for the Ignorant— Inward Witness to the Truth of the Gospel— Jeremiah, 
 a Lesson for the Disappointed — Endurance of the World's Censure — Doing Glory to God 
 in Pursuits of the World— Vanity of Human Glory— Truth Hidden when not Sought after 
 —Obedience to God the Way to Faith in Christ— Sudden Conversions— The Shepherd of 
 our Souls — Religious Joy — Ignorance of Evil. 
 
 Sermons Preached on Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. Cabinet 
 Edition) 6s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Contents :— Intellect the Instrument of Religious Training— The Religion of the 
 Pharisee and the Religion of Mankind— Waiting for Christ — The Secret Power of Divine 
 
 Grace— Dispositions for Faith— Omnipotence in Bonds— St. Paul's Characteristic Gift 
 
 St. Paul's Gift of Sympathy— Christ upon the Waters— The Second Spring— Order the 
 Witness and Instrument of Unity— The Mission of St. Philip Neri— The Tree beside the 
 Waters— In the World, but not of the World— The Pope and the Revolution. 
 
i'UBLISHED BY LONGMANS, GREEN, S-^ CO. 3 
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 
 Selection, Adapted to the Seasons of the Ecclesiastical Year, 
 
 from the ' Parochial and Plain Sermons.' Edited by the Rev. W. 
 .J. CoPELAND, B.D. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s.; Popular 
 Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Contents :--Advmt : Self-Denial the Test of Eeligious Eiimestuesa— Divine Calls — 
 The Ventures of Faith— Watching. Chrietirms Day : Religious Joy. New Year's Sunday: 
 The Lapse of Time, Wpi^Tw/wy: Remembrance of Fast Mercies — Equanimity — The 
 Immortality of the Soul — Christian Manhood— Sincerity and Hypocrisy— Christian 
 Sympathy, Septuagesima : Present Blessings. Sexagesima: Endurance, the Christian's 
 Portion, Quinquagesima : Love, the One Thing Needful, Lent^ The Individuality of the 
 Soul — Life the Season of Repentance — Bodily Sulfering — Tears of Christ at the Grave of 
 Lazarus — Christ's Privations, a Meditation for Christians — The Cross of Christ the Measure 
 of the World. Good FrUHiy: The Cruciflxion. Master Day: Keeping Past and Festival. 
 Easter Tide: Witnesses of the Resurrection — A Particular Providence as Revealed in the 
 Gospel — Christ Manifested in Remembrance — The Invisible World — Waiting for Christ. 
 Ascension: Warfare the Condition of Victory. Sunday aSUr AscmMon: Rising with 
 Christ. Whitsfwn Day: The Weapons of Saints. Trinity Sunday: The Mysteriousness 
 of Our Present Being. Sundays after Trinity: Holiness Necessary for Putiu-e Blessedness 
 — The Religious Use of Excited Feelings — The Self- Wise Inquirer— Scripture a Record of 
 Human Sorrow — The Danger of Eiches — Obedience without Love, as instanced in the 
 Character of Balaam — Moral Consequences of Single Sins— The Greatness and Littleness 
 of Hnman Life— Moral Effects of Communion with God— The Thought of God the Stay of 
 the Soul— The Power of the Will— The Gospel Palaces— Religion a Weariness to the 
 Natural Man— The World our Enemy — The Praise of Men— Religion Pleasant to the 
 Religious — Mental Prayer — Curiosity a Temptation to Sin — Miracles no Remedy for Un- 
 belief—Jeremiah, a Lesson for the Disappointed — The Shepherd of our Souls— Doing Glory 
 to God in Pursuits of the World. 
 
 Sermons Bearing upon Subjects of the Day. Edited by the Bev. 
 W. J. CoPELAND, B.D., late Rector of Farnham, Essex. Crown 
 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s, ; Popular Edition, Ss. 6d. 
 
 Contents :— The Work of the Christian— Saintliness not Forfeited by the Penitent— 
 Our Lord's Last Supper and His First— Dangers to the Penitent— The Three Oflices of 
 Christ— Faith and Experience — Faith unto the World- The Church and the World— In- 
 dulgence in Religious Privileges — Connection between Personal and Public Improvement 
 — Christian Nobleness — Joshua a Type of Christ and His Followers — Elisha a Type of 
 Christ and His Followers — The Christian Church a Continuation of the Jewish — The 
 Principles of Continuity between the Jewish and Christian Churches — The Christian 
 Church an Imperial Power — Sanctity the Token of the Christian Empire— Condition of the 
 Members of the Christian Empire— The Apostolic Christian— Wisdom and Innocence- 
 Invisible Presence of Christ — Outward and Inward Notes of the Church — Grounds for 
 Steadfastness in our Religious Profession — Elijah the Prophet of the Latter Days— Feast- 
 ing in Captivity — The Parting of Friends. 
 
 Fifteen Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford, 
 
 between a.d. 1826 and 1843. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s.; 
 Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Contents :— The Philosophical Temper, first enjoined by the Gospel— The Influence of 
 Natural and Revealed Religion respectively — Evangelical Sanctii^ the Perfection of 
 Natural Virtue — The I^surpations of Reason — Personal Influence, the Means of Propagating 
 the "rruth — On Justice as a Principle of Divine Governance — Contest between Faitii 
 and Sight — Human Responsibility, as independent of Circumstances — Wilfulness, the Sin 
 of Saul — Faith and Reason, contrasted as Habits of Mind — The Nature of Faith in Relation 
 to Reason— Love, the Safeguard of Faith against Superstition- Implicit and Explicit 
 Reason— Wisdom, as contrasted with Faith and with Bigotry— The Theory of Develop- 
 ments in Religious Doctrine, 
 
A SE1j£H^ X J^IOJ. KJir vv \jx\.j.\.>^ 
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 
 Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations, Crown 8vo. 
 
 Cabinet Edition, 3s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Contents : — The Salvation of the Hearer the Motive of the Preacher — Neglect of Divine 
 Calls and Warnings— Men not Angels— The Priests of the Gospel— Purity and Love— 
 Saintliness the Standard of Christian Principle— God's Will the End o( Life— Perseverance 
 in Grace — Nature and Grace — Illuminating Grace — Faith and Private Judgment — Faith 
 and Douht — Prospects of the Catholic Missioner — Mysteries of Nature and of Grace — The 
 Mystery of Divine Condescension— The Infinitude of Divine Attributes— Mental Sufferings 
 of Our Lord in His Passion— The Glories of Mary for the Sake of Her Son— On the Fitness 
 of the Glories of Mary. 
 
 Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification. Crown 8vo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 5s. ; Popular Edition, Ss. 6d. 
 
 Contents : — Faith considered as the Instrumental Cause of Justification — Love con- 
 sidered as the Formal Cause of Justification — Primary Sense of the term • Justification ' — 
 Secondary Senses of the term 'Justification' — Misuse of the term 'Just' or 'Righteous' — 
 The Gift of Eighteousness— The Characteristics of the Gift of Eighteousness — Eighteous- 
 ness viewed as a Gift and as a Quality— Eighteousness the Fniit of our Lord's Resurrection 
 — The OfBce of Justifying Faith— The Nature of Justifying Faith— Faith viewed relatively 
 to Eites and Works — On Preaching the Gospel — Appendix. 
 
 On the Development of Christian Doctrine. Crown 8vo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 On the Idea of a University. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 7s. ; 
 Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Crown 8yo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 7b. 6d.; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Two Essays on Miracles. 1. Of Scripture. 2. Of Ecclesiastical 
 History. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 Discussions and Arguments. Crown 8to. Cabinet Edition, 6s.; 
 Popular Edition, 3s, 6d. 
 
 1, How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scrip- 
 ture and the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who 's to Blame ? 
 6. An Argument for Christianity. 
 
 Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 12s.; Popular Edition, 7s. 
 
 1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4. De la Men- 
 nais. 5. Palmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of 
 the Anglican Church. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of 
 Huntingdon. 10. Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Anti- 
 christ of Protestants. 12. Milman's Christianity. 13. Reformation of 
 the XI. Century. 14. Private Judgment, 15. Davison, 16. Keble. 
 
 Apologia Pro Vita Sua. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s. ; 
 Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
i'UBLISHED BY LONGMANS, GREEN, &^ CO. 5 
 
 CABDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 
 Verses on Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s. ; 
 Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Historical Sketches. 3 vols. Crown 8to. Cabinet Edition, 6s. each; 
 Popular Edition, Ss. 6d. each. 
 
 1. The Turks. 2. Cicero. 3. ApoUonius. 4. Primitive Christianity. 
 5. Church of the Fathers. 6. St. Chrysostom. 7. Theodoret. 8. St. 
 Benedict. 9. Benedictine Schools. 10. Universities. 11. Northmen and 
 Normans. 12. Mediseval Oxford. 13. Convocation of Canterbury. 
 
 The Arians of the Fourth Century. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 
 63. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the 
 
 Allans. Freely translated. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 
 
 153. 
 
 Theological Tracts. Crown Svo. Cabinet Edition, 83. 
 
 1. Dissertatiunculse. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St. 
 Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. ApoUinarianism. 5. St. 
 Cyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scriptures. 
 
 The Via Media of the Anglican Church. 2 vols. Crown Svo. 
 Cabinet Edition, 6s. each ; Popular Edition, 38. 6d. each. 
 Vol. I. Prophetical Office of the Church. 
 Vol. II. Occasional Letters and Tracts. 
 
 Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Con- 
 sidered. 2 vols. 
 Vol. I. Twelve Lectures. Crown Svo. Cabinet Edition, 7s. 6d. ; 
 
 Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed Virgin, and to 
 the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council. 
 Crown Svo. Cabinet Edition, 5s. 6d. ; Popular Edition, 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 Present Position of Catholics in England. Crown Svo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 7s. 6d. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Loss and Gain. The Story of a Convert. Crown Svo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 33. 6d. 
 
 CaUista. A Tale of the Third Century. Crown Svo. Cabinet 
 Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 The Dream of Gerontius. 16mo, sewed, 6d.; cloth. Is. 
 
 Meditations and Devotions. Part I. Meditations for the Month of 
 May. Novena of St. Philip. Part II. The Stations of the Cross. 
 Meditations and Intercessions for Good Friday. Litanies, etc. 
 Part III. Meditations on Christan Doctrine. Conclusion. Oblong 
 Crown Svo. 5s. net. 
 
A SELECT LIST Ut wujxr..^ 
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 
 POPULAR EDITION. 
 
 Parochial and Plain Sermons. 8 vols. Each . . 3b. 6d. 
 
 Sermons preached on Various Occasions . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Selection, from the Parochial and Plain Sermons . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Sermons bearing on Subjects of the Day . . .3s. 6d. 
 
 Sermons preached before the University of Oxford . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Discourses addressed to Mixed Congregations . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 ■ On the Development of Christian Doctrine . Ss. 6d. 
 
 On the Idea of a University . . . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Biblical and Ecclesiastical Miracles . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. Each . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Historical Sketches. 3 vols. Each . . .3s. 6d. 
 
 The Arians of the Fourth Century ... 33. 6d. 
 
 The Via Media of the Anglican Church. 2 vols. Each . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Difficulties felt by Anglicans considered. 2 vols. Each . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Present Position of Catholics in England . . .3s. 6d. 
 
 Apologia pro Vita Sua . . .3s. 6d. 
 
 Verses on Various Occasions . . . . .3s. 6d. 
 
 Loss and Gain . . . . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 Calliata ' . . . . . 3s. 6d. 
 
 FOUARD.-The Christ, The Son of God. A Life of Our Lord 
 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the hssk Constant Fouabd, 
 
 Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the Faculty of Theology 
 
 at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated from the Fifth Edition with the 
 
 Author's sanction. By George F. X. Griffith. With an 
 
 Introduction by Cardinal Manning. Third Edition. With 
 
 3 Maps. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 14s. 
 
 'In erudition the author is to the full up to the level of any writers Catholic or 
 
 Protestant, who have as yet attempted the same task, while his reliSness in mattos 
 
 of dogma gives huu an enormous scientifle advantage over non-Oatholios.'-Sfe fe«" w! 
 
 Saint Peter and the First Years of Christianity. By the 
 
 Kssk Constant Fouaed. Translated by George P. X.' Griehth. 
 Crown 8vo. 9s. 
 
 St. Paul : His Missions. By the Abb^ Fouard. Translated, with 
 the Author's sanction and co-operation, by George P. X. Griffith 
 With Maps. Crown 8vo. 
 
PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS, GREEN, &^ CO. 7 
 
 LYONS.— Christianity or Infallibility— Both or Neither. By the 
 Rev. Daniel Lyons. Crown 8vo. 5s. 
 
 * His method is thoroughly popular, and while he has admirably succeeded in avoiding 
 that didactic and argumentative style which is apt to repel the ordinary reader of our 
 day, he nevertheless leaves the distinct impression that his reasoning is based on sound 
 logic, and strengthened by such authorities as would command the attention of every 
 theological student. 
 
 ' The work is full of erudition, as is shown by the numerous notes indicating a wide 
 range of pertinent and careful reading. . . . The book is a solid and timely contribution 
 to the theological literature of the day.' — American Ecclesiastical Beview. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES : 
 
 Henri Dominic[ue Lacordaire. A Biographical Sketcli. By 
 H. L. Sidney Lear. With Frontispiece. Crowu 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 A Christian Painter of the Nineteenth Century ; being the 
 Life of Hippolyte Flandrin. By H. L. Sidney Lear. Crown 
 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Bossuet and his Contemporaries. By H. L. Sidney Lear. 
 Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 F^nelon, Archbishop of Cambrai. A Biographical Sketch. By 
 H. L. Sidney Lear. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 A Dominican Artist. A Sketch of the Life of the Eev. P^re 
 Besson, of the Order of St. Dominic. By H. L. Sidney Lear. 
 Crown Svo. 3b. 6d. 
 
 The Life of Madame Louise de France, Daughter of Louis XV., 
 also known as the Mother Th^r&se de S. Augustiu. By H. L. 
 Sidney Lear. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 The Revival of Priestly Life in the Seventeenth Century in 
 
 France. Charles de Condren— S. Philip Neri and Cardinal de 
 BeniUe— S. Vincent de Paul — S. Sulpioe and Jean Jacques Olier. 
 By H. L. Sidney Lear. Crown Svo. Ss. 6d. 
 
 Life of S. Francis de Sales, Bishop and Prince of Geneva. By H. 
 L. Sidney Lear. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Henri Perreyve. By A. Gratrt, Pretre de L'Oratoire, 
 Professeur de Morale Evang^ique k la Sorbonne, et Membre de 
 I'Acad^mie Francaise. Translated, by special permission, by H. 
 L. Sidney Lear. ' With Portrait. Crc^/ 1 Svo. 33. 6d. 
 
 FENELON.— Spiritual Letters to Men. By Archbishop F^nelon. 
 Translated by H. L. Sidney Lear, author of 'Life of F^nelon,' 
 ' Life of S. Francis de Sales,' etc. etc. I6mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
A SELECT LIST Ui' wuhaj 
 
 FENELON. — Spiritual Letters to Women.— By Archbishop 
 Penelon. Translated by H. L. Sidney Lear, author of 'Life of 
 F^nelon,' 'Life of S. Francis de Sales,' etc. etc. 16mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 DRANE.— The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the Friar 
 
 FreacUers. By Augusta Theodora Drane, author of ' The His- 
 tory of St. Catherine of Siena and her Companions.' With 32 
 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 JAMESON— Works by Mrs. Jameson : 
 
 Sacred and Legendary Art. With 19 Etchings and 197 Wood- 
 cuts. 2 vols. Cloth, gilt top. 20s. net. 
 
 Legends of the Madonna : The Virgin Mary as Eepresented in 
 Sacred and Legendary Art. With 27 Etchings and 165 Woodcuts. 
 1 vol. Cloth, gilt top. 10s. net. 
 
 Legends of the Monastic Orders. With 11 Etchings and 88 
 Woodcuts. 1 vol. Cloth, gilt top. 10s. net. 
 
 History of the Saviour, His Types and Precursors. Completed 
 by Lady Eastlakb. With 13 Etchings and 281 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 
 Cloth, gilt top. 20s. net. 
 
 MANUALS OF CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 (Stonyhurst Series.) 
 
 Edited by RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. 
 
 Logic. By Richard P. Clarke, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s. 
 
 First Principles of Knowledge. By John Rickabt, S.J. Crown 
 8vo. 5s. 
 
 Moral Philosophy (Ethics and Natural Law). By Joseph 
 Rickaby, S. J. Crown 8vo. 5s. 
 
 General Metaphysics. By John Rickaby, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s. 
 
 Psychology. By Michael Mahbr, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Natural Theology. By Bernard Boedder, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Political Economy. By Charles S. Devas. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 LONDON AND NEW YORK : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 5000/10/94 
 
jMwwyWisaHKfiiiS'^'^ '