BR 60 .L52 v. 46 Athanasius, d. 373. Later treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Libraru o\ Fathers LATER TREATISES OF S. A T H A N A S I U S, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, WITH NOTES AN APPENDIX ON S. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THEODORE T. OXFORD, JAMES PARKER AND CO., AND RIVINGTONS, LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE. 1881. PftlMTBD Bl i in DBVONPOR1 IO< 1 1 i , « OP TBI HOL1 TB1NIT1 UOL1 ROOD, \ i I RD, 1 B ' 1. Observations. The times, for which God raised up S. Athana- sius, have, in many respects, a counterpart in our own. There is, now too, earnest, ever-enlarging, adherence to the faith, in those who hold it. But there is also a wide-spread dislike of definite doc- trine, such as found a vent in the different shades of Arianism. They framed eleven Creeds, to satisfy themselves or others, over-against the one faith, put forth at Mcasa and accepted by the whole Church. They swung to and fro, at times approxi- mating nearer to the truth ; but their secret maxim, unknown to themselves, was, * anything but the Truth.' The human mind, in matters of faith as well as practice, hates restraint. Revelation has disclosures of Divine truth which man's intellect may search out in adoring love, while it can never fathom the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God. Still, it is a restraint. It is a promise of the Gospel, " a Thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left." So then to those, who do not openly break with it, yet still cling to their own individual conceptions of God, there are the old Semi-Arian a Is. xxx. 21. iv Observatio temptations to take so much of it as will satisfy their consciences in parting with the rest. The world is in one wide rebellion ; speaking, in the Name of God, againsl truths of God; setting His Infinite Love againsl Bis aweful Holiness, and renewing the Serpent's question, "Hath God indeed said?" With the Serpent loo, it misrepresents what God did say. So far, 'The Prophet of Truth's CreedV five times banished for the truth's sake, at other times, compelled, like Elijah, to flee for his life, hiding in dens and caves of the earth, hunted by those who sought it. says, in all which he does say ; "One only way to life : One Faith, delivered once for all c ." But S. Athanasius speaks more nearly to us, who would defend that faith. Wide as differences nOW are, the adherence to the maxims and principles of S. Athanasius may prevent their being wider, or may win many to the whole truth. It is a greal st»]> to understand one another. ' (1 S. Athanasius l<.<»ked through words into meanings.' tr One of the characteristic points in S. Athanasius/ said Card. Newman l'» years ago, Ms his constant attention to the sense of doctrine, or the meaning of writers, in preference to the words used.' S. Athanasius knew that the Niceiie ('reed con- tained "the faith once delivered to the saint-:" that "which they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" handed down to a.-; that lt the Word of th Lord Bpoken through the (Ecumenical Council ofNicaea abideth h Lyra Apostolica. X". 94. Athanasius. r 11.. No. [00, Dissent «' below p. LI. .V < m Def, ]>. 17. Q0t< in. f A<1 Air. ^ 'J; below p. 26. Observations. v for ever ; ' that the Arians worshipped a different God from the true God s ; that those who worship- ped a different God were not really Christians 11 ; that for an Arian to worship Christ was an act of idolatry *. Still, neither in his own defences of the truth against Arianism does he put forward the word which specially condemns it, nor does he require it of those who were finding their way back to the faith. The Church could not have dropped the word c homoousios ' without forfeiting the faith. There was nothing to induce her to abandon this state- ment of the truth, if she still held the truth itself. Arianizers or Semi-Arians, who in their various Creeds tried to displace it, did hold a different faith. Still, there was no occasion to put in the front just the word, against which minds were most set. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, we all know, never used it in his Catechetical lectures, but a term c like in all things V which at first sight suggests too much and too little; too much, because the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son ; too little, g ' They do not believe the God that is, and there is none other but He.' adv. Serapion. iv. 6. h i They who call these men [Arians] Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor un- derstanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.' Ag. Arians i. 1. p. 179. 0. T. 'How can they be any longer Christians, since they conceive of a different God from the exist- ing God? ' (Ad Epict. n. 9 ; below p. 56.) 1 < Who told them, after abandoning the worship of creatures, after all to draw near and worship a creature and a work ? ' Orat. i, § 5. p. 191. Oxf. Tr. Add Orat. ii. § 14. p. 301 O.T., Letter to Eg. Lib. § 4 (Hist. Tr. p. 129), § 13. (lb. p. 141.) Letter to Adelph. (below p. 63, and note g ib.) k Kara -jravra or iv iraaiv ofxoiov Catech. iv. 7 ; xi. 4 and 10. vi Obsi rvations. because we use the word Mike,' of things which have a Beparate existence. Yei one 1 who had made B. Athanasius one of his almost life-long studies saj : "He introduces the word, I think, only once into Lis three celebrated Orations, and then rather in a formal statement of doctrine than in the flow of his discussion, viz. Orat, i. 1. [3.] Twice lie gives utterance to it in the Collection of Notes which make up what is called his fourth Oration (Orat. iv. 9. 12.) [pp.523, 527. O.T.] We find it indeed in his de Decretis Nic. Cone, and bis de Synodis; hut 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, 6fio- ovaios y rpuU, i. 1). [below p. 96.] 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, [p. 210. O.T.] and :>S fin. [p. 264. lb.] Moreover the word does not occur in the Catecheses of S. Cyril of Jerusalem, A. I). 317, nor in the recantation made be- fore Pope Julius by Ursacius and Valens A. D. 319, nor in the cross-questionings to which S. Ambrose subjected Palladius and Secundianus A. D. 381." " n Indeed no better illustration can be given of thai intrinsic independence of a fixed terminology which belongs to the Catholic Creed, than the writings of Athanasius 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 J or if lie introduces them, it i> to give them Benses 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 theology, with scarcely a dogmatic word. 'The Case i- the Same with his treatment of the Incarnation. 1 Card. Newman, 'On B.Cyril's formula of the ptafwns,* Tracts TIp oL and EccL pp. 291, 292. ■ lb. p. - Observations. vn 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 OeoroKos, which had come down to him, like 6/jlooiktios, by tradition, is nearly the only one among those which he uses, which would now be recognised as dogmatic/ '"The Encyclical letter of S. Alexander [on the de- position of Arius], after S. Athanasius' manner of treat- ing of sacred subjects, has hardly one scientific term.' Nay, the same writer observes , that lie em- ploys more frequently terms employed by the Semi-Arians. ' For some reason, probably from a feeling of charity, as judging it best to inculcate first the revealed truth itself as a mode of introducing to the faithful and de- fending the orthodox symbol, and shewing its meaning and its necessity, he uses the phrase oyLtoto? icaia Travra, and ofAoiovaios more commonly than ofioovaw. — this I have noted elsewhere.' E. g. ofjLocos Kara iravra. " He Who is in the Father and like the Father in all things." Oat. i. § 40. " Being the Son of God, He must be like Him." Orat. ii. § 17. " The Word is unlike us, and like the Father." Orat. iii. § 20; also i. § 21, 40; ii. § 18, 22. Ep. .Egypt. 17. And o/xolos tear ovalav. " Unless indeed they give up shame, and say that 'Image 5 is not a token of similar substance, but His name only." Orat. i. § 21. vid. also Orat. i. § 20 init. 26; iii. § 11, 26, 67. Syn. § 38; Alex. Enc. § 2. Since such was his own habit, it followed that he looked upon the Semi-Arians, as ■ p much loved ' n Card. Newman, notes on Select Treatises of S. Athanasius, T. ii. p. 3. See (in 1844) S. Ath. Hist. Tracts App. p. 297. ° Id. lb. T. ii. pp. 433, 134 p Cone. Arim. et Sel. § 43. p. 141. Ox. Tr. via Observations, and f * brothers, 5 and Bays that confessing what they did, 'they are not Ear from accepting even the phrase, 'oik- in substance, 1 of whom is Basil of Ancyra, in what lie lias written concerning the faith.' They were inconsistent, and S. Athanasius looked, so far, to the truth which fchey held, or their approximations to the truth, and looked away from their errors which he hoped thai they would shake off ; and his anticipations were verified r . The same moderation was shewn in the terms s which he suggested that those at Antioch should propose to S. Meletius (whom the Semi-Arians had consecrated Bishop of Antioch, but who had joined the Church), and in his peace-loving words. S. Gregory Xazianzen says in regard to the divi- sion about the words ' hypostasis ' and 'Ousia;' " l He applies to the sickness a medicine of his own. How? By inviting hoth sides so meekly and lovingly ; and examining accurately the meaning of what was said ; when he found them to agree and in no wise to differ as to the doctrine, conceding the names, he hound them together in the substance. This was more beneficial i lb. n. 41. p. 139. r S. Ath. Connc. Arim. and Scl. n. 31. p. 127. "Well T know, not even under these circumstances will they stop, as many as have now dissembled, but they will always be making parties against the truth, until they return to themselves and say, ' Let n- rise and go to onr fathers, and Bay unto them, We anathema- tise the Arise heresy, and we acknowledge the Nicene Council.' " J, II. X. added in a note, "He is here anticipating the return into the Church of those whom he censures. It is remarkable that what Athanasius here predicts was fulfilled to the Letter, even of the won! of those ' hypocrites.' For A< &< ius himself, who in 361 signed tin- AiHmm-an Cniit'rssinn above recorded, WSJ One of tli"-.' tery men who accepted the Bomousion with an explanation in 8 Tom. ad Antioch. see below pp. 12, 13. 1 <»1 it. \.\i. Observations. ix than the long labours and discourses which all now com- mit to writing : this was more valuable than the many watch ings and lying all night upon the earth ; this was worthy of his celebrated banishments and flights." Faith, Scripture says, " is the gift of God." The faith of S. Athanasius which gave rise to the pro- verb c Athanasius against the world,' must have been so in an especial degree. His faith was part of himself. He did not simply believe in it as something: without him. He iu knew the truth.' He had received it, as we all have. 6 x Who heard' (he asks) ' in his first catechising, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it ? ' And having this faith, he could not but interpret Holy Scripture in conformity with it. He held the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. 'y Divine Scripture' (he says) 'is of all things most sufficient.' ' z The holy and Divine Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth.' But Holy Scripture is always interpreted by some rule. S. Athanasius says of the Arians, ' a They allege the divine oracles and force upon them an interpretation according to their private sense.' ' b Laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of impiety, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it.' Card. Newman observed, ' c Instead of professing to examine Scripture, or to u 1 S. Johnii. 21; 2 S.John 1. x Orat. ii. ag. Arians c. 34. p. 328. O.T. y ad Ep. JEg. § 4. Hist. Tr. p. 130. O.T. z c. Gcntes. init, a Orat. i. ag. Arians n. 37. p. 232. O.T. 'He who speaketh from what is his own speaketh a lie.' c. Apoll. i. tin. below p. 115. b lb. n. 52. p. 256. O-T. c lb. n.o. x 0b8( rvatiw , acquiesce in wbal they had been taught, the Ariana were remarkable for insisting on certain abstract positions or inferences, on which they made the whole controversy turn.' Ami bo every heretic took fche opinion, which he had arbitrarily assumed, and expounded Holy Scrip- ture by it. "'The Scripture being of itself so deep and profound, all men do not understand it in one and the same sense, but so many men, so many opinions almosl may be ga- thered out of it; for Novatian expounds it one way, Photinus in another, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another. Yet otherwise do Arius, Eunomius, Mace- donius expound; otherwise Photinus, Apollinaris, Pris- cillianus; otherwise, lastly, Xestorius. But then it is therefore very necessary, on account of such exceeding varieties of such grievous error, that the line of Apos- tolic and Prophetic interpretation be guided according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense.' But the faith of S. Athanasius did nol depend upon particular texts. He docs not argue in our dry way. Ee ranges freely through Holy Scripture, as his own. He is not tied down to the passages, in which our Blessed Lord is called God; nor is our faith. It has been spoken of, as a disadvantage to faith, Ihat some, entrusted with an important office, have thrown a doubt upon texts which speak of our Lord as ( ■ oil, so that three only remain, in which, accord- ing bo fchem, Ee is so spoken of e . One passage of God's word is, of course, enough for those who believe it fco be fche ' word of God. 1 Bu1 every child who has though! of its Baptism, knows that he has (1 Vincent. Comm. 2. quoted (M-.it. ag. Ariana p. 233. n. a, 0. T. ' Dean Stanley 'On the revised Version of the N. T.' in / . Julj 20. 1881. Observations. xi been baptised 4 in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,' and he wonld know that he had not been baptised ' in the Name of Almighty God and a creature and an effluence,' although this would be strange language to him, at which, for its strangeness, he could simply stare. Every child would answer, that when God was about to create man and said, " Let Us make man," He was not associating the holy Angels in His own proper work of creation, but was speaking within Himself f . No reverent child would doubt that when our Lord said, " I and My Father are One," He spoke of a real Oneness, as even the poor Jews under- stood Him and accused Him of blasphemy : " Thou, being a Man, makest Thyself God." S. Athanasius read Holy Scripture according to his faith ; but he knew also, that something more was necessary, than a mere outward rule would supply. ' For studying and mastering the Scrip- tures,' he says, ' there is need of a good life and a pure soul p .' The acuteness of S. Athanasius, which enabled him, while ' not using the Post-Nestorian h or Post- Eutychian ' Catholic phraseology,' to ' anticipate both Nestorian and Eutychian heresies k ,' was a special gift of God. But it was bestowed upon him, in addition to that eagle- sight, through another gift, his intense and reverent devotion to his Lord. He f Pctavius (quoted S. Ath. Sel. Treatises p. 120. n.q. O.T.) enu- merates the Fathers who think the words addressed 1 ) to the Son, 2) to the Son and Holy Spirit, s de Incarn. n. 57. h See Orat. ag. Arians p. 345, g. 0. T. 1 lb. and 480. a. k lb. 244. b. xii Observations, saw, as it were intuitively, what would affect that faith. "His zeal for the Consubstantiality,' it has been well said, 'had its root in his loyalty to the 0ON8UB8TANTUL.' Tliis we too can obtain. Faith must be a passion, or it will be almost lifeless. For 11 faith worketh by love," and love is the strongest of human passions. " This is the victory that over- cometh the world, our faith." Of it, the words of our Lord will again be fulfilled ; "The rain descend- ed, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was founded upon a Rock." My own acquaintance with different forms of unbelief now dates back some 58 years, and I have known none which did not dash itself against the Rock, which is Christ, and so fall hark. For the design, and completion of the translation of these Treatises of S. Athanasius, with the care- ful and elaborate notes, the remaining Editor is indebted to his friend the Rev. Dr. Bright, Remus Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, whose name will be a guarantee for their accuracy. To Almighty God be the thanks, Who has thus enriched our literature with eighl of the later Treatises of our benefactor, S. Athanasius. B. B. P. Christ Chi eu b, Oxford. October 21, L881. Bright'a Hist, of the Church, p. I 19. CONTENTS. TREATISE I. The "Tome" to those at Antioch. p. 3 TREATISE EI. The Epistle to Jovian. p. 17 TREATISE III. The Epistle to the African Bishops. p. 23 TREATISE IV. Letter to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth. p. 45 TREATISE V. Letter to Adelphius. P- *>l TREATISE VI. Letter to Maximns, philosopher. p. 72 TREATISE VII. On the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, against Apollinaris. Book i. p. 83 TREATISE VIII. On the Salutary appearing of Christ, and against Apollinaris. Book ii. p- H (; xiv CONTENTS. NOTE On tin- " De imain.itiuiM' ft contra Arianos." p. 143 Note On the " Sermo Major da Fide." p. 145 Aim- KM) ix (hi S. Cyril of Alexandria's Interpretation! <»f li is Anathemas ; and on the Dialogues of Theodoret. p. 148 Dialogue I. " Inimutahilis." p. 179 Dialogue IF. " Ineunfusus." p. 1*!* Dialogue III. " Impaasibilis." p. 809 LATER TREATISES OF S. ATHANASIUS ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. THE "TOME" TO THOSE AT ANTIOCH. INTRODUCTION. When the Emperor Julian issued his decree, recalling' the bishops who had been expelled from their sees by Constantius, S. Athanasius was in hiding among- the monasteries of Egypt. He lost no time in returning to Alex- andria, and is said to have resumed possession of his church on tbe 21st of February, 362. One of his first acts was to assemble about seventeen of his suffragans, in order to take counsel for the general interests of the Church, and particularly with a view to the distractions at Antioch, where the old orthodox party, which had acknowledged no bishop of Antioch since tbe unrighteous deposition of Eustatbius in 331, stood aloof from those of their brethren in faith who, having recognized a line of Arianizing prelates with- out sacrificing their own convictions, now clung loyally to bishop Meletins, who, although appointed by Arianizers, had unexpectedly avowed the Ca- tholic doctrine, had been in consequence banished, and was included in the recent amnesty. The question was, on what terms were the latter to be united to the former? Apart from the case of Antioch, it was important to arrive at an agreement as to the treatment of those many bishops who had been induced, at the Council of Ariminum or elsewhere, to accept, un- der ruthless pressure from the late emperor's Arianizing government, a creed which had seemed to them clear of positive heresy, but which had pointedly excluded the Nicene testing-phrase, " Homoousion," or " of one essence with the Father," and was in fact a specimen of " Homcean " Arianism. Moreover, among the more moderate of the Arians there hail grown up a new variation of the heresy, that which was afterwards known as " Macedonianism," and which represented the Holy Spirit as a " minis- tering spirit" created by the agency of the Son. Another question called for adjustment; the word Hypostasis, used by the Nicene Council in close connection with " Essence," according to which use there could he but "one Hypostasis" in the Godhead, was being employed in a somewhat different sense by those Churchmen who had been more or less connected with the better Semi-Arians, or whose jealousy of all Sabellianizing tenden- cies had been intensified by the errors attributed to Marcellus, and by the B 2 Introduction. more unequivocal heterodoxy <>f his pupil Photinui — so that they commonly spoke «»f "three Hypostases," by way of contending for s real Trinity. Lastly, two opposite movements of thought had begun to manifest them- selves in reference to the mystery of the incarnation i some irere disposed t«. resolve it Into the Idea of a mere exceptional closeness of communion be- tween the Divine Word and a holy man named Jesus: others were speak- ing »>f it in language soon ti» be known as Apollinarian, BS it tin- manhood personally assumed by the Word or Son of God did not Include a "reasonable sonl." Tlic little synod now held f<»r tin- consideration of these points was, s;i\s Tillemoiit, "an assembly of saints and Confessors." Beside the Egyp- tian prelates, it included Asterius of I'etra in Arabia, and EusebUlS, the ex- cellent bishop of \'ereell;e in Northern Italy, The latter had requested a neighbour prelate of his, who, like himself, had been set fr>w from exile, Lucifer the metropolitan of Caliaris in Sardinia, t<» accompany him to Alexandria. Unfortunately, as it turned out, Lucifer, a man of Impatient temperament, full of zeal and courage, but deficient in judgment and for- bearance, preferred t«» go straight to Antioch ; but he sent two deacons to represent him at the synod. Paulinus, a presbyter of high character, who was at the head of the Kustathian or old Church party at Antioeh, sent two delegates on his own account: and Apolliuaris, the recently elected bishop of Laodicea in Syria, who was already more than suspected of holding the error now linked with his name, the denial of a reasonable soul in the In- carnate Saviour, deputed some monks to speak on his behalf. (Tillemoiit, vii. CI--'.) Under these circumstances the Council was held: and after full discussion, the following letter, drawn up, no doubt, by its illustrious president, was adopted and sent "tothose who were," or who soon would he "at Antioch," Including Lucifer himself, two other prelates who apparently were with him, and Eusebius and Asterius, who intended to follow him. The word "Tome," applied to the letter, was commonly used for a document relating to the doc- trine or discipline of the Church, and issued by some high ecclesiastical authority. Thus we read of a"tome" sent hy a Roman council to the "Easterns," and adopted hy a Council of Antioch in 378 (Theodoret v.lh); of a " tome of the Westerns " ( perhaps tin' same) mentioned in canon ."> of the Second General Council (il>.) ; of that Council's own "tome," (Theod. I.e.); of the "tome" of I Wins of Constantinople, addressed to the Arme- nians : and, more celehrated than the rest, of the "tome" of Leo the Great, otherwise called his 28tfa epistle, addressed to Flavian of Constanti- nople on the Butychlan controversy. The "tome" o( the Alexandrian Council is a noble monument of pacific moderation, and of candid and com- prehensive equity. See Newman's Arians, »•.."». sect. 1. THE "TOME" TO THOSE AT ANTIOCH. TO OUR BELOVED AND MOST DEAR FELLOW-MINISTERS EUSEBIUS*, LUCIFER b , ASTERIUS , CYMATIUS d AND ANATOLIUS e ; ATHANASIUS, AND THOSE BISHOPS FROM ITALY AND ARABIA, EGYPT AND LIBYA, WHO HAP- PENED TO BE AT ALEXANDRIA, EUSEBIUS, ASTERIUS f , CAIUS ', AGATHUS, AMMONIUS, AGATHOD/EMON, DRA- CONTIUS, ADELPHIUS, HERM^EON, MARCUS, ZOILUS, MENAS, GEORGE, LUCIUS, MACARIUS, AND THE REST, SEND FULLEST GREETING IN CHRIST. a Eosebios, a Sardinian by birth, became a Header in the Roman Church (Jerome de Vir. Illustr. 96 :) S. Hilary calls him a man who all through life had been serving God, Ad Const, i. 8. He was unanimously elected bishop of Vercellse near Turin, in "Cisalpine Gaul," and introduced a monastic discipline among his clergy; see Ambrose, Epist. 63. Tillemont, Mem. vii. 531. At the Council of Milan in 355, wherein the Arian par- ty was dominant, he stood up for the Nicene faith, and was banished to Sey- thopolis in Palestine, where he was cruelly treated by the Arian bishop, and thence into Cappadocia, and again into Egypt. Sec his Epist. 2, in Gal- land. B'iblioth. Patr. v. 79. He had now returned from exile, and was pre- sent at this Council. b Lucifer, metropolitan of Caliaris in Sardinia, Athan. Apol. de Fnga. 4. Hist. Arian, 33, was associated with Eusebius in confessorship, and suffer- ed much at Eleutheropolis in Pales- tine, under the Arian bishop, before he was removed to the Tbebaid. Marcellinus and Faustinus, in their " libellus," say that lie was exiled four times (Sizmond. Op. i. 147.) He had been writing vehement tracts against Constantius, — "A Defence of Athanasius," "On Apostate Kings," " We must not agree with heretics," " We must not spare offenders against B God," " We must die for the Son of God," Galland. vi. 155. ff. c See c. 10, where Asterius is called Bishop of Petra ; and Ath. Apol. C. Ari. 48, " Asterius of Arabia." There is perhaps an error in the text of Hist. Ari. 18, where a companion of his is called " bishop of Petrre in Palestine." He went to the Council of Sardica with the Arianizers, but came over to the Catholics. d Of Paltum in Ccelesyria, c. 10; a confessor (cf. Ath. Hist. Ari. 5.) who died the next year, Tillemont viii. 209. e Of Eubcea. c. 10. Tillemont identi- fies him with an Anatolius of Beroea, who signed a questionable document at a Council of Antioch in 363, Soc. lil. 25. 1 Eusebius and Asterius, although they joined in sending the letter are also here ranked with those who were to receive it, because they would he at Antioch when it was read. b Caius (Gr. Ya'ios) Agathus, Am- monius, Agathodiemon, Dracontius, Adelphius, " Hermes," Marcus, are named as exiles in Hist. Arian. 73. and all but one of them in -Apol. de Fuga 7. For their sees and those of the rest see c. 10. Dracontius had been a monk : on being elected to a bishopric, he fled into a hiding place. Athanasius wrote to him an extant letter exhorting him to accept the 2 roM. \ n l Prospects of Reunion. 1. We are persuaded that, as ministers of God and good stewards, you are competent to set in order all the affairs of the Church. Bu1 since it has come to our car- that many who were formerly separated from us by conten- tiousness now desire to be at peace, and that many also, having broken off their relations with the Arian fanatics 1 ', aim at communion with us ; we have thought it necessary lo write to your Kindness what is written by ourselves and our beloved Etisebius and Astcrius, who are themselves also beloved and truly dear fellow-ministers; rejoicing at such tidings, and praying that if anv one is slid left at a dis- '6°» Ps. 1. 133. '2 ( lor, 6, 1 1 1. PS. 15. 132. tance from us, and if any one is still seen to join with the Arians in their meetings, he may shake himself free of their madness, so that for the future all men everywhere Eph. I.;., may say. One Lor,/, one faith. For what is so good, a- the Psalmist' said, or so pleasant, -as for brethren lo dwell to- gether? Now the Church is our dwelling, and it befits us to be of the same mind; for on that condition we believe that the Lord also will dwell with as. He says, 1 will dwell in them am! walk in them, and, Here willl dwell 9 for I haw a delight therein. But where is the " here," save where one faith and religion is preached? :!. Well, now, we of Egypt did indeed wish to go with our beloved brethren, Kusebius and Astcrius, as for many reasons, so mainly for this, that we might embrace your Affectionateness , and enjoy in common such fulness of peace and unanimity: but since, as we explained to you in our other letters, and as you can learn from our above- named fellow-ministers, we are detained by the needs of the Church, we regretted it, but still we desired our said fellow-ministers, Eusebiua and Asterius, to go to you in charge. He 'li'l so, and was exiled, cApollinii. 18. See Athanasian Trea- vrith other Catholic bishops of Egypt, tines, lib. Fathers, vol. I. p. 91. note, in 856. To Adelphius the Epistle SimUarh he speaks of the 'madness 1 reprinted farther on was addressed, of Sabeluus, De Sent. Dion. 26. Eo- abuut nine years after the council. H<' senilis of Vercelhe uses the word in was again exiled f « • Diocassarea in bis 2nd Letter: and Epiphanius says, 373, and from thence wrote a letter to "The kriomaniacs are the most im- Apollinaris. plousofall heretics/ 1 Ancoratus, 118. k lit. " Ariomaniacs," a terra which ' literallj "the Hymn writer." s. Uhaaasiui frequently applies t.. K AidSttriv. osed in the same sense the \ri;m». So in I)e Synod IS.Orat, In Jorian's letter; also in A than. Apol, c. Arian. 1, and !><• Bententis Diony- ad Const, <;, Ep. ad Monach. l.« sii, •_'/" ; so below, Ep. ad Adelph. 8. Let its basis be the necessary Faith. our stead. And thanks be to their piety, that although they were free to hasten to their own dioceses l , yet on ac- count of the urgent needs of the Church, they made it their first object to visit you. So, when they agreed to go, we consoled ourselves, because we all consider that when both you and they are there, we ourselves shall be together with you. 3. Wherefore invite to a meeting with you all who desire to be at peace with us, and especially those who assemble in the Old City" 1 , and also those who are coming over from the Arians ; and receive them as fathers would receive sons, and welcome them as teachers and guardians might do: and unite them to our dear friends, Paulinus and those with him, and demand nothing more from them than that they anathematize the Arian heresy, and confess the faith confessed by the holy fathers at Nicaea, and more- over anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and is separated from the essence of Christ n : for there is no real abandonment of the abhorred heresv 1 UapoLKias, in the ancient sense of " the church dwelling in a particular area under the oversight of a bishop," i. e. a diocesan church or diocese : as in the Ep. of Ch. of Smyrna on S. Polycarp's death, Euseb. iv. 15. &c. m 'Ev t?7 ira\aia. In the " Old Town" of Antioch, stretching along the bank of the Orontes, and regarded as a suburb — Avhere was a Church called the " Apostles'," in which the adherents of bishop Meletius held their services, Theodoret ii. 31. while the presbyter Paulinus was allowed by the Arian bishop Euzoius, out of re- spect for his high character, to assem- ble his " Eustathians", or Old Church congregation, in a small church in the New City, on the island, Soc. iii. 9. It is clear that the Council regards the Eustathians, with whom Athana- sius had worshipped when at Antioch in 34(5, as in their rights ; it is to the adherents of Meletius that the invita- tion is to be addressed to come and join tin- Eustathians in their place of meet- ings on certain terms herein prescrib- ed. See c. 9. " This was the heresy called Mace- donian, after the Sn.ii-Arian bishop Macedonius. It was an offshoot of the Arian. Soc. ii. 45. Soz. iv. 27. Theod. ii. (5. It arose out of a refusal to extend the Homoiousion from the Son to the Holy Spirit: see Swete's Early History of Doctrine of Holy Spirit, p. 51. It was in fact a "sur- vival" of the Arian idea as applied to the Holy Spirit: see Athan. Orat. c. Ari. iii. 15. cf. Epist. ad Serap. i. 2, 9, 32: S. JJasil de Spir. Sanrt. 10 — 18 : S. Oreg. Naz. Orat. 31 : Epiphanius, Haer. 74. Among the protests against it, see the magnificent "invocation" of the Holy Spirit, in the Liturgy of S. Mark. Hammond's Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. 187. also Damasus's formulary addressed to Paulinus, Theod. v. 11. insisting that the Holy Spirit is almighty, omniscient, omni- present, an agent in creation, one in Godhead, power, glory, will, with the Father and the Son, and with them adorable. The phrase " Lord and Life-giver," added in the " Constan- tinopolitan" form of the Nicene ('reed, contradicts the " Macedonian" asser- tion that the Holy Spirit was a created being, differing in nature from the angels: as the words affirming His adorableness impress the idea of His coequality. 6 Terms to be proposed to Meletius, tom.ad of the Arians, so long as we make a division in the Holy A>T - Trinity*, and say thai any member of It is a creature. For those who pretend to acknowledge the faith confessed at Nicsea, but dare to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit*, are Bimply denying the Axian heresy in words, but retaining it in thought. And Let the impiety of Sabellius* and Paul of Samosata r , and the madnt bs of Valentinus and Basilides, and the insanity of tlic Manicheans, be anathematized by all. For when this is done, every one will be cleared of all evil suspicion, and the Catholic Church's faith will alone be exhibited in its purity. i. Now we do not suppose any of you, or any one else, to he ignorant of the fact that this is the faith which is held by us, and by those who have been always in commu- nion with us. But, since we rejoice with those who desire to be united to us, — with all, but principally with those who assemble in the Old City, and have glorified the Lord, as for all things, so above all for their good purpose; we exhort you to let their union take place on these terms, and that nothing beyond this, as we said above, should be de- manded by you from those who assemble in the Old City ; and that Paulinus and his people should propose nothing different from, nor going beyond, the decisions of Niccea. ' Cf. Athan. Ep. ad Serap.hr. 12. reduced to few words, was this; " Porthe holy and Messed and per- "Jesus is nut God, but a man irho feet Trinity is undivided." So Chat, through eminent sanctity won tin* c.Arian.i.18. " The faith of Christians title of Son of God. The Word is knows the blessed Trinity to be on- not personal, but is the Divine sttri- changeable and perfect and ever ex- bute of Wisdom, which dwelt with isting in the same way." special fulness in Jesus." Paul was • In Ep. ad Serap. i\\ is. be ex- bishop of Antioch, and was condemned plains "blasphemy against the Holy by the Council of Antioch, in l'(»:». Spirit" to mean the denial of Christ's Sec some words of his quoted in true Divinity. Here be takes a aim- Routh's Relliq. Sacr. iii. .'{<><». that pier view. Damasus*s formulary sent the Word aw^x^tv with Jesus Christ to Paulinus describes the Macedonians miraculously, ami that Wisdom dwell as "issuing from the loot of Arlus, in Him a-, it did not in others, "for snd having changed the name but not it was in the Prophets, hut yd the impiety." Theod. v. 11. In this more in Moses: snd in manj w .i- sentence ••: o/td{u» is used for "to ac tin- Lord, hut yet more in Christ SI in knowledge" <>r- "treat as suthorita- a temple: for Jesus Christ is one, live," cf. Ad \iios. i, ;i, j. and the Word is another." So he is Sabelllus, s Lybisn, In the early said to have held that the indwelling part "i the third century, taught of the Divine Wisdom In Jesus excel. that the "Son"' and "Spirit" were led its indwelling in others " mere phases or aspects ol the one rt ko\ ttA?',''... BSV, twice BS much." Person of the Father. Routh, Rell. iii. 311. ' The heres) ol Paul ol Bamo .»t... So-called Sardican Creed, spurious. 7 5. And, for instance, as for the document 3 which some talk of as if it had been compiled in the Council of Sardi- ca, concerning faith, do not allow it to be so much as read or brought forward ; for the Synod defined nothing of the sort. For some indeed requested that some definite for- mula should be drawn up, as if the Nicene Creed were de- fective; and indeed rashly attempted this t . But the holy council assembled at Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no new formulary about the faith should be drawn up, but the faith confessed at Nicoea by the fathers should be deemed sufficient, because nothing was lacking to it, but on the contrary, it was full of true religion ; and that no second creed u should be put forth, lest that which was written at Niccea should be regarded as incomplete, and an occasion should be given to those who desired to be often drawing up formularies and definitions about faith. Wherefore if any one brings forward this, or a different formulary, put a stop to such persons' conduct, and advise them rather to study peace, for we discern nothing in them save contentiousness. For as regards the persons whom some began to censure for affirming "Three Hypos- tases x ," because the phrase was not found in Scripture, and s Literally, a leaf out of a writing there." The word eKTWeaOai, put for- tablet. ward, may be illustrated by the use of 1 The doctrinal formulary annexed Ecthesis for a doctrinal formulary, e.g. to the Synodal letter in Theodoret ii. that of Heraclius. Compare Theod. 8. and of which a Latin translation v. 9, "the tome which was put forth" was discovered by Mafifei in the ('a- (iKTcQevTi.) thedral library of Verona (Mansi, vi. * This famous word was originally 1215) was probably a draft of an ex- used for sediment or deposit, Soc. iii. planatory formula such as Sozomen 7. Thus it came to mean (2) substra- refers to, iii. 12, but which the coun- turn or basis. In 2 Cor 9. 4, it is used cil did not in fact accept, see Hefele, for "well-grounded confidence : " and Hist. Councils, sect. 63. (3) "substance" or reality, as Heb. 11. u Yliariv, here used for a formulary 1. faith is called the hypostasis of things of faith, so S. Basil, Ep. 81, " Hermo- hoped for, i.e. the process which gives genes, who wrote the great and im- them a real existence in our minds, pregnable iriffnv in the great coun- So Tatian called God the hypostasis of cil:" so the council of Constantinople all beings, ad Grsecos 5 : and the hy- in381,can.l: so Gregory of Nazianzus, postasis of God meant His real exist- Epist. 102: so Socrates ii. 45," they ence, Himself as a true Being, as it had read the same tt'kttiv which they had been used in Heb. 1. 3: ep. i-xx. IV also read at Constantinople;" &c. In 88. 47. Hence, (4) as in the Nicene this sense also the word was vised in anathema, and generally by Athana- the famous prohibitory decree called sius, (e. 9. Orat. c. Ari. iii. 65. c. Apol- the seventh canon of Ephesus: no lin. i. 12, ad Afros, 4,) it was used as one is "to present, or write, or com- equivalent to ovaia, essence. But the pose any different iriariv from that Divine essence was one: therefore which was framed by the Nicene fa- there was but one Divine hypostasis. 8 « One Hypostasis," w u Three:' roM.As was consequently open to suspicion, we requested them not to Beek for anything more than the Nicene confession ; but nevertheless, on account of this contentiousness] ire inquired of them whether, like the Allan fanatics, they meant to Bpeak of " Hypostases" alien and foreign to cadi Other, and differing from each other in essence, and each by itself an independent " Hypostasis/ 9 as are those other beings, the creal area and the offspring of men ; or like dif- ferent essences, such a- i^old, silver, or brass; or whether, in Bpeaking of " Three Hypostases/ 9 they had the same no- tion as other heretics had in speaking of three Principles or three Gods. They positively declared that they neither said this, nor had ever thought it. Thereupon we a>ked them, "Why then do you say Three Hypostases? or why do you use such phrases at all?" They replied, " Because we believe in the Holy Trinity: we know of a Trinity not in name only, hut truly existing and subsisting, a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly existing 1 and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and existing: we have neither said 'Three Gods 9 nor 'Three Principles,' Yet, since ill.- distinction lift ween the p. 1 1!». Cum]). Athan. Treatises ii. 124. Pather, the Son, and the Holy spirit, Later on. s. Basil expressly ( followed \\; u real, it was not unnatural, by giv- by Theodoret, in his Dialogues) dis- Ing a slight turn to the word, to apply tinguisbed bypostasia from ofcrfa as it to the Divii ssenceas existing in the specific from the general, Bp. 28. each of the Three Persons, (as we call Tin- letter of Valentinian 1. to the themfor want of a more fitting term,) Asiatics in .'!7."» uses hypostases as as much as to say, •' In the Unity there wpStrmra, Theod. iv. s. ami bo in is a real Trinity; the Father is really 430, Cyril Alex, anath. 1. On the the Pather, the Son really the Sun, senses of vwSirratrts see Dean Liddell's the Spirit really the Spirit:" as the Sermon on "Where two or three,' 1 third creed of Antiocfa said that the p. 32. Son was with God " in a hypostasis ;" l Literally, "separated, by itself.*' Ath. de Syn. 24: and hence arose Probably be was thinking of Diony- the phrase "Three Hypostases," which -in-- < > i Rome, who in the third cen- was startling as apparently inconsis- tury had condemned the Tritheistk tent with the truth ofthe Divine Unity notion of three h\ postases foreign to ence, and as having been used by each other, and separate, ap. Athan. Ai'ms, Ath. de Synodis 16. I'.ut as •)•• \)<f Divine personality. Tracts Theol. as we might express it, " immanent," ami Bodes, p. .'i'»l : Atian-. e«|. .;, I.hhhm'. Damp. I.eet.ji. ]l\. Mutual explanations. 9 nor could we at all endure those who say or think thus : but we know a Holy Trinity, and one Godhead, and one Principle % and a Son coessential with the Father, as the fathers said, and the Holy Spirit, not a creature, nor fo- reign to, but belonging to, and undivided from, the essence of the Son and of the Father." 6. We accepted their interpretation of their language, and their defence of it ; and proceeded to enquire of those whom they had blamed for saying "One Hypostasis," whether they said so in the sense of Sabellius, b by way of doing away with the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as if the Son were without true being, and the Holy Spirit without subsistence c . And they also positively declared that they did not say so. "But," they said, "we speak of Hypos- tasis, considering hypostasis and essence to mean the same thing : and we hold One Hypostasis, because the Son is from the Father's essence, and because of the sameness of the nature ; for we believe the Godhead to be one, and its nature to be one, and not that the Father's is one, and a This one "principle" (apxv) would be the Father (as Fountain of Godhead, cf. Ath. de Deer. Nic. 15.) So Orat. e. Ari. iv. 1. " that the Word is referred to the Father, whose Son He is,, so that while Father and Son are two, we speak of one ' principle,' not two : whence there is properly a Unity of Principle or Origin," (/xovap- X<'a.) and note there (Ath. Treat, ii. 513, and i. 45.) So Theodoret, irepl apxys KU -1 UarpSs, Hrer. Fab. v. 1. b Cf. c. Apollin. ii. 3. l ' 'Avovaiov avvKoffTarov. Here ovala itself is used, implicitly, in a personal sense, as in Hippolytus c. Noet. 7, 4. cf. Origen in Joan. torn. 2. 1 8. Athanasius speaks of the Word as not " unsubsistent," auvir6(TTaTou, but subsistent, iuovcriou, de Synodis 42 ; Orat. c. Ari. iv. 2. and uses auv- Tr6vTOLTov for the Son as conceived of by Sabellius, 'i. e. impersonal, c. Apol- lin. i. 21 . This is very like using both ovaia and vir6i. 1-, used the phrase "the Son has hypostasis" "for, the Son really ex- ists, is not a mere spoken word." (So the Macrostich creed had condemned the Mareellian idea of a Son unsub- sisting, avvivapKToVy Ath. de Syn. 26.) Epiphanius speaks of each Person as euvTroa-TaTos, Ancor. 6 ; and says he thinks that the human mind is not, as the Apollinarians held, a hypostasis, but " a n en ergy," whereas Christ is a " hypostasis," Hser. 77. 24. Compare Cyril Alex, de recta tide ad Theod. \3, on the Paulianist heresy of an " unsubsisting" Word, which was not hypostatic, but only" uttered by God." He argues that if the image of God be not hypostatic, God Himself is not hypostatic. He uses avvir6(naroi> as equivalent to avinrapKrov, to ovk uvto., to what has not received existence. So ib. 24, He did not come as a \6yos a.vvw6i>7rocTTaTou." Compare Newman, Tracts Theol. and Kccles. p. 323, as to the sense of Malchion's words, that Paul of Samosata denied the Son ov(Tiw(T0ai in the whole Savi- our: Koutli, Kell. Sacr. hi. .'5<»l>. ii LO Nicene phrases owned to be b Tom. ad that tin* Son's and the Holy Spirit's are foreign f<> Him' 1 . ANT ' Thereupon too, of course, those who had been blamed for Baying "Three rlypostaa " eed with the former, arid those also who said "One Essence e " admitted the Lan- guage of the other-. ae they explained it. And both par- ties anathematized Anus as one who fought against Christ, and Sal)ellius and Paul of Samosata as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides' as alien from the truth, and Manes as an inventor of evil : and all, by God's grace, after the above mentioned explanations, agreed with u.s that the faith confessed at Nicsa by the fathers was better and more accurate than such phrases, and that for the future they would rather be content witli and use its term- -'. 7. But further in regard to the economy h of our Saviour in the tlesh. since some seemed to be contentious with each other on that point also, we examined both parties, and what one party professed the other agreed to, that the Word of the Lord did not sojourn in a holy man 1 at the rl Sec Nc.ilc's lively description of at Nice in Thrace and imposed at Ari- this examination of the two parties, minom, Athan. • > 1 1 > '■ olxovouia used for tin' dispensa- parties with gentleness and kindness, Hon whereby the Sun of God conde- carefully examined the meaning of scended to become Man ; the original their words, and fonnd that they did Divinity of His Person being expressed not differ as to doctrine." This peace- by the term 6eo?wyicu So Busebius making temper, he proceeds, was i. 1. oiKovofiias t( ko) 0€oAu-)i'as. S. I!a- more beneficial than all Athanasius's bU, Ep. s. ;{. Ua u?; . . . t?; <'• long labours, Writings, exiles, Orat. Trpoaex ovTf ^^ T^S inKouofx'ias Kara, that the Word which was in the Prophets did not (in the case of Christ) come into a holy man, but the Word Himself be- came flesh ; and his disciple Timothy objected to a brother-Apollinarian of the moderate school for saying that the flesh was not made co-essential with the Godhead, but only united to it; "as a holy man," he comments, "might be united to God;" ib. xii. 7<>1. Kpiphanius, in his paraphrase of the creed, says that the Son became man, not as if dwelling in a man, nor as when He inspired the prophets and acted by them, Ancorat. 121 ; and Bee below, Ep. Epict. 11. Gregory Nazian- zen, while attacking Apollinarianism, strongly condemns this notion that the Word acted by grace in Jesus, as in a prophet, Epist. 101. One of the strongest points taken by S. Cyril was that Nestorianism virtually represent- ed the relation between the Word and the Christ as the same in kind, though not in degree, with the relation be- tween that Word and the saints, e. g. Ep. ad Nest. 2. 10, Explan. 3. &c. k That this admission was equivocal, may be inferred from Apollinaris's letter, above quoted, " He took not a human mind, but a Divine mind. Wherefore the Saviour had not a body devoid of . . . intelligence:" i.e. His vovs was in fact His Godhead. So Vita- lis at first delighted his hearers by own- ing Christ to be "perfect man";" but it turned out that he substituted God- head for mind, Epiph. Htcr. 77, 2?>. So Greg. Naz. says that the Apolliharians would acknowledge Christ to be not without a vovs or Xoyos, secretly mean- ing thereby His Godhead. Ep. 102. Compare Ath. c. Apollin. c. ii. 10. 1 So Apollinaris says, in the same letter: "There was not one Son of God before Abraham, and another after Abraham." This, of course, is most true, as S. Cyril says, ad Nest. iii. 3* "who was Divinely before Abraham, and afterwards became .Man." TOM. A]) ANT. s, John 4. s. Pet 1 12 Verbal disputes to be discourageoT. Lazarus laid '? and who divinely raised him up '■'. It was the same who spat corporeally aa Man. but Divinely, as Son of God, opened the eyea of the man born blind, who Buf- fered in flesh, aa Peter said", bu1 Divinely opened the tombs and raised up the dead. On account of which texts they understood all the contents of the Gospel in this m'iim', and positively declared that they were of the >ame mind regarding the Incarnation of the Word, and Hie be- coming Man. 8. Since therefore these points have been thus acknow- ledged, we exhort you not to condemn rashlv. nor reject, those who make a like acknowledgement, and thus inter- pret the phrases which they used, but rather to welcome t hem, now that they make for peace, and excuse t hemselves : but as for those who do not choose to make this acknow- ledgement, and thus to interpret the phrases, keep them at a distance and put them to shame, as persons whose opinions are suspected. And while you shew no tolerance to these latter, advise the former, whose explanations and Bentiments are correct, not to examine each other any fur- ther, nor to keep up a strife of words, nor to use Mich phrases as these in dispute with each other, but to be united in the sentiments of true religion ". For those that are not so disposed, but arc contentious merely about such little phrases 1 ', and seek for something beyond what was formu- Hab. 'i. lated ;it Niceea, are simply giving their neighbours to drink irfmf is turbid* and pernicious, like men who are envious of Bee Ep. ;ird having become p. ."><>) in- again cites it. adding, "and Man shewed that lie could weep as not in the nature of the ineffable God- roan but raised up Lasarus as God." head." < lomp. s. I t be Great's Tome of Bp. ° Y.v" We confess thai He This text is similarly quoted in who > i i" rotten «>i *>>><\ 'in- Father, ad Bpict. I ; c. Apollin. ii. 1. i Bon a. ni < i. nl i >ni\ in gotten, . writes to "the blessed pope Athana- ' Named with Paphnatios in Atha- sius/' lb. »:•':. Compare Buseblai \ii. nasins'i 19th Festal Epistle. 7. where Dionysius of Alex, calk lib ■ in •■ krcadl ,- or Heptanomb. predecessor, " our blessed pope." '■ In the southern or second The- Thls place ia mentioned by l)i<«. bald. It will be seen that, of the nyslus of Alexandria in Boseb.ril. II. Egyptian suffragans here assembled, It was on the <-<>a-t of Libya Marma- some belonged to dioceses far apart. Notes by Eusebius and PauUnus. 15 without sin, even as our original 1 man subsisted, I have guaranteed my belief according to the context of the letter. And whereas "the document of Sardica" is said to be ex- cluded in order that nothing might seem to be put forth beside the Nicene faith, I also assent, that the Nicene faith may not seem to be shut out by means of it : nor ought it to be brought forward. I pray that you may be in health in the Lord. I, Asterius, assent to the above written, and pray that you may be in health in the Lord. l. l And after this Tome had been sent from Alexandria, thus signed by the above named, they also (at Antioch) afterwards added their own signatures as follows : I, Paulinus, k think thus, as I received from the fathers : that the Father exists, and subsists perfectly, and a per- fect Son subsists perfectly, and the Holy Spirit subsists perfectly. Wherefore I approve of the above explanation concerning the Three Hypostases, and the One Hypostasis or Essence, and those who think thus. For it is pious to think of and confess the Holy Trinity in One Godhead \ And also concerning the Incarnation of the Word of the Father, which took place for our sakes, I think thus as it is written, that according to John, the Word became flesh : S. John not according to those most impious men who say that He 1 Literally " old," i. e. as Adam was this paper, and said in his turn that created. Vitalis denied that Christ became per- k Paulinus, apparently, had been feet man. Theodoret's story in v. 3, suspected either of Sabeflianism or of that Flavian in 380 publicly taxed what was afterwards called Apollin- Paulinus with denying the " Trinity arianism, (charges to which, as a Ca- of Hypostases," although professing tholic of the most anti-Arian type, to communicate with Damasus who he might be thought open ;) and he admitted it, is very reasonably set vindicated himself by this document, aside by Tillemont, viii. 707. Theo- which is also given by Epiphanius, doret had a bias against Paulinus. who says it was' written out by Atha- ' I.e. so to hold the Unity of the nasius's own hand, rher. 77. 20, 21. Godhead as not to compromise Trini- See Tillemont, viii. 221 , who says this tarianism ; to ik worship one God," but took place in the reign of Jovian, as "in Trinity." So Ep. Epict. 9. Orat. when Athanasius visited Antioch a c. Arian. iii. 15; "Then also do we year after the Alexandrian Council, confess God to be One, through the i.e. after Paulinus had received episco- Trinity;" and ib. i. 18, •• an eternal pal consecration from the impatient and one Godhead exists in Trinity." Lucifer, who thus rendered pacilica- So Epiphanius, Ancorat. 7, "TheTri- tion hopeless. It is observable that nity is always a Trinity .... In the Vitalis, about fourteen years later, told Trinity there is no bleu. ling together, Epiphanius that Paulinus held Sabel- and no separation from its proper lianism ; whereupon Paulinus produced Unity." 1 N I . lfj Note by Paulinus. row. \D anderwen( a change , but that He became Man for as, he- ing born of the Holy Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. For the Saviour had not a body without BOul, nor without perception, nor without mind: for it was not possible th.it, when the Lord became Man for OS, His body should be without b mind. Wherefore I anathematize those who* set aside the faith confessed at Nicsa, and who do not say that the Son is from the essence of the Father and is co- essential with Him. And I anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature, brought into existence by means of the Son. And further, I anathematize the heresy of Photinus ", and every heresy ; walking in the path of° the Nicene faith and of what is above written. I, ('ar- teritis, pray that you may be in good health. ■ According to the second proposi- won of 344, condemned in councua tion of the Apollinarian school, which at .Milan in 345, and .'517, again at Apollinarins himself disclaimed, but an Arianiang council of Sirmium in which was thus early affirmed by .'!17 — 8, and finally condemned by the some of bis friends or pupils, — that tin- second or great council of Sirmium in fjord's body was formed by a ' con ver- .'{.")1 (its doctrinal formulary ia given aiou of Godhead into flesh. 1 Sunn' by Athanasius de Synodis, 27 ; comp. persona had asserted it about 350, for Hilary de Synodia .'is, Pragm. 9. l!>, it is condemned by tl first Sirmian" 81.) Photinus was then ejected and confession in 351, Athan. de Synod, exiled, Soc ii. 30: but he ia said to -7. have been recalled under .Julian, ami " Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, ap- again exiled under Valentinian I. He peara t.» have Imbibed from Marcellus retained his opiniona until his death, a theory akin to Sabellianism, and, in Athanasius attudea to him as denying advocating it, had emphasized that as- the Divinity of Christ, c Apolfin. ii. ped "t" Sabellianism which involved a 1!': and Hilary deTrin. vii. 7, 19, and merely humanitarian view of the Per- the formulary sent by Damasua to son of Christ, Soc. ii. 18. In hb view Paulinus, Th I. v. 11. accuse him our Lord had had no existence before of reviving Ebionism. His Nativity. He was censured in ° Srot^wy, ef. Rom. 1. \'2. the Serai-Arian " Macrostich" confes- THE EPISTLE TO JOVIAN. INTRODUCTION. Jovian, on succeeding to the empire in the summer of 36.3, at once showed himself favourable to the orthodox bishops. He sent to Athanasius the let- ter following-, and shortly afterwards, as it would appear from Athanasius's letter, wrote to him again asking for a compendious account of the Catholic doctrine. It should be remembered to the honour of this prince, that his straightforward orthodoxy was united, according to the testimony of a Pagan philosopher, with a spirit of comprehensive toleration \ [THE EPISTLE OF JOVIAN. JOVIAN, TO THE MOST RELIGIOUS ATHANASIUS, A FRIEND OF GOD. Highly admiring the excellences of your most virtuous life, and of your likemindedness to the God of the universe, and of your af- fections towards our Saviour Christ, we praise you, most honoured Bishop, hecause you have not quailed at any labour, nor at the ter- ror caused by the persecutors ; and esteeming dangers and threats of the world as dung, grasping the rudder of that orthodox faith which is dear to you, you have contended even until now for the truth, and continue to exhibit yourself as an example and pattern of virtue to the whole community of the faithful. Our Majesty, therefore, re- calls you, and wills you to return to the teaching of the way of sal- vation. Return, then, to the holy churches, and act as the friend of God's people, and send up earnest prayers for our Clemency. For we know that by your supplication both we and those with us who are of Christian sentiments will receive great assistance from the Most High God.l THE LETTER OF ATHANASIUS TO JOVIAN". 1. A desire of instruction, and a longing after heavenly things, are becoming to a religious Emperor ; for by this 8 Soc. iii. 25. Themistius, Onit. 5. b Theodoret inserts this letter in (Op. p. 50, ed. Hardnin.) Compare his History, iii. 3, with this heading*. Athanasius's own maxims, e. g. Hist. " Athanasius and the other bishops Ari. 33, 07. who have come as representatives of c is The true Christ iiid Faith Er. ad Jov. rn.v. si 1. means will you have your heart truly in the hand of God*. Since then your Piety has wished to Learn from aa the faith of the Catholic Church, we -jive thanks on this c.umt to the Lord, and have thought tit to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the fathers at Xic-ea. rather than of anything else. For some, who had Bet this faith aside, laid various plots against us. because we did no1 give way to the Arian heresy; and they have become the au- thors of heresy and schisms againsl the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord is made plain to all men, being both known and read from the Holy Scrip- tures'. For in this faith the saints were made perfect and Buffered martyrdom 6 ; and now, having ended their course, they are in the Lord. And the faith would have remained unimpaired in perpetuity had not some heretics in their wickedness dared to falsify it. For one Arius, and his companions, attempted to corrupt it, and to bring in an impiety against it, saying that the Son of God was from nothing, and was a creature and a thing made, and capa- is the great s. Athanasius," Keble, Appendix to Sermon mi Primitive Tradition (Sermons, 1848, p. 106.) Compare 8. Hilary, * t * - Trinit. ii. ;>. " De inteltigentia enim hseresis, nun ilr Scripture est." 1 Here la the other aspect »>t" the case, — that the Nicene Paitfa la the true representative of primitive tradi- tion : bo 8. Basil says that it had been held in his church of CsBsarea from the days of the fathers, Ep. 1 10. 9. Sc Motley's Essays, ii. 185, on the testimony borne by the bishops at Ni- casa to the "general current tradi- tion" <>r doctrine in their churches: ami on Theory of Development, p. 1 63, "The Nicene Creed onlj asserted and guarded ■ doctrine which bad been held from the first, \i/. that of < hrist's true and proper Divinity . . The Ni- cene (reed . . . expressed this truth, ami no more, by the WOfd Hoi u- sion . . . The fathers said, This is the old doctrine that are have," etc i n»- •erve the force of the Catholics' ques- tion .is t.i Ari.inisin. "Who h.is .\.i before beard such things ?" Alexander in Boc. i. '"». (probably arritten by AthanasiusO Athan. Orat, i. 8. Apol. c. AH. 19. So of ..I her ri n>is, Ep. 2 CI Sot i .lo. the bishops from Egypt, and the Tlm- baiil, and the l/ibyas." Valesius thinks that Athanasius, arith some of his mf. fragans, had come to Antiocfa to pay their duty to Jovian, and there wrote the letter. But the Benedict Ines re- fer to Theodoret iii. 2, to show that Athanasius simply "assembled the more learned bishops'* (at Alexandria. ) So Hefele treats the letter as synodi- cal ; < louncQs, sect. B7« « Theodoret's copy of this letter i ftt B Valeaius't edition. ) adds here, " and you w ill peacefully prolong your reign through a long series of years." Probably the arords were erased In the Athanasian text after this loyal fore- cast had been falsified bv Jovian's early death. Feb. 17. 864. ' It is characteristic of Athanasius to insist on the Scripturalnesa of the Nicene faith, and on the sufficiency of Scripture evidence for the establish, mint of Catholic doctrine. " Divine Scripture." he tells bis suffragans in • is moir sufficient than any- thing else." Ep. J£g. I. So in de P.. . Nic 83. etc. and below, c. Apol. lin. i. 8. " If there I .• anioiie; di- \ ines .... w ho Commits his CStlM to the witui-ss of Scripture more nn- i ediy than the rest . . . that one represented by the Nicene Creed. 19 ble of change f . And with these words they deceived many, so that even those who seemed to be somewhat were led Gal. 2 awaij by their blasphemy : however our holy fathers has- 6 ' l3 " tened to assemble, as we said before, in the Nicene Coun- cil and anathematized them, and drew up a written con- fession of the faith of the Catholic Church, so that while this faith was everywhere being preached, the heresy which had been kindled by the heretics was everywhere extin- guished. So then this faith was existing everywhere in every Church, being acknowledged and preached in sin- cerity. But since now some persons who are minded to renew the Arian heresy have dared to set aside this faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, and pretend indeed to confess it, but in fact deny it, putting a false sense on the word coessential g , also blaspheming the Holy Spirit by saying that He is a creature, and that He came into being as a thing made by means of the Son h , we have deemed it to be necessary, in consideration of the mischief which is being done to the people by such blasphemy, to present to your Devotion the faith confessed at Nicsea, in order that your Piety may know what has been written with complete accuracy 1 , and how widely they go astray who teach what is contrary to it. 2. For know, O most religious Augustus, that these things •> have been preached from the beginning, and that this faith was confessed by the fathers who assembled at 1 The essential points of Arianism Semi-Arian " Homoiousion." Seethe were, (1) That the Son was not eter- letter of a number of bishops, inclu- nal ; " once He did not exist." (2) ding- both Meletius and Acacius, as- That the Son was not uncreated, but sembled at Antioch about this time, was made " God " by the Father : and Soe. iii. 25. Compare Hefele, Hist, consequently, (3) That He was "of a of Councils, sect. 87. A letter writ- different essence " from God. It was ten in the name of Valentinian I. to a natural inference, that He was crea- the Arian bishops of Asia Minor, 375, ted, as the Angels were created, with alludes to some who long ago accept- a capacity for moral " change," that is, ed the " Homoousion " insincerely, as for falling away; that it was conceiv- if it meant no more than the " Homoi- able that He might have rebelled on" (the symbol of a yet lower Ari- against God. See Alexander's Eney- anism, which would only admit g-ene- clicalinSoci.fi. Athanasius discusses rally that the Son was " like " to the the Tpeirr6v in Orat. c. Ari. i. 35. Father, which might be taken in seve- k " Homoousion." Some of the ex- ral senses), Theodoret iv. 8. Arian Churchmen, or of the Arians ll See the Tome, 1,3. who wished to find a home in the ' Theodoret — " with what accuracy Church, had accepted this Nicene it has been written." watchword in an inadequate sense, J Theodoret — " that this is tlte faith as if it were virtually equivalent to the that has been preached," ike. c 2 •mi The Nicene Creed) Ep.ao Nictca, and that it lias the assent of all the Churches in every place, those in Spain and Britain \ and those of Gaul, and of all Italy, and Dalmatia, and Daciaand Mysia 1 , Macedonia and all Greece, and those in all Africa, and Sardinia, and Cyprus, and Crete, and Panipli ylia, and Lycia, and Isauria, and those in Egypt and the Libyaa . and Pontus, and Cappaduria, and the churches near uSj and those in the East ", except a few who hold Arianism. For we know by experience the minds of all the above named, and we also possess Letters of theirs. And yon know, most religious Augustus, that even if Borne few per- BOns contradict this faith, they cannot prejudice it, when all the world" is holding the Apostolic faith. For those men, having long been infected with the A.rian heresy, are now more contentious in their resistance to true religion. And that your Piety may know it, although you do know it, we have still taken care to subjoin the faith confessed by the bishops p at Nicsea. Now the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicsea is this'*: — ■ 3. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of v ApoL «•. Arian. 1. See Hilary's had become a tradition, secured in De Synodis, addressed to the Gallic men's minds by stitt' preconceptions and British l»i>h<»ps, who had "con- winch resisted all attempts to disturb tinned free from the contagion of them, ib. x. 1. Athanasins says in De (Arian | heresy." Tiny had accepted Synod. 33 that all men wen- well con- the decisions of the Council of Sardica tent with the Nicene terms. \e. ; in favour oi Athanasius, Athan. ApoL which cannot be taken literally. c. Art 1. » Theodorel — "by the 31 8 bishops." 1 Moesia? ■ This original Nicene Creed is also 1,1 Libya Cyrenaica, or Superior, and found in Socrates, i. Bj s. Basil, Bp. Libya Marmorica or Secunda. See 140; Cyril Alex. Bp. ad Nest. _. B. Bingham b. ix. 2. 6. (vol. iii. p.51.) Por a Latin version see Hilary de 1 Thai is, the aggregate of fifteen Synodis. si. Epiphanius, writing in provinces of which Antiocfa was the ;;7i (Ancoratus, 120) gives as the metropolis, Bingham b.lx. 1. 6. This Nicene creed that revised and en- peculiar sense u | "the But" and larked form of it which we call Coii- 14 Eastern M appears in Cyril of Alex- stantinopolitan, hut without •• God andrla's Apologia adversns Orientales, from God," and with the old Nicene i.e. the bishops dependent on the SOC clause, "thai is. from the 0880001 of ot kntioch, Hon held by John. the Rather;" and then he gives ■ \\ •• must not press such language much longer form, which, be says, the too strictly. Athanasius here yields, whole I burchal that time had begun it' it must be said, to the temptation to use on account of reeent heresies. ol minimising the forces of the party It is Impossible to take this statement which lie wished his new sovereign literally: and it is strange that Bid- to discountenance. No4 long before, phanius should not have known the Hilary wrote, ".Many through nearly true te\t of the Creed of 825. Dr. all provinces of the Roman empire I bj considers that the Esthers of have now been Infected with this pes. the Council of 381 put forth tbe"Con- 1 1 lent doet line ..." de 1'ii it. \i. 1. It Stantinopolitan creed.*' if they did BO, put forth as against Arianism. 21 all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begot- ten, that is, from the Essence of the Father r , God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God; begotten, not made; Coessential ivith the Father ; By Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth ; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down, and was in- carnate, became man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens ; ivill come to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those ivho say, 'Once He ivas not, 9 and, 6 before He was begotten He was not s ,' and that ( He ivas made out of nothing, 9 or say that the Son of God is from another substance t or essence, or is created, or changeable, or alterable, are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church. 4. In this faith, O Augustus, it is necessary that all should abide, since it is divine and Apostolic, and that no one should disturb it by subtleties and logomachies u , as the Arian fanatics have done, who say that the Son of God is from nothing, and that once He was not, and that He is created, and made, and changeable. For on account of these assertions, as we said before, the Council of Niceea anathematized this heresy, and confessed the true faith. For they have not called the Son simply like to the Fa- llot as a revised form of the Nicene, was not familiar to all the bishops and but under the mistake that it was churches, that is precisely consistent the actual Nicene creed, (Hist, of with what we know of the gradual Creeds, p. 69.) But he doubts whe- recognition of the Second Council, ther they did put it forth at all. His r This clause was omitted in the reasons, however, seem inadequate. Constantinopolitan revision of the That it is ignored in Western docu- Creed : it being thought, apparently, ments of the period 391 — 423, and by that the idea was sufficiently expressed the Council of Ephesus, is quite na- by "coessential with the Father." tural ; for the West and the Alexan- 8 This Arian proposition meant, drian Church did not acknowledge the " Being the Son, He came into exist- Council of 381. Thus, when Nesto- ence when He was * begotten :' there- rius of Constantinople quotes as part fore, of course, He could not have of the Creed the words <=« Uuiv/xaTos existed before." Here it was assumed 'Ayiov, which were added in the re- that His Sonship depended on an event, vision, Cyril recites the original, and whereas it was an eternal fact in the asks, "Where have they said about life of the Godhead. See Newman in the Son that He was incarnate of the Athanasian Treatises, i. 274. Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin?" l Hypostasis, used as equivalent to Adv. Nest. i. (3, 8. At Chalcedon it ovaia or essence. See Athanasian was accepted along with the Nicene Treatises, i. (>(>. Creed proper, as the Creed of the 150 u On "logomachies," see the Tome, fathers (of 381.) If at that time it 8. 22 Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity. Ef. m. tiler x . Leaf He Bhould be believed to be simply like to God, Jov, l J and not Very God from God. But they wrote the word w Cbeasential," which was characteristic of a genuine and very Son of the vcrv and natural Father 7 . And again, they did not describe the Holy Spirit as foreign to the Father and the Son; but rather glorified Him with the Father and the Son 7 in the: one faith of the Holy Trinity, because there is in the Holy Trinity at the Bame time one Godhead*. » •• Homoion." This vague formula Ancyra, when they acknowledge the of the Acacian section of Arians ua> Smi to be the "genuine and natural intended to be naed against the Semi- offspring of the Father," arc not Gar Arians, who called the Son Homoion- from accepting even the "Homoou- siitii, "like in essence." Acacius and sion." The whole question, in fact, his friends objected to this " teclini- turned on the sense of the word Sun, cal " phrase, and advocated the " aim- as applied to our Lord. Was His pier" phrase, " Like.'" The result, Sonship real, and therefore unique, with many minds, was practically to and truly Divine? Then He was ne- prepare the way for the Ultra-Arian oessarily M of one essence with the Pn- "Anomoion," " I'ldike." For "lake" ther." If He was not thus one with was understood in the sense of mere the Father, He was a Son hy mere moral affinity; and this was consist- adoption and {Trace; i(. Hilary de cut with the Ultra-Arian position. See Trin.xii.2. "Nostra tantum base sola Newman's Arians, p. 312 it'.; comp. reHgio est, Pilium confiterl non Athan. de Synod. .'»<»; see Jerome adoptivum, sed Datum." On the full adv. Lucifer. 18, " For the rejection of force of the term "Only-begotten," " the word I'sia, a plausible argument see Liddon, Bamp. Feet. p. 833. "was offered; it was not found in ■ This may have partly suggested *' Scripture, " &C So Hilary says that the addition made in the revision of Constantius (under Acacian influence) the Creed, s. Basil wrote to Bpipha- " would not have any words used nius ahoiit .'577. that he had told 7. in casually mention that point," Ep. 258. the " Dated Creed " of Sinniiiin, the 2. comp. l'.p. 1 t<>. 2. Sec SwetC OH Acadans' Creed read at Seleuda, and Doctrine of Holy Spirit, p. 34. the Creed which was at last, under n So Athanasius ad Scrap, i. 17, pressure, accepted by the Council of " The whole Trinity is one God." So Xiiiniiiuiy in :;."»!». It is eritici/ed hy says Gregory Na/ian/eii, Orat. (I. l.'{; PboBbadius LD. 368.] In De Fid. and in Orat. S5. 17 he anticipates the Drth. <•. .'{. Galland. v. •_'."»!». M Quicunqoe" by saying, M Unit] to So in the De Synodis, II, he sa_\s he adored in Trinity, and Tiinit\ in that Semi-Aiians, such as Basil of Unity." THE EPISTLE TO THE AFRICAN BISHOPS. INTRODUCTION. The use of the word "Africa" was at this time in an intermediate stage. One of the great dioceses of the Empire had acquired the name now ex- tended to the continent : it included six provinces, the chief being Africa Proconsularis, the original "Africa," the metropolis of which was Carthage. It is to the bishops of this " diocese" that the present letter is addressed, in 368 or 369, in the name of a Council of Egyptian prelates, for the purpose of destroying any prestige that might attach to the name of the Western Council of Ariminum, which, after beginning well, had ended so disas- trously by acquiescing in an Arianizing creed. The authority of the Nicene Council is held up as all-sufficient and final : and the " Africans" are exhorted to abide simply by its Creed. The two most notorious Western Arians, Ursacius and Valens, whose "blasphemy," says S. Hilary, (c. Const. 26) *' the Africans had condemned" in the reign of Constantius, had been recently excommunicated by a Council held at Rome by Damasus : but the letter expresses surprise that Auxentius, the astute Arian who held the great see of Milan, and by a disingenuous profession of faith in Christ's Divinity had contrived to secure the good opinion of Valentinian I. (see Hilary c. Auxentium) was not included in that censure. SYNODICAL LETTER OF THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT TO THE BISHOPS OF (WESTERN) AFRICA. 1. We 8 may well be content with what has been written by our beloved fellow minister Damasus b , bishop of Great Rome, and such a large number of bishops who assembled with him, and not less so with the decisions of the other B The opening passage is translated have no means of knowing ; but we by Waterland, Works, i. 549. can say that he used his success well." b Damasus became bishop of Rome Diet. Chr. Biogr. The allusion to in the autumn of 366, amid scenes of Synodical writings issued by him re- violent conflict between his partisans fers to the Roman council of 3(57 or and those of his rival Crsicinus, as to 368 : the next Council in which the which the Pagan historian Ammia- consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity nus gives some; details, xxvii. 3. 13. was affirmed, and Auxentius (see be- Charges directly implicating Dama- low) was excommunicated, (Mansi, sus were made in a still extant docu- Cone. iii. 443. Sozomen, vi. 23. Tbeo- ment by two presbyters of the un- doret ii. 22,) is referred by Tillemont successful party. "What he would and Maran to 371, by Hefele to 369. have replied to these accusations, we 'il Nicene Creed widely accepted. Ad .\i k. Councils which were held in Gaul c and Italy, concerning the sound faith, which was bestowed by Christ, proclaimed by the apostles, and handed down by the fathers who assem- bled at Niccea from all parts of the Roman world. For all this solicitude was then shown on account of the Arian heresy, in order that those who had fallen into it might be recovered, and those who had invented it might he ex- posed. In this faith, then, the whole world long agreed: and now also, many councils haying been held, all those in Dalmatia and Dardania, Macedonia. Epirus, Greece, Crete, and the other island-. Sicily . and Cyprus, and Pamphylia, Lycia, [sauria, and all Egypt and the Libyas, and very many in Arabia, have been reminded of, and have recognized this creed; and admired those who Bigned it; because if there had been left among them any bitter plant springing up from the root of the Arians — we mean Auxentius % and Ursacius, and Valens f , and those who think as they do, — such persons were by means of their Compare Ep. to Epict. 1. The that profession, together with an council of Paris in 361, which declar- avowal of adhesion t" the Council ed in favour of the Nicene creed, of Ariminum. According to Hilary, (Hilary. Fragment 11,) may have been Auxentius hail began bis career as a in his thoughts together with the presbyter under Gregory, tin- Arian Synod held by Liberius for the recep- usurper of the see of Alexandria in Hon of three envoys of a number of 340. 8. Ambrose, who succeeded him Semi-Arian bishops who in 366 re- as bishop, described him as a perse- solved to adopt the Nicene faith, ami cutor of Catholics. (Sermo «!«• Basili- so to obtain the help <»f the Western ds tradendis.) Church ami of Valentinian, against f Ursacras bishop of Bingidunum, the tyranny of the Arianizing Valens. ami Valens bishop of Mursa, were Boc iv. 19. Arian inflates described in .'->.'!!i as After their \Mt to Rome, these "young both in years ami in mind," enVOya professed the Nicene faith he- Athan. Apol. C. Arian. 13. who took tore a Council in Sicily anil were re- an active part in the Arian attempt ceived into Communion, Soc. iv. 19. to ruin Athanasius by false charges, c See Athan. Knev.l. ail /Eg. 7. lb. They reeanteil Arianisni at a " him they call Auxentius," and Hist. Council of .Milan in .'U."», ami again Arian. 75. that he was transferred in 347 in the presence of Julius of from Cappadoda to the see of Milan Rome, and wrote in a friendly strain after the expulsion of DlonyshlS (in to Athanasius, Ath. Apol. C Arian. 355) and he was a man "of bus!- 1. 58. Hist. Arian. 96: hut in ;!.".l ness rather than religion." Hilary of they recanted their recantation, pre- Poitien wrote i i k " Contra Aux- tending thai it had been made under entrain," advising the faithful of fear ..t the Western Emperor Con- Milan to es, hew his communion, and stana, (who bad been slain la denouncing the Insincerity ol his pro- ii». -'.*. i pretence refuted In detail i>v fessioni of belief In Christ's "true Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian.59. ff, \ Divinity," which bad deceived the lens, the abler of the two, was " the orthodox Valentinian. At the end champion of Arianism" in the Latin of this trad is Auxentius's letter to Church, and gained the favour of Con- Valentinian ami Valens, rontaininii itautius by a * 4 fortunate artifice" a( Authority of Nicene Council 25 writings cut off and cast away. Enough, then, and suffi- cient in themselves, as we said before, were the conclusions arrived at in Niceea, for the overthrow of every impious heresy, and for the security and advancement of the doc- trine of the Church. But since we have heard that some persons are minded to fight against that doctrine, and at- tempt to bring forward the name of a certain council as held at Ariminum, and contend that it, rather than the Nicene Council, should be held authoritative: we deem it necessary to write and admonish you not to tolerate such men as these, for this is nothing else than a new offshoot of the Arian heresy. For what is the real aim of persons who set aside the Council which was held against that heresy, i. e. the Nicene Council, if it is not that Arianism shall prevail ? What then do they deserve but to be call- ed Arians, and to share the same punishment which was inflicted on the Arians ? they who have neither stood in awe of the Divine saying, Remove not the ancient boun- p,. ov> 22. daries which thy fathers set up, and, He icho cur seth father ^ 8 - or mother, let him die the death, nor have paid any regard 17. to the fathers who decreed that those who held opinions contrary to their confession should be anathema. 2. For on this account did the Council of Niceea take place as oecumenical, three hundred and eighteen bishops g having assembled together to treat of the faith, because of the Arian impiety, that there might never again be held any particular Councils on the pretext of treating of the faith, but that even if they were held, they might be of no authority. For what is wanting to the Nicene Council, that anyone should seek for something newer ? It is full of true religion 11 , beloved. This is the Council that has filled the whole world: it is this which has been recognized even by Indians 1 , and by all Christians who dwell among the other barbaric nations. Vain then is the labour of men the time of the battle of Mursa, New- more or less." The number 318, here man's Arians, p. 286. see Snip. Se- given, has been accepted by later wri- verus, Hist. Sac. ii. 38. Hilary says ters ; and Liberals had already con- that he forcibly prevented Dionysius nected it with Gen. 14. 14: Soc. iv. 12. of Milan from signing the Nicene b 'Eu(re/3eias, cf. Tome, 8. Creed at Milan, ad Const, i. 8. For ' Apparently, the Ethiopians or his trickery at Ariminnm, see Jerome Abyssinians under Frumentius <»r adv. Lucif. 18, Sulpicms ii. 44. SaJama, whom Athanasiua had con- b In Hist. Ari. 66. he says, "300 secrated as their bishop. / 'arious Arm a Councils A i \ik. who have often made attempts against it. For up to this time Bucb persona have held ten councils and somewhat more, changing their ground al each, taking away some things from their earlier councils, making alterations in, and additions to, the Later*. And to this day they have go1 no u r,,(, *l by all their writing, suppressing, using force, not knowing that tvery plant Which the Father in heaven hath not planted shall he rooted up: while the Ward of the Lanl, spoken through the (Ecumenical Council in Xi- caea, abideth far ever* For if one sets numbers against numbers, the members of the Nicene Council are as much more numerous than those of the particular council-, as the whole is greater than the part. And if any one wishes to distinguish the cause for holding .the Nicene Council from the causes of those many subsequent councils assem- bled by those men, he will find that it was the Nicene which had the reasonable cause, and the others which were S. Matt lj. 13. 1 Pet. 1 ss k Compare 1 1 1 * * remarks in Athan. de Bynodis 14, :i-2. as t<> the manifold formularies of the Arias synods. In tliat work lie reckons eleven such do- cuments, i. ••. tin- four so-called <>i t be Dedication Council of Antioch, the crostich," tin- " first Birmian," tin- "second Sirmian" (called by s. Hilary " blasphemous," ) the "fourth" Sirmian or Creed dated l»y the Con- sulates ( w bitsun live 359,) tin- Aca- i-ian formulary presented at Beleuda, Bept. 869; that of Ariminum (which had been drawn up at Nicfein Oct. :;:.:». sec Boc. ii. 37;) that <>f Antioch (361.) And S. Hilary, ad Const, ii. .">. (rhetorically identifying himself with tin* authors of these formulas) M W'f settle creeds by tin- year or the month," 8cc: (quoted in Newman's Arians, p. 159.1 Hilary tells as also of the true "nral Birmian" confes- sion, Aiian in character, hut rery brief, frai I at Birmium .'tJ7 — H, l in. •_'. 9 i : ami Lucifer ( Morien- < iii in , IS) an. I Bulpicius ( ii. .'::») ■ >! an i formula pui forth in Constan- tine's name at Milan iii 855. Bocrates reckons two Antiocbenecreeds,a thud lent to Constans (tin- •><> called fourth uf Antioch; the third, by Theophro- oius, he ignores:) a fourth carried by Budoxius int.. Itarj (the Macrostlch:) 'In- . Sit mi. in ( ..in ot w hi. h u,i the Dated creed <»r "creed of the Con- sulates:") the Acacians' al Beleucia, and that of " Constantinople:" nine in all, ii. 41. It is to be observed thai the Creed <>f the Consulates (given in I).- Bynodis, K») and the Creed of Nice-Ariminnm-Constantinople (ih. 30) were both of the Homcean or Acadan type: whereas the Antio- chene formula of 361 was Anomcean, ami the " blasphemous" need called the second Birmian came rery near tO the Anniiiuioii (ih. L'S.) It was the Acadan typewhkh triumphed at Ariminum. Athanaaius's "ten Arian Councils" may be thus reckoned : 1. that of Tyre and Jerusalem: 9. tin- Dedication Council : 3. that of the Macrostlch i 1, 5. '•. 7. four at Sir- iniuin. I.e. that of351 against IMii.ti- nus, \e. that Of the " hla>|>hemia." that of tin- Sfini-Arian " r.unjiila- ti.ui " in ;!."»S, and that of the Dated : 8. Ariminum ; '.>. Constantino- ple in BOO; l<». Antioch in 861. To these mighl he added the coundl of Constantinople in 335, thecouncU <»f Pbilippopolis, held by tin- Arianfadng seceders from Sardica, tin- coundl of Besiers In 356, the Anomc&an coundl .'t \iiti.M-h early in 858, the Semi- Aiian eoundk of Ancyraand BeJeu- eia. ami the coundl or conference of Nl, e. contrasted with the Nicene, 27 brought together by violence, on account of hatred and contentiousness. For the Nicene was assembled on ac- count of the Arian heresy, and on account of the Paschal festival 1 , since those in Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia were at variance with us, and kept it themselves at the time at which the Jews kept it. But, thanks to the Lord, as about the faith, so about the holy festival m , an agree- ment took place. And this was the cause of the Nicene Council : but the subsequent ones were indeed innumer- able, and were held in opposition to the (Ecumenical - Council. 3. These points, then, being thus made clear 11 , who will adopt the position of those who refer to the Ariminian Council, or any other than the Nicene ? Who will not de- test those who set aside the decisions of the fathers, and prefer the more recent decisions made at Ariminum by means of contentiousness and violence p? And who will choose to concur with these men, who do not even accept their own conclusions ? For they, by writing different things at different times in their own councils, some ten or more, as we said above, are plainly seen to have become accusers of each of those councils, and are in much the same condition as those Jewish traitors of old: for as the latter left the fountain of living waters, and hewed out for j er . 2. themselves broken cisterns which could hold no ivater, as it 13 - is written by the prophet Jeremiah, so these men, in their warfare against the one and (Ecumenical Council, hewed out for themselves many councils, and all their councils have been shown to be empty, like a handful of corn without h os 8 strength. Let us then, refuse to tolerate those who refer 7. 1 On the Paschal question, as regard to the reckoning- of the equi- brought before the Nicene Council, nox, the Council practically followed see Hefele, Hist. Councils, s. 37. cf. the Alexandrian rule rather than the Athan. de Synodis. 5. Roman, for it directed the bishop of m See Constantino's letter on this Alexandria to announce the right day point, Euseb. Vit. Con. iii. 17. Soc. for Easter, annually, to the Roman i. 9. The settlement arrived at was, Church, which was to pass on the in- that not only should Easter, the formation to other churches. Christian " Pascha," be always cele- ■ This passage is quoted by Theo- brated on a Sunday, but that if the doret, Hist. ii. 23. day of the Jewish Passover fell on a ° Literally, " name," " mention." Sunday, Easter Day should be the v See the account in Newman's Sunday after; and that it should be Arians, p. )o{), and see below c. 4. kept after the vernal equinox. In 28 Council of An m'l mi in began well, Ad Am. to tin 1 Aximinian council ■, or any oilier than the Nicene. For those who do refer to the A.riminian, seem not to be aware of what was done at it: otherwise they would have been silent. For yon know, beloved, haying yourselves been informed by those who went Prom your country to Ariininuni r , how CJrsacius and Valens, Eudoxius" and Auxentius' — and IVnmphilus 11 was there with them — were deposed 2 , for having desired to adopt -nine other formu- •i About ;i year before, sixty-six voya who curried the u Macroetich n Semi-Ariau biahopi had signified to creed into Italy, 8oc ii. 18. "Hi' Pope Liberiiu their acceptance of 1 1 1 • - afterwarda joined the Anomceana," Nicene Creed, and their rejection of (Newman's Arians p. 285,) and made that which was " read " at Ariminnm. their leader Aetios his companion; Liberins answered that "almost all procured the see of Antioch by an in- those who had been deceived or misled trigue in 358: was transferred to at Ariminnm had come to a right Constantinople in January of 380, mind, ami anathematized the creed of ami signalized bis accession by ntter- those n\Ii<> were there assembled, and inga " wanton impiety," (Newman) signed the Catholic and Apostolic intended to condense the Arian theory Creed which was divinely put forth at into a terse form, lit- was the main Nicaaa," see 8oc iv. 12. Jerome tells Instigator of the Arian persecution ua how earnestly many of the bishops under Valens; hi> real sympathies who had heen beguiled or terrorised were with the extreme Ariana, but at Ariminum afterwards protested he had not courage to support Aetius "by the Body of the Lord" that they against the displeasure of Constantios, had never wilfully abandoned the true oor Eunomius against the indignation faith, adv. Ludfer. 19. See Tillemont, of hia orthodox diocese of Cyzicua. vi. 163. A Roman coonci] of A.D. He died in 370. 371 writes to the lllyrians, (Theod. ii. ■ So he says in de Synod. 9 ; but the '2'J.) that the Ariminian hishops de- original document in Hilary's Frag- clared that they had not anderat I men! 7 omits Auxentiua and Demo- that the creed prevented to them was philus. Auxentiua afterwarda claim- contrary to the Nicene. " Netpie ed the Council as in his favour, Mil. mini," aaya the original Latin, Manai, <•. Aux. 15. iii. 159, " pr.-i'jndicinm aliquod nasci ■ Bishop of Henea in Thrace: an potuit ex Dumero eorum qui apud Arian of the Acadan party. In 370 Ariminnm coin enernnt," for neither he became the Arian bishop of Con- tbe Bishop of Rome, "cujua ante atantinople, Soc iv. 24, where he was omnea fuit expetenda sententia," nor said to have an outward appearance of Vincent (of Capua), nor otheraauchaa orthodox] and piety, Basil, Ep. is. in they, gave assent to the dedaiona. 380 he waa expelled by Theodosiua, &c The biahops at Ariminum num- Soc \. • !. PhUoatorgiua, the ultra- bered "rather more than •!<><)," Sid- Arian historian, sayfl that he n;tN a picins, ii. ii, Hilary says that this confused, impetuous speaker, and that council, " has been religiously annul- he suppoaed the " Divinity of Christ " led by all," c Aux. 8. (In the unreal Arian sense) to have r As Reatitutua of Carthage, and awallowed ap Hi> humanitj a aort Muaoniua from the Byzacene province, of anticipation of Eutychianiam, but The latter was venerable for his age, consistent with the Arian Ideas, see c. Jerome adv. Ludfer, is. ApoUin. i. 15. In one of the letters 1 According to PhUoatorgiua, lv. 1, ascribed to Liberius, Demophilua is Bndoxiua waa the son oi a martyr, named as having persuaded him to He was an Arian before .'i-'!l : for a Ariani/e. Mil. I i.i-m. 6. 8. time he acted with the <( Eusebiana," v See rlefele, Hist, Councils, 82. and, having heen elected blahop of The excommunication waa pronounced Uermanicia, was one of the three en< Jul) 813. 59, according t.> Hilary, but ended by forfeiting authority. 29 lary than the Nicene : when also, being called upon to anathematize the Arian heresy, they declined to do so, and chose rather to be its patrons. But the bishops, those genuine servants of the Lord, and true believers, in num- ber nearly two hundred, wrote down this, that they were content with the Nicene Council alone, and did not seek for, or think of, anything more or less than that. This, too, they signified to Constantius, who also had ordered the Council to be held >'. But those who had been deposed at Ariminum went off to Constantius, and caused the others who had expressed their mind against them to be insulted, and to be threatened that they should not return to their dioceses, and to suffer violence in Thrace in the same winter, so that they might submit to the new deci- sions made by them z . 4. If then any persons mention Ariminum, let them first bring forward the deposition of the above named, and Fragment 7, where the bishop who moves it, so to say, gives as the rea- son, that the persons in question, Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Caius, (Auxentius and Demophilus being- omitted) "have, by continually chang- ing their creeds, disturbed all the churches, and are now trying to in- fuse their heretical opinions into Christian minds ; for they want to sub- vert the Nicene formulary, and they have also brought here a creed writ- ten by themselves which it was not lawful for us to accept." It seems that after this proposal in favour of the Dated Creed had been rejected, they made another attempt with some altered version of it, Fragm. 8. y See a free version of their letter in Athan. de Synodis, 10. The original Latin is in Hilary, Fragment 8. z Hefele, 1. c. The orthodox but inexperienced deputies from Arimi- num were compelled by Constantius to meet Valens, Ursacius, and other Arians at Nice in Thrace, where on October 10, 359, as we see by the record given by Hilary, Fragment 8, they were harassed and deluded into accepting an Acacian formula, which called the Sun simply '"like to the Father," omitting " in all things/' and proscribing both " ousia" and "hypostasis." See Ath.de Syn. 30. On their return, they were excom- municated by the Council ; but at last the Council itself was led by similar treatment to follow their example. Sulpicius says that this creed (of Nice) was written by unprincipled men, " ab improbis hominibus," who wrapped up its meaning in deceptive words, ii. 43. It put aside "the word ousia" as ambiguous and non-Scriptural, and while acknowledging the Son to be like to the Father, it implicitly sug- gested the idea of His " inequality." The great body of the bishops at Ari- minum, partly from weariness, partly from weakness, at last accepted it. Valens and Ursacius, he adds (c. 44), recommended the few who stood out to accept it as " Catholic ;" to reject it, they said, would be to increase dis- cord : but it might, if they wished, be madeclearer byadditions. The bishops caught at this idea, and proposed cer- tain anathemas winch were more or less auti-Arian. Valens proposed an- other which embodied an old Arian statement, "The Son of God is not a creature like the rest of the crea- tures:" and the bishops, not seeing what this implied, acquiesced in it. By such artifices the creed of Nice be- came the creed of Ariminum. Com- pare Jerome adv. Lucif. 18. 30 " Hypostasis " a Scriptural term. Ad \n;. what the bishops wrote, Baying thai no one ought to seek for anything more than the decisions made by tin- fathers ;it Xicea. nor mention any other Council hut that one. Bui these things they conceal, while they put forward what was done by violence in Thrace, whereby they -how that they undertake to represent 11 the Avian heresy, and are alien from the sound faith. And if any one chooses to examine, side by side, that great Council itself and those which they have originated, he will find how orthodox was the one, how senseless the others. Those who met at Xicea were not deposed before they met, but confessed the Son to be "from the essence of the Father;" but these men having been deposed once and twice 1 ', and a third time at Ai-imi- lium itself, dared to write that one "ought not to say that God had an essence or a hypostasis." From this one may observe, brethren, how those at Nicaia are full of the veiv 14, " spirit of the Scriptures, for God says, in Exodus, / am He Jer.33. , r / (0 foe an( | | )V Jeremiah, Who is on His foundation and 1 s, 22. (LXX.) has seen His word? and a little after, If they had stood on vTToaTTj. My foundation* and heard My words," Now c hypostasis ' virofTTd- is essence, and has no other meaning than the very thing ** u _ which exists, which Jeremiah calls "existence," Baying, Jer. .». , - • ° n>. And they heard not the roice of "existence*. For 'hypos- 1 AX ■' tasis ' and essence are existence. For it is, and exists. lid., i. With this in his mind, Paul wrote to the Hebrews 1 . Who being an effulgence of His (/lory, and the exact impress of His * hypostasis*.* But those persons who think that they understand the Scriptures, and give themselves the title of wise, not choosing to use the word c hypostasis ' about God, (for this is what they wrote at Ariininuin, and in other Coun- cils of theirs '',) how can it be said that they were not justly iv 1 1. u deposed, when they themselves say 3 like the fool in his * "OiTfv fcroftpirafj playing the ' ' YT<(f>(c«s,' i.e. of any living thing, pari of. ' Observe the unhesitating ascrip- Tln'v liail Imtii ilr|iosnl Jpy tin- timi .if t his Kpistlr to S. Paul. So in CoancU of Bardies, Ath. ipol. <•'. Ari. Ad Eplct. .".. <•. Apollin. i. I. Ep. fig. rod were condemned by the' 1 Af- 18. Ste., see \\ estcotl on t n.- Canon of ricans" | iee In trod. ) M I p. 86 I. i ompare Orat, c Ulan. iii. 83. i In Or.it. <-. \ii. iii. 85 li<- t;ilM-s •• Por If pre do i»m hear about God, tmi in Heb. 1. '.'< to mean wr know ;um1 understand thai He is "essence." Ha who b. N M the Sirmlan councils <>f 857 * " Hypottaais ;" see Tome, fi and (the "blasphemia") and .':.">:», (the note. Dated Creed. ) ;;. Avian cavils at " Homoousion" 31 heart, There is no God { ? Again, the fathers taught at Niccea that the Son, the Word, was not a creature, not a thing made : for they had read, All th'mijs came into being g. j i m through Him, and in Him all things were created and do J; J. subsist. But those men, being rather Arians than Chris- 16. tians, have dared in those other councils of their own to say that He is a creature, and one of those things made, of which the Word Himself is Framer and Maker. For if all things came into being through Him, and He Himself also is a creature, He would then be His own Creator. And how can that which is created, create ? or how is the Creating One created ? 5. But neither in that position do they feel shame while they say such things as render them detested by all ; while they refer to " Ariminum " simply, yet are proved to have been actually deposed therein. And as to that sentence which was written at Niceea, that the Son is " coessential with the Father," on account of which they profess to con- tend against the Council, and make a noise on all sides like the buzzing of gnats; concerning that phrase, either they stumble upon it in ignorance, like those who stumble on Rom, 9. that stone of stumbling placed in Sion : or else they do un- 33, derstand it, but go on fighting and ceaselessly murmuring just because it is a true and correct decision against their heresy. For it is not the phrases which annoy them, but the condemnation of themselves which was involved in the Nicene decision ; and if they would fain conceal the fact, although they know it, yet it is our duty to mention it, that thereby also we may exhibit the truthful accuracy of the great Council. For when the assembled bishops k were resolved to put down the impious phrases invented by the Arians, that the Son was from things which did not exist, and that the Son was a creature and a thing made, and that there was a period when He was not, and that He was of a changeable nature *, and to write down the acknowledged sayings of Scripture, that the Word is from God, by na- 1 Here it must be owned, he undu- most of this passage in Newman's ly strains the argument. Those whom Arians, p. 2,"{S. he attacks merely objected to the use ' Compare lists of Arian proposi- of a technical term or two. tions in Orat. c. Arian. i. .">. de Synodia k Quoted by Theodoret, i. 8. See 14. Ep. ad .Egypt. 12. 32 Why the Nicene phrases were adopted. ai.aik. tmv Only-begotten, the only Power and Wisdom of the 1 S.Jobn Father, true God, as John saith" 1 , and, as Paul wrote, ef- fulgence of the Father's glory and impress of His hypostasis . the Eusebians, drawn away by their own vain opinions, began to Bay to each other", "Let us agree to this, for we i Cor. 8. also are from (iod": for there is one God,from whom are £•_ - all things, and, The old things are passed away, behold, all 17, 18. things arc become new, and nil things are from (i<>f of the private colloquies of the Arian- existence, as of what did not «'\ist [sen at Nicsss in Athan. de Deer. Nic. from eternity: as (Mat. c Arian ii. 80, "Thej \\ii«' caught whispering 53; It. 26: not as when the Father is to each other, ami irinldng with their called apx4 or prindpium of the exist- ejres" 8kC ence Of tin- Sun, e.g. (Mat. <•. Arian. • This quibble was swu r tr ,, st ,,, l by iv. I. comp. Newman, Tracts Theol. George, then an Alexandrian priest, and Bed. p. 123. afterwards bishop ol Laodicea. Athan. .i . . . anapdWaKToy Kara s*dV> de Synod. 17. ra. The phrase, •* unvarying image i' llermas, Pastor, Mand. 1. Tl f God," 1. e. fully adequate r e pr ese nt- dted b) ithanasius again, ationof the Father, was thus proposed delncam. Verbl, 8; deDecr. Nic. 18, bj On' bishops at Kicssa, and, like ring, as here, to the Arian misuse <>tli«T phrase, accepted bj tin- lew ni" it. See other dtations in irenseus Arians in an evasive sense. It was iv.20.2: Drigen v Arums. See Newman's 44.) as t.. the date: it was little more Arians,p.2ll. than 100 rears before tin- time at '• Dionysius, bishop <»f Alexandria, which In- was writing, was complained of to Dionysius, bishop ' The question of the Arianism or of Rome, about 960, on account of orthodoxy "f Bosebius would hardly language which leemed t.» represent bare assumed prominence but for his tli.- Sun ,-is ,i creature. He explained "Indisputable alliance with tin- Arian himself by quoting tome phrases of part] " (Bp. Lightfoot, in Diet. Chr. his which distinctly recognised the Blog.); hence Newman savs that "his coeternity, and others which acts are his confession," Anans, p. 269. "did not differ in meaning from tin- Be was swayed by admiration for Ori- phrasc ' coessential,' although be had gen and fear of Sabellianism. He once in>t used it. nut baring found it in in a letter denied Christ »<• be true Scripture." see Athan. _\ tin- present translator, n.isiiis defends Dionyslus's orthodoxy in tin- edition "t his History published bj arguing that bewas speaking onlj at the Clarendon Press in 1873. ol our Lord's Maul I. Dionysius ,! See tin- letter of Busebius to his ,,f Rome, in an extant fragment, own diocese, c 7. at the end of ithan. Strongly asserts tlir l>i\init\ ol the • I « ' I >r.r. N lc : a n . ! i 1 1 'I'l loret i. 12. Son with the Trinity in Unity. Athan. Cp Deci x 10. 30. lb. 14. 9. a Homoion " used for mere moral likeness. 35 their own great bishops, and against their own friends. Of whom then are they the heirs and successors ? How can they apply the word ( fathers 6 ' to those whose confes- sion, so excellently and apostolically framed, they do not accept? Else, if they think that they are able to con- tradict it, let them say, or rather answer, that they may be proved to come into collision with themselves : Do they believe the Son when He says, / and the Father s. John are One, and, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ? "Yes," they will say, "since it is written, we believe it." But if they are further asked to say how They are one f , and how he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, they will certainly, I presume, say, "In respect of like- ness," unless they have completely come into agreement with those whose opinions are akin to their own, and who are called Anomoeans 5 . But if they are again asked, How is He like? they will be bold to say, that by "perfect vir- tue and agreement He wills the same as the Father, and wills not what the Father wills not h ." But let them learn that he whose likeness to God has been produced by vir- tue and the act of willing has also freedom of changing his will ; but not so is the Word, unless indeed His like- ness to the Father is so far from being essential, that it is but partial and analogous to the human. Now, this is what belongs to us, who are brought into being, and whose nature is created. For we too, although we are not able to become like to God in essence, yet imitate Him as we e Comp. Athan. de Synodis 1.3. "essence" (Semi-Arian), nor even 1 See Athan. Orat. c. Arian. iii. 3, simply " like to Him" (Acacian), bat that this text and S. John 1 i. 10 shew " unlike to Him." They thus carried " that the Godhead is tin; same and out, boldly and logically, the original the essence one." So Orat. iii. 10, Arian proposition, that He was a that no saint ever dared to say, " I and " creature " and a " work." the Father are one." Cp. S. Ambrose h See Athan. de Synod. 48, that a de Fide, i. 1. 9 ; S. Aug. in loc. ; Lid- mere moral union with God could don, Bamp. Lect. p. 183; Pressense, be predicated of holy men and Angels. Jesus-Christ, p. 521. Comp. Orat. c. Ari. iii. 10. Although £ On the Anomceana see Newman's the Angels have attained to moral in- Arians, p. 345. Their Founder was Ae- defectibility, this is by grace, not from tins "surnamed the Godless" (Athan. their nature. On the attempt to re- de Synod. o", 3S): their principal theo- dure the "oneness" to "an unity of logian was Eunomius. (cf. Soc. iv. 7.) character and will .... nut in nature," Their formula or watchword was in- see Newman's Arians, p. ~'A',\. Cf. tended to assert that the Son was nei- Deer. Nic. <> : De Synod. 45: Hilary ther "of one essence with the Father" C, Const. 14. (Catholic), nor " like to Him in D 2 36 v> Homoion " hi effect makes the Son a creature; ai.aik. are Improved by virtue; a privilege, too, which has been s. Luke granted us by the Lord, who Bays, Beye merciful, as your s '.Mitt Father is merciful : Be ye perfect, as your Father who is 5. 18. in heaven is perfect. But no one can deny that things brought into being are changeable: for Angels trans- 3sed, and Adam disobeyed, and all stand in need of the grace of the Word. But what is changeable can never be like to God who is unchangeable, even as whal lias been created can never be Like the Creator. Wherefore it was Pb. 82. l.in reference to us that the Saint said, God, who shall " , be likened unto Thee? and, Who is like Thee among the (i.'xx ) gods, () Lord? applying the word "gods" to those who ,s - had been created, but had become partakers 1 ' of the Word, S.John as He Himself said, if He called them gods, to whom the ,u - ,i,) - Word of God came 1 . But things which partake cannot be the same as, nor like to, that of which they partake. Ib.30. It was then concerning Himself that He said,/ and the Father (/re One, for tilings brought into being are not so. Or else, let those who put forward Ariminum answer ib.5. i;». < l | i s question; Can a created essence say, II hat I see the Father doing t that also I myself do? For things which are brought into being are things made, and not things that make; for otherwise they would even have made them- selves. Of course, if. as they say. the ^<>n i^ a creature, and tin- Father is His Maker, the Son would have certainly also made Himself 1 ", as being able to do what the Father doeth, as He Himself said. But such a conclusion is absurd and wholly untenable: for no one can make himself, s. Again, let them say, whether things brought into II.. 16. being can say, All things that the Father hath arc Mine*? '•'• Now He "hath" the property of creating, of framing, of i Tli.it "as" in such texts denotes would l><' merely tln> grace sufficient imt Identity bu1 resemblance, as be- for himself. Cf. Orat. c Arl. lii. 1. tween copy and original, see Orat. c ] On this text see Orat <•. AH. i. Ari.lii. 21. :;'.'. < . A than, de Synod. 51, that tin- ■ The play on words cannot be pre- Son iv nut Son l>\ "partaking" of the served: woiovvraiKdy1tToi£i f i Path* ts we do, but we par- ob •roiovrro, vote*, twoUi*** With this take of the Pather by partaking of the passage compare Orat. c Arl. U. SI ; Sun ; whereas In- who only possesses iii. I I. through participation could not impart " In Orat. c, Ari.iii* 5, this t.\t is of that partaking t<> others, because he explained ns Implying thai tin- Pather ild have i' no1 as bis own, and it is to • '<■ v <' tends that it really excludes Sabellian- qualities, whereas the Deity is free ism, and signifies Svo reAaa which are from quality. Ep. 8. .'}. The argument yet inseparable, riser. 69. /(>. Comp. is ad hominem, addressed to Arianizers Hilary de Synodis 68, against false who professed to regard the Son as senses put upon it, e.g. a Sabellian ; so " partaking " in Deity. See S. Angus- de Trin. iv. 4 ff. where also he shows tine de Trin. vi. J. 7 ff. thai in tin 88 The Son is really of the Father's essence, A: \u;. God who has made up all things into existence, is not made up, nor is He such as are the things which were made by Him through the Word. God forbid! For He i> a simple essence, in which is no quality, nor, as James s. Jama savs, any variableness, nor shadow of turning. Therefore if He (the Son) is shewn not to be so from virtue 1 , since there is no quality in God, nor in His Son, it is plain that He belongs properly to His essence: and this you will certainly admit, if intelligence has not utterly died out in you. But that which is proper to, and identical with, God's essence, and is by nature an offspring from it, what else can it be, from this point of view also but coessential with its Begetter ? For this is the mark of a son in rela- tion to a father: and he that denies this does not consider the Word to be naturally and truly a Son - v . ( J. It was with these thoughts in their minds that the fathers inserted in their formulary the coessentialitv of the Sou with the Father, and anathematized those who said that the Son was from a different "hypostasis:" not hav- ing devised words for themselves, but having themselves learnt them from the fathers who preceded them, as we said. This being thus proved, these men's " Ariminum" is superfluous: and equally superfluous is the other council invented by them in reference to the faith. For the Xi- cene Council is sufficient, being in harmony also with the bishops of antiquity; that Council in which the Creed was signed by the fathers of these men, to whom it was their duty to Bhew respect, that they might not be considered as anything rather than Christians. But if, even after all this, and also after the testimony of the ancient bishops, and also after the signatures of their own fathers, they [Mvlne Nature there ia the utmost aim- * i.e. doea nut derive His Sonahip plidty; although God is called "great from UN own moral perfections, as ami ariae in manifold •rava," &c yet Paul of Samoeata held: aee below <•. Hia greatneee ia the tame as His wis. Apollin. i. lt»; da Syn. I'd ; Oral* <•. iinin, fee i. «■■ His attributes are not Ari.iU.51t Thai the title "Son of 10 many real parta within Hia Nature, n . I'anm. Lect. |>. 1«»: Dorner, neceeaaruy view that nature," New- Peraon of Christ, i. 81 (E.T.) man in Athan. Treatises, ii. 515. < >n Ree Bp. Jovian. 1. the ** simplicity " of the Divine Being ' Or 'another CouncuV See e. iea also dc Svnod. ::». Orat c. \r. i. 1<». 98: Newman's Bermona, \i. 348. All turns on reality of the Sonship. 39 pretend, as if they were ignorant, to be afraid of the phrase "Coessential," let them say, and with a simpler and truthful meaning, that the Son is by nature Son, and let them anathematize, as the Council ordered, those who say that the Son of God is a creature, or a thing made, or from things that were not in existence, or that once He was not, and that He is changeable and alterable, and of a different hypostasis : and by so doing, let them flee from the Arian heresy a . And we are confident that if in good earnest they anathematize these statements, they will forthwith confess b that the Son is " from the essence " and " coessential with the Father." For on this account the fathers, having said that the Son was coessential, forthwith added, " But those who call Him a creature, or a thing made, or, from things that were not, or say, e once He was not,' the Catholic Church anathematizes;" that thereby they might let it be known that this is what " coessential" means c . And the force of " coessential " is understood from the fact that the Son is not a creature, nor a thing made : and that he who calls the Word " coessential " does not consider Him to be a creature, and he who anathema- tizes the above quoted does at the same time consider the Son to be " coessential " with the Father, and he who calls the Son of God coessential calls Him a genuine and true (Son.) And he who calls Him genuine understands the meaning of, / and My Father are one, and, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. 10. It would indeed have been appropriate to state this at greater length : but since we are writing to you who un- derstand the question, we have dictated it in a concise form, praying that the bond of peace may be preserved among all, and that all who belong to the Catholic Church may say and may think the same thing. And we write, not by a So in De Synodis, 41. see too Ep. sense of Homoousion. As she uses Jovian. 4. Basil says of "those who the term, and as you are asked to ad- have not yet accepted the Homoousion, mit it, this and this only is its mean- that one might justly blame them, and ing, — That the Son is truly and Di- yet again deem them excusable," vinely Son." So untrue is the long* Epist. 52. 1. Cp. Hilary de Synod. 71. popular notion that, with the Homo- b As we might say, ipso facto. ousion, an abstruse metaphysical con- c As if to say, "The Church has no- ception was intruded into the sphere thing to do with any questions which of Christian faith. Cf. de Syn. 51. ^secular philosophy may raise as to the 40 An i < at iiis n ma i ns to hi- dealt with* Ad Apr. way of instructing, bul of reminding you: and it is not we only who are writing, bul all the bishops in Egypt and in the Libyas, about ninety in all. For this i- the one mean- ing we .all have, and in every case we sign for each other, if any one happens to be absent. Being then thus disp since it happened that we all met, we have written also In our beloved Damasus, bishop of Great Rome, concerning Auxentiua who invaded the church of Milan' 1 , and have harrated liis proceedings, how that he is not only a sharer in the Arian heresy, hut is also chargeable with many mis- deeds, which he perpetrated in conjunction with Gregory the partaker of his impiety' ; and we have expressed our wonder that, up to this time, lie has not been deposed and Cast out of the Church; and we have returned thanks t-> the piety of Damasus and of those who assembled in Great Rome, inasmuch as by casting out CJrsacius and Valens f , and those who thought with them, they preserved the unanimity of the Catholic Church: and wishing that this unanimity may 1),' preserved among you also, we exhort you, as we said before, not to bear with those who, under a pretext of faith, urge the authority of a crowd of councils, that at Ariminum, that at Sirmium-, that in Isauria", that in Thrace 1 , that at Constantinople^, those many and dis- orderly ones at Antioch'. But let that faith alone be in force among you which was confessed by the father- at Nicaea, wherein also all, and even the fathers of those who - Athanasios had been at .Milan, h The Semi-Aiian council at Selea- probably in 343, <»n a summons from da, in September of 359, Athan. de Constans, Apol. ad Const, i. Auxen- 8yn. 12, Soc. ii. 39. tins held the see <>f .Milan from .'>.">."• ' At Nice in Thrace, see aboi (when, after the Coundl of Milan, In this creed, see Ath. i>hi>]» Dionysius was ejected as a hypostasis is proscribed as well as Catholic) to 374, when in- was sue- ousia. Th lorel gives this clause I by S. \ ii • mum. -what differently, ii. .1. • I.e. Gregory ol Cappadoda, one '• Barly in 360, after the victory of ef the two Allans intruded into Atha- the taadan Arians in th.- council of naaius' own see: mentioned with Aux- Ariminum ami tin- submission of the entius in lli-t. Arian. 71. |\.r him Sd.-nrian delegates, Sot. fa. 24. This Uhanaaius' Encyclical, ami lli-t. council of Constantinople deposed the I in. 10. it. chief SemUArians, ami imposed tin' ii ■ Roman Coundl in •':<;'. , . see cr I of Nice and Ariminum on jari- Tillemont, riii. 396. ous Churches. See Athan. de 8ynod. Apparently thai of 357, which 80; Soc. hr. 26. framed the cr 1 railed the second ' Beside the Dedication Synod <>f ; in, ami also the ' blasphemous,' Antioch, In 341, then- was one held in its virtuall] tnomonan chars - under Eudoxra*, which accepted It in \than. de Synod the Sirmian ' bkutphemia, 1 Sozom. '\ Kicene Creed guards faith in the Trinity. 41 now contend against it, as we said before, were present, and signed the Creed ; so that of us also the Apostle may say, Now I praise you, because you remember me in all l Cor. things, and even as I delivered to you the traditions, so you hold them fast, 11. For this Council of Niccea is indeed a public pros- cription m of every heresy. It is this also which overthrows those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and call Him a creature n . For the fathers, after having spoken about the faith in the Son, forthwith added, " We believe also in the Holy Spirit ;" in order that, having confessed in its per- fection and fulness the faith in the Holy Trinity, they might on this point make known the character of the faith which is in Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church p. For it stands out clear in your eyes, and in the eyes of all, and no Christian can have any doubt in his mind about the matter, that our faith is not in the crea- ture, but in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, the Only begotten, and in one Holy Spirits; one God, Him who is known in the Holy and perfect Trinity, 12. Another, in 361 , placed Euzoius n See Tom. ad Antioch. 3. See in the see of Antioch, and adopted an Swete on Early History of Doctrine % Anomcean creed. of Holy Spirit, p. 5(5, referring to this m 2T7j\o7pacJ>ia, as when names of passage as a proof that in the AVest, as offenders were placarded or posted up well as elsewhere, the Arians had been on pillars for public disgrace. The active in opposing the Deity of the word is similarly used in Athan. de Holy Spirit. Synod. 34. soib. 47, o-TTjAtTevoj/raSjand ° Xapaxrripa, see Keble, Acad. Serm. De Deer. Nic. 32, " their heresy ... p. 3D0. Athanasius speaks of the x«- eo-TrjAtTeu07j." In De Syn. 45 Athan. patcT-qp of Scripture doctrine, Orat. iii. calls the Homoousion a bulwark, and 29. and uses x a P aKT Vp* i» tllc st ' nse Liberius calls the creed an invincible of a type or general impression, de bulwark, Soc. iv. 21 ; a council under Incam. Verbi,5b\ Compare Eusebius, Damasus calls it a wall and an anti- iii. 38, "the x^paxTripa ut orthodoxy," dote, Theod. ii. 22. Cf. Ep. Epict. 1. and Ir emeus ap. Eusebius v. 20, "the Basil calls it the great proclamation x a P aKT VP a of his life." See also the of true religion, Epist. 52. 1. He synodal letter of Meletius and other there remarks that it condemns Sa- bishops in Soe. iii. 25," the xapaKTTjpa bellianism as well as Arianism. So of the true faith." Epiphanius quaintly remarks that both p He assumes that the brief clause, Arius and Sabellius abhor the Homo- "And in the Holy Spirit," does yir- ousion, in its real sense, as a serpent tually carry every thing, by associating hates the smell of bitumen, User. 69. the Holy Spirit as an object of faith 70. Hilary also says that the Homo- with the Father and the Son. ousion was necessary, deTrin.iv. 7. cp. <) Comp. Ath. Ep. ad Scrap. 1.25. Athan. Deer. Nic. 20, "The bishops that in the Spirit the Trinity is per- (at Nictea), were constrained," &c. feet. ll>. 28; "Then- is then a holy Sec Liddon, Bamp. Lect. p. 137. and perfect Trinity, recognised as Di- I- Our faith rests on the Trinity* w^aik. unto whicb we being baptized, and in it connected with the Godhead, believe that we shall also inherit the king- dom of heaven, in Christ .Jesus our Lord, through whom' to the Father be glory and dominion, for ever. Amen. finely existing In Father, Sun and "through whom and with whom" Holy Spirit." (compare our first Post-Communion r Here Athan. uses one form of the Prayer.) s«> at the end of the lii-t. doxology; "through the Sun to the Arian. ire read both M through " and Pather," (see Basil de Splr. Banct. a. "with the Word. M -\t the end of .'{.) as at the end of the De 8jnodis ami the Orations the doxology is to Christ tin- ad .Kir. Ep. At the end of bifl alone. epistles t<> Serapiou be oses a fuller, S. ATHANASIUS 5 LETTER TO EPICTETUS, BISHOP OF CORINTH. INTRODUCTION. The date of this letter may be 372, Auxentius having been condemned by a Roman Council in the latter part of 371 ; for Athanasius alludes to this as a very recent event, c. 1. (see Tillemont, viii. 212.) The occasion was as follows. Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, and, as such, metro- politan of the province of Achaia, had sent to Athanasius the minutes (viro- fxu-fi/jiaTa) of a recent discussion between two parties in his diocese, who agreed in professing 1 the Nicene faith. The opposition resembled that of which we have had an intimation in the seventh chapter of the Tome: ex- cept that in the present case the theory called specifically Apollinarian, as to the non-existence of a human mind in Christ, is conspicuous by its absence. One party maintained the coarser form of the Apollinarian Christology, as- serting- that Christ's body was not really of human origin, — that it was coessential with the Divine Word, or even that it was formed by a " con- version of His Godhead into flesh." The other party imagined a person- al separation between the Word and the Son of the Virgin, and regarded the latter as a Saint who, like one of the ancient prophets, had been chosen as the organ of the Word, — a theory which may be described as " what Nestorianism comes to " in regard to the substitution of an indwelling for an Incarnation ; but although there is some difference of reading in one passage, (c. 2,) it would seem that the Corinthians in question held with Photinus the impersonality of the Word, and the distinction between the Word and the " Son," or human Christ, whereas Nestorius believed in a personal Word who was also the Eternal Son, but who was only associated with, not personally one with, Christ the Son of Mary. Tillemont says, viii. 242, that the disputants were " persons who professed to follow the Nicene faith, but had fallen into two opposite and equally dangerous ex- tremes." The debate ended as such debates too seldom end. Each party abandoned its special error, and both were reunited in the twofold belief, (1) that Christ was Himself the Word Incarnate, and, (2) that His flesh was the flesh of a true humanity. The letter in which Athanasius criticises the two errors is of remarkable in- terest as a specimen of his farsighted theological capacity. Epiphanius in- serted it in full in his account of the Apollinarians or Dimoeritse, Ila-r. 77. 3 — 13. It was referred to in the Council of Ephesus, as an authority against the Nestorians ; two years later, John of Antioch and the " Eas- terns" proposed it to S. Cyril as a standard of orthodoxy and a basis of re- union (Mansi, v. 821) :) and Cyril, while expressing his full agreement with it, tells John that " some persons have circulated it in a corrupt form," and on that account sends him a transcript from " ancient and correct co- j 1 Introduction. )>i»-s," preserved In the library «»f his own church. (Bp< ad Joan, ad fin.) Theodores, when arguing In his * Dialogues' against the opposite misbelief of the Eutychians, finds it natural to have recourse to the same letter ; and he also assures Dioscorus thai be adheres to its teaching, Bpist. 86. The Council of Chalcedon wrote to the Emperor Mardan, M We pride oursdres on the letter of Athanasius to Epictetus." (Mansi, \ii. 164.) Leo the Ureal sen! ■ copy <>f it to his legate, Julian of Cos, about i year alter the Council, Bpist. 109. Apollinaris, it should be said, prof esse d to Berapion of Thmuhi his high ap- proval of this letter (Leontius adv. Fraud. Apoll. In Galland. xii. 701;) and Leo the Great, in the year after the Council, says thai Athanasius in this letter " asserted the Incarnation so lucidly and carefully thai in the heretics of his own time he already defeated Nestorius and Butyches," | Ep. 109.) ATHANASIUS TO EPICTETUS. To MY LORD, BELOVED BROTHER, AND MUCH LONGED FOR FELLOW-MINISTER, EPICTETUS, ATHANASIUS SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD. 1. I thought, for my part, that all the vain talking of all the heretics in existence had been stopped by the Council held at Nicaea. For the faith therein confessed by the fathers, according to the Holy Scriptures, is sufficient of itself for the overthrow of all impiety, and for the esta- blishment of the orthodox faith in Christ". On this ac- count accordingly, when various councils have even now been held, in Gaul and Spain and Great Rome b , all who assembled, by universal vote, as if moved by one spirit, anathematized the men who still* secretly hold Arianism, I mean Auxentius at Milan, Ursacius, Valens, and Caius of Pannonia. And because those men were devising for themselves the names of councils c , they wrote to all quar- ters, that no council should be named in the Catholic Church, save only the Council which was held at Nicaea, and is a trophy of victory over every heresy d , but preemi- nently the Arian, on account of which also the Council was then assembled. How is it, then, that even after all this, some persons endeavour to stir up doubt or raise questions? If indeed they belong to the Arians, it is no wonder that they disparage the formulary drawn up against them ; just as Greeks, when they hear it said that the idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the ivork of men's hands, " Comp. ad Afros, 1, 9. authority of.' Cp. bvoixafa in ad b This, the second of Damasus' Afros, 1,3; Tome 4. councils, was held probably in 371, (1 Comp. ad Afros, 11. SeeLiddon, sec Tillemont, viii. 400. A copy of its Bamp. Lett, p. 4,'58 : " It was a long, circular to the lllyrian bishops is in desperate struggle . . . At this day Mansi, Concil. iii. 459 , and a Greek the Creed of Nicjea is the living proof version in Theoderet, ii. 2'2. of the Church's victory." c As we should say, 'citing - the ft. 115. 4. 1 Cor. 1 18. 16 Errors lately rife ai Corinth Ad regard the teaching about the Divine Cross as foolishness, Epict But if the persons who wi>]) to unsettle matters by their questioning arc of the number of those who seem to believe aright, and to acquiesce and adhere 1 to what was promul- gated by the fathers, they are Bimply, as Scripture Bays, Hab.9. giving their neighbour to drink of a muddy and upsetting i.'xx liquor*^ and stirring about words for no purpose except 2 Tim, 2. to the subverting of the simple, 2. Now I am writing thus, after having read the minutes sent me by your Piety, which I wish had never been writ- ten, so that not even a remembrance of such things might be transmitted to posterity. For who ever yet heard such things b ? who is it that lias taught them, or learnt them : fsa.2. 3. j? or ou f qf Sinn shall go forth God's law, and flu- word of the Lord from Jerusalem: but these things, whence did they issue? What Hades vented such a Baying 1 as that the body derived from Mary was coessential with the Godhead of the Word? or that the Word was changed into flesh k , and bones, and hair, and a whole body, and was altered from His own nature? And who ever heard in the Church or at all from Christian lips, that it was by a fiction 1 , not by nature, that the Lord bore about a body- or who" 1 was ever so impious as at once to say and to think that the Godhead itself, which is coessential with the Father, was circumcised, and reduced from perfection to imperfection, and that what was nailed to the Word was not the body, but that very essence of Wisdom which formed Bpiphanius' text lias "Spirit," linarii himself condemned it as an clearly an error. Insanity, Leontius adv. brand. Apoll., 1 Or. to l»t> content with, ayairav. (iallainl. Bib). \ii. 701. See the Tome, 8; c. ApolUn. ii. 1. k Compare the " Quicunque," af- '■ Thin question is asked, in refe- firming the Unity of Christ's Person, rence to Arianism, in the Encyclic of bul not in 1 1 1 « - sense of a conversion Alexander, (in Soc. i. n\) evidently of part of the Godhead into flesh. Cp. composed by Athanasius, then liis c. Apoll. 1.3; S. Leo, Ep. 165. 2. deacon. Tin- passage in tin- text is l 94c i. Athanasius uses this phrase quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 1. (ed. technically "t an adoptive or titular Schulse, lv. p. 59.) sonship, de Synod. ."•;. Here, as in ' Su Ambrose de Inc. l>"in. Bacr. c. 7. and c kpollin. i. 17.it means 1!'. a passage read in tin- firs! s.',si,.n anreally, conventionally, in a irai "t of Chalcedon, Mansi, vi. 966. "Others speaking, jusl as M by nature" here -tin n|» arho say thai tin- flesh «»f means "really;" compare Cyril, Ex- Mis Lord and the Divinltj are of plan. 3, ut i Correal, the same nature. Qua tantum sacrl- Quoted by Theodoret, Dial. iii. legium In ferns romuerunl '-" tpol< p. 838. Cf. Ambrose de Inc. 50. as to the Incarnation. 47 all things 11 ? or who °, if he heard that it was not from Mary, but, by a change, from His own essence, that the Word framed for Himself a passible body, would call him who said this a Christian ? And who devised this godless impiety, so as even to come to think, and to say, that he who affirms the Lord's Body to have been from Mary conceives of a QuaternityP, instead of a Trinity, in the Godhead, as if those who are of this mind must therefore affirm that the flesh which the Saviour took from Mary and put on was of the essence of the Trinity? And from what source, again, have any persons vented an impiety equal to those already mentioned, to the effect that the body is not of more recent origin than the Godhead of the Word, but has been continuously coeternal with it, since it was composed from the essence of Wisdom? And how** have persons called Christians dared even to doubt, whether the Lord who came forth from Mary is Son of God in essence and nature, but according to the flesh is of the seed of David and the flesh of Holy Mary ? And who then have become so audacious as to say, that the Christ who suffered in flesh and was crucified is not Lord, and Saviour, and God, and Son of the Father ? Or how can they wish to be called Chris- tians who say that the Word came into a holy man as into one of the prophets r , and that He was not Himself made n 'H Srjfiiovpybs ovala. Cf. Ep. logies, with God and the Son, before Adelph.4; c.Apoll.i. 7.&C. The word the Holy Spirit. See Tillemont, vii. " Demiurg-us" had become associated 605. Gregory of Nyssa refers to tins with the Gnostic systems, (see Man- in his Antirrheticos, 42, and answers, sel, Gnostic Heresies, p. 19. &c,) "They do not serve 'a man' who but Athanasius would remember that bow themselves to their Lord." it was used in Heb. 11. 10. He uses <* Here he turns to the opposite er- it freely in de Incarn. Verb. 1, &c. ror. This passage was read in the See also S. Clement, Ep. Cor. 20, &<*. first session of the Council of Ephesus, Quoted by Thcodoret, Dial. i. Mansi, iv. 1185. It is quoted by S. p. 60. Cyril, Apol. adv. Orient. 16;}. (Pusey, v See Newman, Tracts Theol. and p. 274,) and part of it by Leo the Eccles. p. 266. The same point, Great, app. to Epist. 165. (his " Se- " You introduce a Quaternity," i.e. cond Tome," to the Emperor Leo, in Father, Son, the Man Christ, the Holy 458.) Spirit, is noticed below, c. 9, and c. r See the Tome, 7, and ad Max. Apollin. i. 9, 12. where the charge is 2, and c. Apollin. i. 21, on the ab- retorted. Apollinaris, writing in 377 surdity of saying that the Word came to the exiled bishops at Diocffisarea to Jesus as He came of old to saints (Leontius in Galland. xii. 707.), re- or prophets. Comp. Apoll. i. 12; presents his opponents as worship- Orat. c. Ari. iii. 30. See also S.Am- ping four, God, (2) the Son of God, brose, de Incarn. Sacr. 6. 48. See (3) the Son of Man, (1) the Holy Cyril Alex, de recta Fide ad Throd. Spirit, and ranking a man, in doxo- C. 6, ( 1'usey, p. 16,) that Nestorians IS Such OptniotU unchristian. in man, having taken His body from Mary, but that t lie Chrisf w:i> one, and the Word 1 of God, who before Mary and before tin- ages was Son of tin- Father, was another? Or how can they be Christiana who say that the Son 1 is one, and the Word of ( rod IS another ; 3. These opinions were stated in your minutes; diffe- rently expressed, indeed, but with one purport, and having the same meaning) impious in its tendency* On account of these opinions, dispute and discussion were going on between men who take pride in the confession of the fathers made at Xicea. Hut I wonder that your Piety endured it, and did not stop those who said these things, and propound to them the true religious faith; that they might either listen and be quiet, or contradict it and be deemed heretics. For the above-mentioned opinions are neither uttered or heard among Christians, but are in every May alien from the Apostolic; teaching. It is on this ac- count that I have caused the statements of those men, as they have been already quoted, to be inserted in my letter, simply as they stand", so that any one who merely hears them may have a view of their disgraceful and impious character. And although it would have been right to im- pugn them at greater length, and thoroughly to expose the folly of those who have entertained such notions ; yet now that my letter has reached this point, it were well to write no more; for one ought not further to work out and mi- nutely examine opinions which have been BO clearly >hown to be bud, lest they should be regarded by contentious would nut have erred "it" they had but thai He should be believed t.. be limply distinguished tin- nature of God ... dot as dwelling in a man, but God from thai of the flesh, <>r dwelt as having Himself really become man, merely on tin- differences relating to without prejudice to His own glory;" tliK for the nature of flesh an. I God- and ih. 26, |i. si •»' " He descended in- head is not the same: but their error to the nature of man, without lapsing lay in representingone as an individual from His existence ss God, ( in it t tax- man by himself, ami calling another Ingto Himself what was human." God by nature and in reality;" say- ' Another reading is 'Tier, clearly a ing that "th<- Word i> tin- Son by copyist'i error. In the next words, nature, tl ther (i. e. the alleged in- Athanasiua seems to mean "whom dividual human Christ) is Bon as be- we acknowledge, although they do ing called by tin- tame name aa tin- not, (as Photinua did not.) to bare Son." Again, ii>. 23, p. 71. in- says, preexisted as tin- eternal Son." Bee "Do nut make a division alter the Hefele, Hist, of Councils, sect. 71. union;" .. . He lowered Himself Into ' The old reading w.is \ that which lie ( |.re\ lously ) was not ; Hut »ee < - - 19. not that He should remain ' emptied,' ■ lit. "nakedly." Christ's body really human. 49 persons as still matters of question, but rather to give to such statements no other reply than this, " It is enough that this is not the language of the Catholic Church, nor were the fathers of this mind." But, lest the inventors of evil things should take advantage of such absolute silence, as a warrant for further audacity, it is well to mention a few points taken from the Divine Scriptures : perhaps they may even thus be brought to shame, and may cease from holding these vile x notions. 4. Whence did it ever come into your minds, you people, to say that the body was coessential with the Godhead of the Word ? For it is well to begin at this point, that when this statement is proved to be unsound, all the rest may be proved to be the like. Well, from the Divine Scriptures it is impossible to discover the ground of this statement : for they say that God became present in a human body. And further, the fathers who met at Nicsea have said, not that the body, but that the Son Himself was coessential with the Father, and they confessed that He was "from the essence of the Father/' but that the body, on the other hand, was from Mary, according to the Scriptures y. Either then, disown the Nicene Council, and assert these things in the character of heretics : or if you mean to be children of the fathers, do not think contrary to the state- ments which they wrote down. For from this considera- tion also you can perceive the absurdity of your statement ; if the Word is coessential with that body, which has its nature from the earth, and the Word is coessential with the Father, according to the confession of the fathers, then the Father Himself will be coessential with the body which was derived from the earth z . And then, why do you go on censuring the Arians for calling the Son a creature, when you yourselves call the Father coessential with the creatures, and, passing on to a different form of impiety, assert that the Word has been converted into flesh, and bone, and hair, and sinews, and an entire body, and had been altered from His own nature ? For it is time that you x Lit: "filthy." Creed, but interpreting it. Cf. c. y The original Nicene Creed did Apoll. i. 20. not mention S. Mary. Athanasius, z Quoted with approval by Valen- therefore, is not strictly quoting the tinus, a moderate Apollinarian : Leon- 50 The Word not "changed into ft Ad Epk i. should sav plainly thai He waa bom from earth: for from eartli comes the nature of the bones and of the whole body. What means, then, this wild extravagance, which even drives you into self-contradiction ? for while you call the Word coessential with the body, you indicate a comparison of the one with the other : but when you say that the Word was converted into flesh, you imagine a change" of the Word Himself. And who will any longer bear with you even when you simply utter such things? For you have gone aside into impiety to a greater extent than any heresy has done. For if the Word was coessential with the body, the mention of Mary, and the employment of her agency, were superfluous b : for the body was able to exist even be- fore Mary, as eternal, as is also the Word Himself, since in your view He is coessential with the body. What need, then, was there for the Word to sojourn among us, in order tins adv. fraud. A poll., (ialland. xii. 701. ■ Tpoiri)u. See Epiphanius, Han*. 77. 29, that John 1. 11 Implies on such "change;* 1 as Augustine says, de Div. Quant S3, n. so, that in com- mon parlance when we say, flesh be- comes ashes, we mean, if erases to be flesh, — hut it is not so here ; the Word became flesh, not that He was chang- ed into, hut that He took, " formani servi." Compare Theodoret, Dial. i. Basil wrote in \\77 Bgainst the A|o >1- linarians who held thai the Word in His own Godhead had been turned into a material nature, Epist. 263. Cyril of Alexandria, whom Ids oppo- nents taxed with Apollinarianism, was never weary of disclaiming it. See his Bp. •-'. to Nettorius (ed. Pusey, p. 1 ), M We do not say that the nature of the Word iraS altered and so lie- eame flesh, OT that it was changed into whole man." And so Bp. to John, 1, ( Pusey, p. 50.) So de recta fide ad Tbeodoa. e. l<». 9 A, Pusey, p. 28, that "the notion of a conversion of God- head Into fiesta is Inconsistent with the truth, that God's nature, firmly fixed In Its own good things (aVj • and its continuance In the conditions of its being, Is Immoveable. But a na- ture that is brought into being ... in time can sutfei alteration .. . Por w hat had a beginning of existence baa, so to speak, the possibility of alteration in- nate in it. But God, who is above all mind, and nature, and production, and destruction, and whose being is exceptional and pre-eminent, will he also Sll icrior to change (aueiWw tarai /col rpoirrjs)." Further on Cyril con- trasts Godhead as enthroned "as it were mi its own seat," w Idle men. who, "having a nature liable to change, are at all times rptwrot.** He cites PS. 102. 17. He calls the Apollinarian notion an Insanity, ib. ii. Ami in Apol. adv. Orient c. 8. ( Pusey, p. 288), be sa\ s," As forthe Apollinarian doctrines, we have nothing whatever to do with them : for men who have once for all been condemned, as perverters of the truth, we are bound to avoid." In adv. Nest. iv. 7. he says, " It is as needless to argue againat a change or conver- sion of Godhead at the Incarnation," as to argue that a bull is not a 001*80. ( Pusey, p. --'tit;). Bo Adv. Th loret. 1, ( Pusey, p. 396). See c. Apollin. i. .'{. Card. Newman thinka that it was by way of escape from this idea of change In the Divine Nature that ApoDinaris took to " denying that our Lord's bod) remained human." Tracts Theoi. and Keel. p. 271. Comp. e. Apollin. ii. 12. So says 8 Basil, Bp. 261, " What i 1 was there of th.- Holl \ iicin." fcc. Christ born of the Virgin. 51 that He might either put on what is coessential with Him- self, or might be changed from His own nature and become body ? For the Godhead does not take hold of itself, so See Heb. • 2 1(5 that it should put on what is coessential with itself: nei- ther, again, did the Word, who redeems the sins of others, commit sin, that, being changed into body, He might offer up Himself for Himself as a sacrifice c , and redeem Him- self. 5. No, it is not so ; God forbid. For He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham, as the Apostle said d , wherefore it be- Il) - 17* hoved Him to be made like to His brethren in all things, and to receive a body like to our own. It was for this purpose, then, that Mary was really provided, that He might receive this body from her, and offer it up as His own for us ; and it was she whom Isaiah prophetically pointed out, saying, Behold the Virgin: and Gabriel is sent to her, not simply Isa.7.14. to a virgin, but to a virgin espoused to a man : that by the s. Luke mention of the man espousing her he might show that Mary l " 27 ' was really a human being. Therefore it is that Scripture mentions her bringing forth, and says, she wrapped Him ib. 2. 7. in swaddling clothes : and, the paps which He sucked were ib.ll.27. called blessed: and a sacrifice was offered on the ground that He who was brought forth had opened the womb. Now ib. 2. 23. all these things were indications of a Virgin bringing forth a child. And Gabriel announced the good news to her in language guarded from misconstruction, saying, not simply, That which shall be born in thee, in order that there might not be any notion of a body introduced into her from with- out, but, " from thee c ," that men might believe that which was to be born to be from her by nature f , while nature plainly indicates this for it, that it was impossible for a virgin to have milk unless she had borne a child, and im- possible for a body to be nourished with milk, and wrapped c Atbanasius lays stress on Christ's This specimen of Gnostic " spiritual- death as a Sacrifice, in de [ncarn. Ver- ism " was revived by the Anabaptists bi, 9 ; Orat. ii. 7. See Abp. Thomson's (compare the Reformatio Legum, "Word, Work, and Will," p. 164. p. 10) and Joan Bocher was put to d Comp. ad Afros. 4. death for asserting it, in 1550. Our e Lachmann brackets 4k(tov. Atha- Proper Preface for Christmas was evi- nasius is perhaps alluding to what dently w r orded so as to exclude it. some Valentinians said, that their Cf. de lncarn. Verbi, IS, He fashion- Jesus passed through Mary Kaddvep eth His body for Himself 4k irapdiuuv. iiSwp diet with Mai. .'{. '!. nails. '' MJ; X'-tnoOtls avTor is not found ■ 'UlOWOlftTO, a favourite phrSM <'f in all MSS., nor in Epiphanlus, and AtbaJUUUUS : >.•■• de Incaiii. Verb!, S. mi) very likely have been a gloat, In- " Me . ■ . appropriates the body;" lb. tended to fruard the truth thai the 81 : and Orat. c. Arian. ill. 33, " The M Personal Union" was never for an Word having Appropriated tin- affec- instanl broken; c. ApolUn. ii. 15. tions of the il.'sh:" and lb. iii. 38. 1 Sim- thia texl paraphrased. <•. See below, c. Apolttn. i. 12, 13. it \t Apouln. ii. s. adopted by (Mil of Alex. Apol. adv. » Bee s. John l'.». II. Orient. lL' (Posey, p. 872), Comp. 1 Bp, ail .Max. •_' : ami see B. Cyril Ep. ad Nest. 2, " n«' node our body Alex, de recta Bde ad Theod. c. 12. ttioy." It is equivalent to uIk(wv. (Posey, p. 144) thai Thomas spoke pfai, c. Apollin. u. lti. after "measuring" with his linger In what sense its sufferings were His. 53 self what belonged to the body as belonging to Himself, the incorporeal Word. Thus, when the body was being struck by the officer, He said as if Himself suffering, Why S. John smitest thou Me ? and although the Word was by na- ture intangible, nevertheless He said, / gave My back to Isa. 50. scourges, and My cheeks to buffets, and I turned not away ' My face from shameful spitting. For n what the human body of the Word was suffering, this the Word, being present with it, referred to Himself, that we might be enabled to partake of the Godhead ° of the Word. And it was a marvel p that He was the one suffering and not suf- fering : suffering, because that body suffered which was His own, and He was in it while it suffered q : yet not suf- fering, because the Word, being by nature God, is impas- sible r . And the incorporeal One Himself was present in the passible body, and the body had in itself the impassible Word, who was abolishing the infirmities of the body itself. And this He was doing, and thus it came to pass, in order that He, receiving what was ours, and offering it up in sacrifice, might abolish it s , and thereafter might clothe us with what was His, and cause the Apostle to say, This corruptible must put on incorruption, and thtsWm. 15. mortal must put on immortality. n Quoted by Theodoret, Dial. iii. p. such antitheses are nothing hut un- 238. Cf. de Incarn. Verbi, 18: Orat. meaning- sounds," Image of Christ, c. Ari. iii. 31, 82. p. 220 E. T. ° Perhaps an allusion to 2 Pet. 1.4. i That He "suffered and did not suf- p Uapdoo^ov. On these "paradoxes fer " (as S. Ambrose says, de Incarn. of the Incarnation, dear to faith," Dom. Sacr. 36), is repeated in c. Apol- (Dorner) comp. Ath. e. Apoliin. 1.11. lin. i. 11. Comp. Cyril, Quod unus sit See too Hippolytus c. Noet. 18: Hilary Christus, 766. A. Posey, p. 407: it be- de Trinit. ii. 25: the "Clementine Li- ing asked, how could the self-same turgy" in Hammond's Liturgies East, both suffer and not suffer? he an- and West. p. 7 : Greg. Naz. Orat. 21). swers, Being impassible as God, He 19, Epist. 101 : Greg. Nyssen, quoted assumed passible flesh and made it by Cyril Alex. Apol. adv. Orient, c. 12: His own, that the suffering might be and other passages, quoted ib. 4: see called His, because it was His body and also Chrysostom quoted by Cyril ad not another's that suffered. Hence Arcadiam, &c. 4!). A. (Pusey, p. 165): it was " God's body," c. Apoll. i. 10. the Sermon of Proclus on the Incarna- So Newman, Serin, vi. 74 : " That tion, 9 : Cyril himself, Quod unus sit face, so ruthlessly smitten, was the Christus, ( Pusey, p. 357 :) Augustine, face of God Himself," &c. Serm. 191; the Tome of Leo, 5 : and r So Cyril calls him "the impas- extracts in Athanasian Treatises, vol. Bible one," Bp. ad Nest. 2. ii. p. 440. Oosterzee says, " For him s I.e. offering it upas mortal, might who denies either the Eternal Godhead thus secure man's release from death, or the true Humanity of the Lord, de Incarn. Verbi. 8, .-; 1 Christ's body rca 1 , being human. \i> 7. And this took place 1 , not by a fiction, as some have thought, God forbid! but the Saviour having really and in truth become man, salvation was effected for the whole of man. For if, as they say, it was by a fiction that the Word was in the body, and what is said to be by a fic- tion ia merely imaginary", then the so-called salvation and resurrection of men is found to take place only in Bern- blance z , as according to the impious Manichceus' held. But indeed, our salvation is no imagination ; nor is it the body only, but the whole man z , soul and body in truth, that lias attained to salvation in the Word Himself. So then that which was derived from Mary was by nature human , according to the Divine Scriptures: and the body of the Lord was real : but it was real because it was the same as our own 1 ': for Mary was our sister, since we are all from Adam. And this no one can doubt, who remembers what Luke wrote. For after He rose again from the dead, when some thought that they were not seeing the Lord in the body derived from Mary, but were beholding a spirit in- s. take stead of Him, He said, Behold My hands ait. Path, p. 895. u Qavraaia. Bee <". Apollin. i. 'A, 1(>. •' See c. Apollin. i. .">. * AoKT](Tti,K\). ad Adefoh. 9. Sir r. " Quoted hv Theodoret, bat laxly, Apollin. i. 9, '•'>: ii. 13. So Ilas'il says. Dial. i. p. SO. " This impious notion tt)y KoKyiTfws '' That is to say, Deny Christ's is not of such reoenl date," Bpist. Body to I f human origin, ami you 961. •_». Bee 1 rrll Alex, de recta Rdc tall ineritabrj into Docetism. Borne sd Theodoe. c 9. (Posey, p. 99) that if fifty yean before, Athanasins bad our Lord'i Manhood -.\ni' not real, all written, "He takes to Himself a body, Christian faith would become unreal: and that body not alien to our own," ( iust ,is TertoJIian bad contended De fncarn. Verbi, s. ( t. s. Basil, Bp. ■gainst the early u DoceUsm, M adv. 961. Marc. UK 8 : so 8. frenaras, It. 88 1 see l More he mixei np pari of B. John also Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. It. 9. 90. 95 arlth hla quotation from s. xiU. 87.) Luke. I i. .Mains. Manichean Ducctism l'I. ;t:> 40. Sense of " the Word became flesh." 55 verted into them, but might be believed to be Himself possessed of them, both before His death and after His resurrection. 8. These points being thus proved, it is superfluous to proceed to touch on the others, and treat of them at all; since the body? in which the Word was, was not coessen- tial with the Godhead, but truly born of Mary : and the Word Himself was not converted into bone and flesh. For what is said by John, The Word became flesh d , has S.John this meaning, as indeed we can ascertain this from Ian- ' * guage which is like it : for it is written in Paul, Christ be- GaL 3. came a curse for us e . And as He did not Himself become a curse, but is said to have become a curse because He took on Himself the curse for us : so also He became flesh, not by being changed into flesh, but because He assumed living flesh for us f , and became man. For to say, The Word became flesh, is just the same as to say, "The Word became man g ," according to the text in Joel, / will pour Joel 2. out of My Spirit upon all flesh : for the promise did not extend to the irrational animals, but is addressed to men, for whose sake also the Lord became man. Such, then, being the meaning of this expression, all those persons will with good reason be self-condemned who have thought that the flesh which came from Mary existed before her, and that before her the Word had a kind of human soul h , and had always existed in it before He came to sojourn in d Quoted by Theodoret, Dial. i. Anath. 5. See Greg. Naz. Epist. 101. p. 43. " If they insist on ' the Word be- e So in Orat. c. Ari.'ii. 47. that came flesh' . . . and on that account He took on Him the curse which we scrape away the noblest part of man had incurred. Comp. Cyril Alex, (as shoemakers do with the thicker Quod unus sit Christus, 719 A. Pusey, part of their leather) that they may p. 341. that He became a curse by giue together God and flesh," &c. He being- reckoned among- sinners, and cites John 17. 2, Ps. 65. 3, 145. 21, that this presupposes His having be- to show that flesh is put by synecdoche come Man. for man. He compares " Christ was 1 According to this, the expression, made sin" or "a curse," in that He A became B, or A is B, would mean took on Him "sin," and, a "curse." that A took to himself or itself B, or In TheodoreCs first Dialogue, Kran- B was superadded to A. istes objects to Orthodox for interpre- e Strictly, however, this is another ting " became" by " assumed." explanation of (rapt iyevero, unless h Dorner says that Apollinaris view- " man" is used in the sense of man- ed the Word as the eternal archetype hood. Comp. Athan. Drat. c. Arian. of humanity. Person of Christ, i. 2. iii. 30. " became flesh" explained as 372. " becoming man." So Cyril, Explan. 15. .'{. ~>(\ Objection as to a u Quaternity Ad the world. And they too will he silenr.vd who have said '■ that the flesh was do! capable of death 1 , but that it was of an immortal nature. For if lie did not die, how was i c«»r. it that Paul delivered to the Corinthians that which also he received) that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures? And how did He at all rise again^ unless He had died? And they will he put to confusion who have even entertained the thought, that if the body were said to be from Mary, a Quaternity would be substituted for the Trinitv: u for," they Bay, "if we call the body eoessential with the Word, the Trinity remains a Trinity, for the Word does not introduce anything foreign into it ; but if we say that the body which came from Mary was human. then, since the body is essentially foreign (to the Word,) and the Word is in the body, a Quaternity is necessarily substituted for a Trinity on account of the addition of the body." 9. When they say this, they do not consider how they contradict themselves. For even if they say that the body was not from Mary, but was itself eoessential with the Word, not the less will they herein be proved to be. on their own shewing, asserting a Quaternity, the very point on which they hypocritically insist, apparently lest they should be supposed to hold such opinions. For as the Son, being, according to the fathers, eoessential with the Father, is not Himself the Father, but is called a tial Son, in regard to the Father" ; so the "eoessential body of the Word" is not the Word Himself, but is different from the Word: and since it is different, then on their shewing their Trinity will be a Quaternity 1 : for it is not the true and really perfect and undivided Trinity which receives an addition, but only the Trinity conceived of by them. And how can they be any longer Christians, since ■ On the naturally mortal character They arere a section <>f the Monopby- nf our Lord's Body, see A than. Qrat sites; they Insisted «-ii Acta l*. 27, .-. Arian. ii. »;»:, thai t«> the body (i. e. arrongiy Inferring from it (see Leon- si assumed bj Him I death belonged, das, In Italland. \\\. 879) thai Christ'i note in loc Athan. Treat, ii. 675 I body eras <>f Itself nol liable either to and ii». iii. ;>i;. th.it Hi- sBsomed a body death "i to arear ami tear. i.\ nature mortal. This arai after- fc So Hilary de TYin. ir. 6\ wards denied by the kphttiartodo- ' Compare c. ApoUln. i. 9, i , i.i . mi a hose enrol Justinian died. implies confusion of thought. 57 they conceive of a different God from the existing God ? For, again, even in that other sophism of theirs one may discern the greatness of their folly. For if m , because it stands written in the Scriptures that the Saviour's body was from Mary and was human, they think that a Quaternity is asserted instead of a Trinity, on the ground that an addition takes place on account of the body, they go far astray by placing the thing made on a footing of equa- lity with the Maker, and imagining that the Godhead can receive an addition : and they know not that it was not for the sake of an addition to the Godhead that the Word became flesh, but that the flesh might rise again : nor was it for the Word's own improvement that He came forth from Mary, but that He might redeem the race of men. How then can they think that the body, redeemed and quickened through the Word, can make any addition to the Godhead of the Word who redeemed it ? On the con- trary, the human body itself has received a great addition by the Word's fellowship and union with it : for instead of mortal, it has become immortal ; and whereas it was animal n , it has become spiritual ; and whereas it came from the earth, it has passed through the doors of heaven. But the Trinity, even now that the Word received a body from Mary, is a Trinity, not receiving addition or diminution, but is ever perfect, and in Trinity is acknowledged one Godhead , and so in the Church is proclaimed one God, the Father of the Word p. 10. From this consideration they also will henceforward be silenced who have ever said that He who came forth from Mary was not Himself the Christ and Lord and God '. m Quoted by Theodoret, Dial. ii. of the Trinity, speaks of It in this p. 137. sense, as "recapitulated into Unity," 11 Wvx<-k6v. unspiritual, as in S. Paul's Orat. 6. 22. Compare Liddon, Jiainp. use, 1 Cor. 2. 14; 15.44. Lect. p. 422; and Newman's Sermons, ° Compare Tom. l.ad Afr. 11. vi. 58, "The great safeguard to the p The Father being the "fount of doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is the Godhead." On the sense in which the doctrine of His Sonship.'* And again, Father is called " the only true God" ib. vi. 358, " First we read that God &c. see Newman's Arians, p. 180, and is one; next, tluit He has an Only- Athanas. Treatises i. 45. This is the begotten Son; further, that this... principle of the ' Monarchia.' It is Son . . . the Word ... is God." represented by the language of the i He now turns to the theory of an Te Deum; and Gregory of Nazianzus, association between the Divine Word while ardently insisting on the reality and a merely human Christ, and in 58 Christ is Himself (', ml I nru r/iutr, An For, if He was not Grod in B body, how was it that at once Epict b. Matt wter He had proceeded from Mary, He waa called Emma- 1 • - ;; - nuel, which is, being interpreted, a nil with us? or how, if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul write to the Rom. :». Romans, ofwhom is Christ according to the fleshy who is over all, God blessed for ever T , Amen ? Let them therefore who have formerly denied the Crucified to be God, acknowledge their error, yielding to the divine Scriptures, and especially to Thomas, who, after seeing in Him the prints of the nails, s..F.iin cried out, My Lord and my God* I For the Son 1 being \ ( ' ~ t '/ God, and Lord of glory, was in that body which waa igno- -■ s - miniously pierced with nails, and treated with dishonour: and the body Buffered indeed, when it was pierced on the wood, and from its side flowed blood and water; yet, being the temple of the Word, it continued to be filled with the Godhead. On this account, then, the sun seeing its Maker endure this in the body which was being outraged, con- tracted its rays, and darkened the earth; and the body it- Bel£ having a mortal nature, transcended its own nature by rising again, because of the Word present in it ; and its natural power of corruption was arrested, and having put on the super-human Word, it became incorruptible. 1 1. And as to the imagination of those who say, that as the Word came to each of the prophets 11 , so too He came effect supplies materials tor the refu- " See <>n the Tome, <■. 7. Hilary tationofNestorianism,asinc.Apollin. notices this theory in de Trin. x. 81, i. 1 1'. So dues Epiphanius in an ad- and adds, "Cum ipse Ule Rhus ho- mirable passage of Hear. 77, 39; be- minis ipse sit qui «'t Films Dei, quia ginning with a disclaimer of "two tutus hominis Filius totus Dd Films < brists," he goes on, "The selfsame sit: quam ridicule prater I>«i Filium was (mil and man. Not as If He qui Verbum caru factum est, alium dwell in a man, bul that He Himself nescio quern tanquam prophetam \ \ r- became man wholly. Not that He ho Dei ;inim;i(iim |ir;rdirahiiims '." was a man w ho was advanced to Ood- Cyril.ad\ .( h irnt.r. 1. (Posey,p.276.) heady" he, oensnres "those who saj thai the ' "God bleated i«»r ever," in t hi-- Word came into a holy man, aa into t. at, is understood by Athanaslus of one of the prophets, but thai the " Christ," see c ApolUn. i. 1<»; Orat Christ and tne Word of God, who •■. \iian. i. 10, 11, 24; iv. 1 ; Bp. ad was the Father's Son before the ages, Scrap, i. 28. Sit l/iddon, Hamj). w BTC dillVrrnt tioni rarh ot hrr." Mfl beet. p. 318. ( jyril, "Quod anns sit Christus," 751. Qreg. Nas. urged thai He was (Pusey, p. 886.) Nestorians endea- really in flesh after His Resurrection, roured to meel tl bjection, M You else He could not hayc been bandied, make the relation between CJod and Bpist. 101. Chris! ejusdem generis with thai be- Quoted bj Theodoret, Dial ni. tween Ood and one of the Prophets," l>. .'.;:'. bj saying thai < hrial had in fulness not a mere human organ of the Word. 59 to a certain man born of Mary, it is superflous to examine itj for this wild notion of theirs carries its confutation on its face. For if it was in this sense that He came, why was this Man born of a Virgin, and not himself also of man and woman ? For it was in this latter way that each of the saints was born. Or why, if it was thus that the Word came, is not the death of every saint said to have taken place " for us/' but only the death of this Man ? And why, if the Word sojourned with each one of the prophets, is it said in regard to Mary's Son alone, that He sojourned once Heb. 9. at the completion of the ages ? Or why, if He came as He 26, came in the saints of former times, did not all those others rise again after death ? Why was it Mary's Son alone, that rose again the third day? Or why, if the Word came just as He came to the rest, is Mary's Son alone called Em- manuel, in that she had given birth to a body filled with Godhead ? For Emmanuel signifies God with us. Or why, if it was thus that He came, is not He Himself spoken of as eating and drinking, and labouring, and dying, in the case of every saint who ate and drank, and laboured, and died, and not solely in the case of Mary's Son ? For what His body suffered is spoken of as if He Himself suffered it x . And whereas of all the others it is only said that they were born and died, of Mary's Son only it is said, And the Word became flesh. 12. Whence it appears that to all the others the Word came in order that they should prophesy : but from Mary the Word Himself took flesh and came forth as Man, being in His nature and His essence y the Word of God, but ac- what they had in measure: Cyril re- long- respectively to His Godhead or plies, that on this view Christ excels His Manhood are predicated tit His the prophets simply "in quantity of One Person, who is hoth God and grace," &c. Compare note on the Man. Therefore those which belong Tome, c. 7. to manhood may be freely ascribed to x This is the "antidosis" or "com- Him as God, and those which belong municatio idiomatum," (to use tech- to Godhead may be ascribed to Him nical phrases,) consequent on the per- as Man. The " coinmunicatio " con- sonal union of Godhead and Manhood sists merely in this, that they all be- in the one Christ. See S. Tho. Aquin. long to the same Person. See above, Sum. 3. 16.4,5; Hooker, v. 53. 4; C. 6. In the text Athanasins clearly Pearson on Creed, (art. 4.) vol. i. .admits that the Word Himself did in p. 328 ; Athanasian Treatises, ii. 443, His humanity " labour and die." note; Bp. Forbes on Nicene Creed, f On the Athanasian use of ouaia p. 20(> ; Liddon, Bamp. Lect. p. 258. and tpfois for our Lord's Divine nature All the titles or properties which be- see Newman, Ath. Treat, ii. 345, fio Happy end of disputes at Corinth* \i> cording to the flesh made man*, from the seed of David Rom. i. ; ""' tM( " ^ ( ' SM "* Mary,aa Paul Baid. Thia u He whom the A - Father manifested, saying at the Jordan and on the moan- s..M.itt. tain, This is Mij beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. lb. 17.5, Thia is ^ c whom the Adrians have denied, but we recognize and worship, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Word Himself is the Son '. I hrough whom all things wn<- made and we were redeemed. Therefore we wondered how any controversy at all rose up among you as to things BO manifest. But thanks to the Lord, in proportion to the pains which we felt in reading your mi- nutes, was our pleasure when we came to the end. For the parties separated in agreement with each other, and Mere at peace in the confession of the pious and orthodox faith. And this fact has persuaded me, after I had pre- viously considered the matter at Length, to write this short letter; for I took account of this, that possibly my silence might cause pain instead of joy to those who by their agreement i^ave us occasion for rejoicing. So I beg your Piety in the first place, and the hearers in the second, to accept this letter with a good feeling, and if there be there- in anything defective as to true religion, to correct it and t<» inform me. And if it has been written otherwise than the subject demands, or in an imperfect way, as by a man 2Cor. unskilled in speech, I beg that all will excuse my rudeness as to speaking \ Salute all the brethren who are with you. All tl who are with us salute you. May you live in health in the Lord, beloved and truly Longed-for. Tracts Theol. and Eccl. p. 305 ff. Vet Union t<» Involve no confusion, he a human ^&tij Is admitted in Orat. c. adores Christ as "in- Sun even alter Ari. iii. 53, the incarnation. ■ Theodoret repeatedly asserts his n Here in- m'imus to allude to the belief in this Personal Unity. Bo Ik- Marcellian and Photinian notion th.it unites to Renatus, a Roman presbj ter; the Word *ras not the Son from eter- "l know no other Son of man, lb. 77. 26. In series of "The Fathers for English Bee <•. Apollln. I. 12. tnd rf. Readers." Epiphan. User. 77. 25. Theodoret Ps B2. and approach to Gnostic error. 63 whom brought in the notion of "semblance 3 " instead of reality, and others, dividing what cannot be divided, denied that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Why S. John then, since they think with those men, do they not also take up the inheritance of their names ? For it is reason- able that they should bear the names of those whose error they hold, so as to be hereafter called Valentinians and Marcionites and Manicheans; and perhaps in that case they might be brought to shame by the ill-sounding appella- tions, and enabled to see into what a depth of impiety they have fallen. And it would be but just to give them no further answer, according to the Apostle's exhortation, A Tit. 3. heretic after a first and second admonition reject, knowing 10 - that such a one is subverted, and sinneth, being self-con- demned : especially because the Prophet also says of such persons, The fool will speak foolish things, and his heart i sa . 32. will imagine vain things. But since, after the example of 6 - their leader, they themselves also go about like lions, seek- \ s. p et# ing whom among the simple they may devour, it has there- 5 - 8 - fore become necessary for us to reply to your Piety, that the brethren, being again instructed by your admonition, may condemn yet more fully the vain talking of these men. 3. We do not "worship a creature e ;" God forbid! for such error as that belongs to Heathens' and to Arians ? ; but d &6kt)(tiv, comp. Ep. ad Epict. 7 ; worshipped Emmanuel as a mere c. Apollin. i. 3; ii. 12; see Orat. c. man, they would fall into Heathenish Avian, ii. 70, "He took true flesh, idolatry: (alluding to the then preva- thougfa Valentinus may rave." lent notion that many of the Pagans' e The persons in question argtted, gods were deified men, Athan. c. " If you ascribe to the Christ, whom Gentes, 9.) you adore, a really human nature, you « The Arian worship of the Son, invest that humanity with the quality considered as a creature, though the of adorahleness, and in this sense you eldest and highest of creatures, was worship a creature." So Greg. Naz. formal idolatry, as the Fathers repeat- intimates that the Apollinarians call- edly urged. E. g. Athan. Ep. .-Eg. ed the Catholics Man-worshippers, 13 ; Hist. Ari. 80 ; de Syn. 50, Orat. Epist. 101. He himself says, " If any c. Ari. i. 8; iii. 16. So Epiphanius one does not worship the Crucified, tersely argues, " If He is not true let him he anathema, and ranked with God, He is not adorable; and if He the Deicides," ib. See c. Apollin. is created, He is not God. And if i. 21. The passage in the text is also He is not adorable, why is He railed translated in Dr. Pusey's Lenten Ser- Divine (OfoAoyelrai)? Cease then, you mons, p. 440, and his Letter to Bp. who have again set up the image of Blorafield, p. 157. Nebuchadnezzar!" Hser.69.31. See f See Cyril Alex, de recta fide ad too Peter in Theod. iv. 22, that Arians Theod. 31. (Pusey, p. IKS.) (hat if men worship " a new God," (alluding to c> 1 Hi worship the Son as Incarnate. An worship the Lord of creation as Incarnate, the Word of God. For although the flesh, considered by itself, is a por- tion of the things created, yet it has become God's Body*. And we neither divide this body, being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself; nor do we, while wishing to wor- ship llie Word, set 1 1 im far oil" from the flesh. But, know- ing, as we said before, that the Word became flesh, SO do we recognize Him as God even although He came to exist in flesh. Who, then, is so senseless as to say to the Lord, "Withdraw from 1 lie body, that I may worship Thee 1 ?" or who is so impious as to say to Him, with the senseless B.Jobn Jews, on account of the body, Wherefore ^ r inL!;: and the man blind from birth was healed by the '■'• ,; - Word with the spittle of His tlesh. And, what is greater and more astonishing, (for this perhaps has caused those I, XX Ps. BO. 9). Seeother quotations Apol. adv. Orient. 11, ( 1*0867, P« ;: " ;: - 1 in Mosley "ii Theory of Develop- Because lit- whose bouy it was, since ment, i>. 1 1 : and ii>. j>. 78, " Idolatry He had assumed it, was do other than could not attach to the Arian idea God tin- Word, therefore it was in its application: for ai Ear at our " God's Body." Cyril quoted this l.oni was the object of their wor- for the Personal Union, the identity ship, they were not Idolatrous. It of the Christ with the Eternal Son, attached to it in its substance. The as opposed to the (Nestorian) idea position was in itself an idolatrous ,»t an association, exceptionally dose, ,,,,,.. it supposed a being who was between the Son of God ami a per. nut to l.e supposed," he. sonally human Christ. ApoUinarb 11 Cf.Eplct.6; M.i\.-; cApoUln.i. misused this expression as lf M God*i C. Hi. IS; ii. 14; see (hat. e. Arian, flesh" were equivalent to "(io.l," ii. 61 ; ami lb. hi. 81, "though He < .allaml. \ii. 704. was God, !!<• had a hodv of His ,,w n." • I'.piphaniiis. in 87 >. imitated this. Cyril Alex, claims "our blessed father " Let no one, then, saj to the Only- Athanasius as ssying thai the bodi of begotten, ' I .ay aside the body, that Christ iras the Word's own body, but I ma] adore Thee.* w Ancorat. 51. born of a woman akin to our own:" k Aiifuovpy6r. Cf.c. I: ad Afros, 5. He is not less adorable because incarnate. 65 most impious men to stumble :) even when the Lord was hanging on the Cross itself, (for the body was His, and in it was the Word) the sun was darkened, and the earth S. Luke trembled, the rocks rent, and the veil of the temple was | 3 vi 5 t ' t rent, and many bodies of the saints who slept arose l . 27. 51. 4. Now these things did take place, and no one doubted, as now the Arians dare to do, whether it was right to trust the Word Incarnate : but even while seeing a man, they recognized Him as being their Maker ; and while hear- ing a human voice, they did not say, on account of what was human, that the Word was a creature, but rather trembled, and none the less acknowledged Him than if He were speaking out of a holy temple. How then is it that the impious men do not fear lest, as they did not like Rom. I. to retain God in their knowledge, they may be delivered to 21 * a reprobate mind, to do the things that are not befitting ? For the creature does not worship a creature m : nor again did it, on account of the flesh, decline to worship its own Creator : but it saw its own Maker in a body, and in the Phil. ii. Name of Jesus Christ every knee bowed, and what is more, 10 » n * will bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth ; and every tongue shall confess, even though it may not please the Arians, that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father. For the flesh brought no dishonour to the Word, God forbid ! but ra- ther has itself been glorified by Him. Nor when the Son, existing in the form of God, took on Him the form of a ib. 6, 7. servant, was His Godhead diminished n ; but rather He Himself became the Liberator of all flesh and all creation. And further, if God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, Gal. 4. 4. that event brings us no shame, but rather glory and great grace. For He became Man, that He might make us di- 1 So Ep. Maxim. 2. Divine powers, the full enjoyment of m A repetition of what he says in Divine glory, the " status majestatis Orat. c. Arian. ii. 28. suae," Origin de Princ. ii. 6. 1. See n Comp. c. Apollin. i. 2. The k4- Oosterzee's Image of Christ, pp. 143, vb)(Tis could not consist in any such 181 and comp. Bp. Ellicott on Phil, actual diminution ; for He who is God 2. 7. Cyril explains it as the self-hu- could as soon cease to be as to part miliation which was involved in the with what is of His essence. It in- Incarnation, but which yet could not volved, says S. Hilary, no "abolitio affect His essential Deity, Quod unus natune," de Trin. ix. 14. It consist- sit Christus, (Pusey, p.373.) Similarly ed in a waiving of the full exercise of Leo's Tome, c. 3. 66 To disparage His flesh, thankless, m> vine in Himself: and He was made of a woman, and born ' of ft Virgin, that He might carry over into Himself that original nature 1 ' of ours which had been perverted, and wc 1 s. ivt. thenceforward might become a holy generation) and par- •TsVivt. takers of a Divine nature, as the blessed Peter wrote' 1 : and ] - l - moreover, what the law could not do, in that it was weak .-{. ' through the flesh, God, having scut His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. 5. Therefore, as for those who disparage that flesh which was assumed by the Word, in order to liberate all men, and raise up men from the dead, and make redemption for sin, or those who, on account of it, accuse the Son of God of being a creature or a work 1 ", how can they appear in any other Light than as thankless and worthy of all detestation? For they do all but say aloud to God, " Do not send Thine Only-begotten Son in flesh ; do not make Him to take flesh from ft Virgin ; (do not,) that He may not redeem us from death and sin. We wish Him not to be born in flesh, that He may not undergo death for us : we choose that the Word should not become flesh, in order that He may not therein become a mediating agent of our access to Thee, and that we may not dwell in the heavenly mansions. Let the gates of heaven be closed, that Thy Word may not, Hen. 10. through the veil of the flesh, make for us a new way in the heavens." These sayings of theirs are being uttered with diabolical audacity, through the perverse notion which they have imagined for themselves. For those who refuse to worship the Word made flesh are unthankful for their liberation : and those who divide the Word from the flesh, think that there has not taken place any redemption from Bin, or any overthrow of death. But where will t lie im- pious men at all find that tlesh, which the Saviour took, existing by itself, so that they may venture to say, "We do Thlfl bold phrase b ased In i><' Aiian. Hi. l!'. Syii.. ( |. 51, and Orat «•. Allan, i. 19; >' Lit. -rally, "birth which bad boon ii. 7<>; Hi. ;i7. " it mu usual." sari 1<''I astray." Newman, "with ttbanaslustooalltne * Bee this quoted in Orat. c. Irian. Incarnation a 94mru or 9tMrofnn the simplicity <>f s. Gr egory <>f Nasiansus, (Orat. 85) intrigued against him, was irregularly consecrated by Egyptian bishops for tin- Bee of Constantinople, and subsequently dis- owned in a canon of the Council of Constantinople, in 381 . but recognised for awhile by the Westerns, including S.Ambrose. But the editor- of Gregory Nazianzen (monit. in Orat. 25.) contend with better reason thai the Athanasian Maximus was a different person ■ for lie is described by At h a na s l us in .'571 as a man of piety and learning, whereas the Maximus who duped (ireffory M had n. t put on the mask of piety" before his return from exile in 37i>. ATIIANASIUS TO MAXIMUS. To MY SOX BELOVED AND TRULY LONGED FOR, BfAXI- MU8, PHILOSOPHER, ATHANASIU8 BENDS GREETING IN THE LORD. 1. When I read what you had written, I appreciated your piety: but I wondered much at the rashness of those l Tim. i. who understand neither what they say nor whereof ///<■// affirm, and, in fuel, determined to In- Bilent ; for to reply ;i- to matters so plain, and more Luminous than Light, is nothing else but to furnish these transgressors with occa- sions f<>r shamelessness. And this we have Learned from tin- Saviour 1 . For when Pilate had Washed his hands himself, and taken cognisance of the calumnious charges S.Mark of the JeWS of t li.it time 1 ', the Kurd ijurv him no further 1 ."» . ."> . s Matt. ■ See Origen, Prof, to c Celsom. s. Hilar] iaya to in Ari.in, M Horn •J7. 19. '' A bin! thai Ariansare theJewi mocb more Irreligious art thou than of '• this tiinr." See note in tthana- a Jew I*' de Trim vii. 88. si.iu Treatises. Lib. Path. ii. 289. The Crucified is truly Divine. 73 answer, but instead, made an oracular communication to Pilate's wife, in order that He who was under trial might be believed to be God, not by word but by power. And while He gave no answer to the idle questioning of Cai- aphas, He Himself by His promise brought over all men to knowledge (of Himself.) Accordingly, after delaying for a long time, and observing the logomachies c of those shameless men, I was with difiiculty induced to yield to your zeal for the truth, and have dictated just as much as refers to what you wrote, and no more : in order that the adversary may at least be convinced by those same truths which he has gainsaid, and refrain his tongue from evil, Ps. 34. and his lips that they speak no guile. And God grant that such persons may no longer join those Jews who passed by S. Matt. in reviling Him that hung on the tree, (and saying,) If Thou 4{) ' ' ( i a ', art Son of God, save Thyself. But if even after this they 3. 13. will not hide their heads, still do you, remembering the Apostle's exhortation, avoid a heretical man after the first Tit. 3. and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted 10, llp and sinneth J being self -condemned. For if those who dare to say such things as these are Gentiles or Judaizers, let them, as Jews, deem the cross of Christ a stumbling block, l Cor. 1. and, as Greeks, a folly. But if they represent themselves " ' to be Christians, let them learn that the crucified Christ is lb. 2. 8. Himself the Lord of glory d , and the Power of God and the lb. 1. 24. Wisdom of God, 2. But if they doubt whether He be God, let them pay c Ep. Jov. 4 ; de Syn. 54. since the selfsame is God and Man d Compare c. Apoll. ii. 16. See ... He who partook of both natures, Epiphan. Hser. 77, 32, that some the human and the divine, underwent Apollinarians misuse this text. On the Passion in the nature of man : ut its true force see Pearson on Creed, i. indiscrete et Dominus majestatis di- 324. ff. S. Cyril employs it, Quod catier esse qui passus est, et Filius unus sit Christus, (Pusey, p. 406.) hominis . . . qui descendit de cselo." " It was not a mere man, honoured De Fide ii. 7. 58. Similarly S. Leo ... by connection with Him, that was quotes it in his Tome, c. 5. as an given for us : it is Himself, the Lord instance of the way in which " be- of glory, that was crucified," but " in cause of this unity of person which flesh," so that " although He be said is to be recognised as in both na- to suffer in flesh," r-np(7rai xal ovto) tures, the Son of man, we read, de- rh tiirades airy nadb voelrai ©ebs. (cf. scended from heaven, and the Son also his Thesaurus, p. 272.) Theo- of God is said to have been crucified, doret discusses it towards the end while He suffered this, not in the of his third Dialogue. S. Ambrose Godhead itself . . . but in the weak- interprets it to mean, 4k not that He ness of human nature." So John was crucified in His majesty, but that Damascene, iii 3,4. 71 The Word Himself became Man. ad regard to Thomas, who handled the Crucified % and said B * ' that He was Lord and God, And let them stand in awe S.John 80.28. of the Lord Himself, who, after He had washed the disci- n». 13. pies 1 feet, said, Ye call me the Lord and the Teacher s and ]:i - yv say welly for so I am, But the body in which lie existed l B.Pet. when He washed their feet, was that in which He bore our sins to the tree. And He was attended as Master of the creation when the sun withheld its beams' and the earth was trembling, and the rocks were being rent, and the exe- S.Matt outionera recognized the Crucified One as truly the Son of God. For the body which was seen was not that of some man, but of God, that in which He existed when at the time of the crucifixion He raised the dead. Unhallowed therefore is that boldness, with which they say that it was to some holy man that the Word came': for that took place in each of the prophets and of the other saints : so that He must not (be thought to) show Himself in each ease as born and again dying. It is not so: God forbid ! n. I.. :i. But once in the consummation of the ayes, for the abolition "''" of sins, did the Word Himself become flesh, and came forth from Mary the Virgin (as) man, like to ourselves, even as S.John lie said to the Jews, Why seek ye to kill Me, a 'man who hath told you the truth? It is not by partaking of some man's body, but by receiving the Body of the Word Him- m It "', that we are made divine. 3. And this is to me a matter of wonder, how they have even ventured to think that it was in the course of nature that lie became Man'. For if this had been so, the men- Bp. Eptet. (i. On s. Thomas' of dignity, but as truly lifegiving and confession ;■•* accepted by Him whom belonging t.i the Word Himself. Por he called liis Lord and his God, see being by nature life, aa God, when Orat. «•• Arii it 88, and Hilary de He became one with Hi* own flesh, Trin. \ii. 19. He rendered it lifegiving." So in his • i"p. Atlrlpli. 8. Explanation, art. II, where be tlms See the Tome, 7 j Bp. Epict. _. Interprets 8. John 6. 68. u For corn- Cyril often argnei similarly against men flesh lias no power to give life: the Nestorians. and tlii^ the Saviour Himself attests, h This i> the thought repeatedly saying, 'The flesh profiteth nothing, nrged by Cyril of Alexandria, that the tin- spirit Is that which givetfa Hfe;' efficacy of the Holy Communion in- for since it has become the Word's wires the personal Divinity of Christ, own flesh, In thi> respect it i-* under- Tims in Bp. ad Nestor, .'t. 7. ( Pusey, stood to !>••. and is, lifegiving." p. 26.) " Receiving the flesh of Christ ' Busebius says that some of the not as common flesl nor u that Bbionites denied the rirginal birth of ..t ,i in. in wlio bas been sanctified and Jesus, iii. 27. Paul <»t Bamosats <\- . i • 1 1 with the nn ord bj an union pn sslj admitted it ; "The \ Irgin bore s. 1(1. His Godhead shone through His Manhood, 75 tion of Mary were superflous k . For nature knows nothing of a virgin becoming a mother without a man. Wherefore, by the good pleasure of the Father, being very God, and by nature the Word and Wisdom of the Father, He be- came corporeally Man, for the sake of our salvation, that, having somewhat to offer for us, He might save us all, who Heb. 8. through fear of death were all our lifetime subject to bon-^' 2 ._ dage. For it was not any man that gave Himself for us : seeing that every man is liable to death, according to the words, Earth thou art, and to the earth shalt thou go, Gen. 3. which were spoken to all in Adam. Nor was it any other ly * of the things created: for every creature is liable to change 1 . But it was the Word Himself who offered His own Body for us, that our faith and hope might not have a man for j e r. 17. their object, but that we might fix our faith on God the 5 - Word Himself. Assuredly, even when He became Man, we beheld His glory, a glory as of the Only-begotten from S. John the Father, full of grace and truth. For that, as God, He 14 ' gave dignity to the sufferings which He endured through the body, and while He hungered in flesh, in His Divine character He fed those who were hungering. And if any one is scandalized at His bodily acts m , let him rely on His Divine operations. For He asks humanly, where Lazarus is lying: but Divinely, He raises him up n . Wherefore, let no one laugh while calling Him a child, and mention- ing His "age" and "growth" and His eating, and drink- Him through the Holy Spirit," notion of a change of a part of the Houth's Hell. Sacr. iii. 300. Divine nature into flesh : cf. Ep. k TlepiTTT) ttjs Mapias r) /xurj/xr], an Epict. 2. Again " Theodoret entitles expression used for a different pur- his first Dialogue (against Eutych- pose in Ep. Epict. 4. ians) "Atpctttos," see Athan. Treat. 1 'YttotttSs ear i rpoirris. Comp. the ii. 289. Nicene anathema denying the Son to m See Orat. c. Ari. ii. 32 ; Cyril, he rpeirrSs, Ep. ad Jov. 3. Change adv. Theod. 10, says that those who was impossible for God, therefore for think his humiliations lowering should His Son, see ad Afros. 7; Orat. c. .the rather admire His great love; Ari. i. 35. But according to the old and adv. Orient. 11. "I do not think Arians, the Son's nature was intrinsi- that any one of sound mind will find cally capable of moral change: and fault with Him because He stooped to an actual change of another kind was our sphere for our sakes." Heresy supposed by the Arian notion that has often begun in mistaken rever- this nature became as a "soul" to the ence, Athan. Treat, i. 221; Posey's Christ, which, says Hilary, would im- Sermons on Faith, p. 61. Cf. Lid- ply that the Word " de se defecerit," don's Univ. Serm. i. 200. de Triu. x. 50. Hence also the in- n Comp. the Tome, 7, and R. Leo'a dignation excited by the Apollinarian Tome, 4. 7G Christ, true Bod and true Man* ■27. 53. ad ingj and Buffering: 9 ' lest, by denying the properties of the body, he should also deny entirely His coming on our be- half". And as it was not in the course of nature that lie became man, so it was consistent that, having assumed a body, He should exhibit its properties, lest the Docetism P of Manes should prevail. But again it was consistent that while lie was acting in a body, He should not conceal the attributes of the Godhead, lest the Samosatene should find a pretext, calling Him "a man/' as if He were another than the Word «. 4. Let the unbeliever then understand this, and learn that He was an infant in the manger, but subjected the Magi to Himself, when He was worshipped by them r : and He went down as a child into Egypt, but overthrew" the idolatrous images: and after being crucified in flesh, He s. Matt, raised up dead men who had long before mouldered into decay. And it was made clear to all that He did not bear this for His own sake, but for ours, that we, being endued through His sufferings with insensibility to suffering 1 , and with immortality, might abide unto eternal life. 5. I have dictated this in a concise form, borrowing it, as I said before, from what is your own, not working it out to further lengths, but only mentioning the subject of the Divine Cross, in order that the very circumstances at which the heedless stumbled might lead them, on better instruction, to adore the Crucified. But do you apply persuasion, in a genuine way, to the unbelievers ; perhaps they may somehow come from ignorance to clear know- ledge, and believe aright. And although what you wrote Was Sufficient, Still it LS Well also to add the above, in reply to the contentious, by way of reminder: in order that " This is ;m anticipation of the .'5, mi Paul of Samosata's opinions. general antl-Eutyehian argument, sel r Cp. Leo*! Tom.-, c. 4. M He is forth in tlo- Tome or 88th Epistle of Lord of all, whom tin- Blag] rejoice to Leo, <•. ."». adore on bended knee." i" ♦cu'TOTi'd. Compere on Manlchean * KaT7ipyv< r *- Thisseemi feo tirade Pocet bra , Bp. BpfcL 7, Adelph. -. to the story in the Apocryphal Gospel Athanasins means. The supernatural of tin- Infamy, ft 88, nliciv 1st. 19. 1 character of His birth made it all tin- is quoted. more ncccsssrj to exclude Docetism ' Alluding to tin- ea gern e s s uita by exhibiting the actual conditions of vrhicfa Martyrs welcomed death for bodily life. His sake, fee. sec !>•• imam. Verb! rrs & •• Tom. a- 1 Ant. 89. Holdfast to the Nicene Creed. 77 they may not, as if convicted, be made ashamed of their audacity, but, as if reminded, may not forget the truth u . For let the confession of faith, made by the fathers at Nicsea, stand good : for it is correct, and capable of over- throwing any impious heresy, and especially the Arian, which insults the Word of God, and necessarily falls into impiety against His Holy Spirit x . Greet all those who believe rightly. All who are with us greet you. " An instance of his tender consi- Spirit is to dishonour the Son. " If derateness. His object is not to gain men .... consider the Son (as is the an argumentative victory, which case) to be the Maker of things made, might not win over the opponents, but why do they call the Holy Spirit a to appeal to such true ideas as they creature, seeing that He has the same still held, and thus to lead them on to oneness with the Son, which the Son the full truth. So in De Synod. 41. has with the Father? If they had x That is, to dishonour the Son in- thought rightly of the Word, they volves dishonour to the Holy Spirit, would also have thought soundly of In Ep. ad Scrap. 1. 2, he argues con- the Spirit." versely, that to dishonour the Holy THE TWO BOOKS AGAINST APOLLINARIS. INTRODUCTION. A r»n,i.iNAui anism is perhaps in one respect less interesting to a modern theological student than the counter-movement of Nestorianism ; partlj because its propositions seem strange even to repnlsiveness, partly becaose in oar day such Christian thought as is not guided by the Catholic defini- tions sets in a direction opposite to that of minimising tin- human element in the incarnation of our Lord. Ami yet Apollinarianism is one of the most melancholy phenomena of Church history 1 , as a heretical reaction against heresy, conducted hy a bishop b of rare ability, respected ami even loved by typical Churchmen for his services to historic Christianity , and animated, even in the speculations which misled him, by a religious zeal for the ma- jesty of Christ d ; a reaction also which not only did fatal mischief by de- stroying faith in the Redeemer's real Humanity, but also provoked an equally calamitous revulsion in the direction of a denial of His Personal Oneness. It must never be forgotten that Apollinaris was the rock of offence to Theodore and to Nestorius; that 8. Cyril, throughout his struggle with the latter heresiai'ch, was continually dogged by tin- suspicion of Apollina- rianism ; ami lastly, that one part of the Apollinarian theory was revived with a modification by the Monophysites. The namesake ami abler son of an able father, Apollinaris had made his iri.uk by literary achievements of the most varied kind. He had a singular faciliu of composition : he was, so to speak, u in omnia paratUS :" no work came amiss to him. He was a keen logician f : in his earlier years he had taught rhetoric I ■ he afterwards wrote commentaries on several books of Scripture, taking a line of his own as to their sequence \ ami as to the rendering Of the Hebrew': he replied, in thirty l ks, to Porphyry's treatise "against » See Church of the Fathers, p. 156, '' EpiphanJus, liar. 77. 25. "If ed. l and TUlemont \ii. i'>-7. you bave thought, as it were, to assist '• "Bishop of Laodicea in Syria," our Lord by saying He did not assume says Jerome de Vir. I Must. 1 12, Tide, a mind," fcc. Cp. c A poll. n. ii. mont would date his consecration In • Basil. En. 129, "who finds it easy 861, shortly before the Council of to say anything," and Ep. 244, " I am Alexandria. A decided anti-Arian told that he is t he most copious writer Could hardly have obtained a Syrian that ever lived." bishopric of importance while Con- ' Epiph. Haer. 77, 24. stantinsUred: but he might have been i: Boc.il. 16, elected at the end of 361. h Jerome, c Rutin, ii. .'it. Jerome Athanasiiis formed an intimacy heard him lecture on Scripture at An- with him as early .is .'{Id, on bis own tioch, in .'>7.'i, Eplst. 84. '■'•■ return home alter his second e\ile. ' Jerome, Comm. in Cedes. 12. So/. rl. 29. Eplpbanius says he was He thought that ApoUinarls's com- "dear to ns, to Pope AthanasJUS, and incuts on Isaiah were more like "in- to dl orthodox men," H.er. 77. 2. dices capituloi um." Prol. in Kt. Introduction. 79 Christians k :" and when Julian forhade Christians to lecture on Greek au- thors, Apollinaris, in conjunction with his father 1 , adventurously set to work to supply Christian hooks written in classical style. Both father and son had come into collision with two Arianizing bishops m : and the son had accepted exile rather than communicate with the Arians n . He hated Arianism with all his heart : he wrote, says Theophilus °, against Arians and Eunomians : and it would seem that his versatile and daring mind was attracted hy the notion of wresting a weapon from Arian hands, and using it against their own heresy. For several, at least, among the Arians maintained that the " Godhead " which they recognised in Christ was to Him in place of a human soul p. It was natural for them to think so ; for this " Godhead " was simply titular and unreal, and might well discharge the functions and act under the conditions of the immaterial part in man. Apollinaris, it appears, resolved to utilise this idea with a modi- fication, for the purpose of constructing a Christology on the basis of the Nicene Creed. The modification was this : he would allow the tyvxh, or mere animal soul i, to exist in the Incarnate ; he regarded it as part of the outer man. But the vovs, the rational soul, the mind, that could not be recognised in the Divine Christ without a breach in the unity of the Person, because it carried with it a complete human personality r : nor without a derogation from His essential holiness, because it involved the possibility of sin 3 . Therefore, argued Apollinaris, its place must be sup- plied by the Divine Word, who is, in the highest of all senses, Spirit and Mind. He was probably not responsible, except indirectly, for the abandon- ment of this distinction by some of his followers, who adopted the Arian k Jerome, Ep. 70. 3 ; 84. 3. r See c. Apoll. i. 2. Leontius (Gal- 1 Soc. ii. 45, who says he embodied land. Bibl. Patr. xii. 707) quotes him the Gospel history, etc. in a Platonic as saying that if there were " two dialogue. A version of the Psalter into perfects," i. e. the Divine Nature of hexameters is extant, and is ascribed the Word and a human mind with to him: Galland. Bibl. Patr. v. 359. ff. soul and flesh, there would be two Sozomen ignores the elder Apolli- hypostases or persons. From Gre- naris's part in this undertaking, and gory Nyssen's Antirrheticos, 0,35,38, ascribes to the younger sacred tra- 50, 53, it is clear that he was bent on gedies, comedies, odes, and a heroic securing the unity of our Lord's Per- poem on Old Testament history, with son. He fancied (see his words, ib. a " Defence of Truth " against Pagan 42) that his opponents held a mere philosophers, v. 18. " connection " or f a "reasonable" human "soul*." The other Apollinarian proposition was a development, which belongs rather to tin- disciplei than to tin- master v : but both of them were evidently twin errors of present si^-- Dificance to the unknown compiler <»t' tin- " Athanaaian Creed.' 1 Nothing is iaid in the "Tome" of the Alexandrian Council of any strange doctrine ;i» to the Body of Christ: hut Apollinarian thought, having received it •> impulse, went on to speculate on thai aspect of the Incarnation. ApoDin- nris himself taught, — not openly, hut in a secret Circle of hearers, — that the body assumed by the Word Incarnate was, as such, " COeSSential " with the Godhead*, to which, ill a real sense, the sufferings and death must be ascribed, others proceeded to say what, if we can trust his positive disclaimers, he abstained from Baying*, that it was not really a human body, hut of heavenly origin, being ill fact nothing less than a portion of Godhead "converted into flesfa ;" whence it followed, cither that the God- head was thus far capable <»f suffering, or that the bodily condition and sufferings of Christ were " Docetic" and unreal. In this way a second wound was inflicted on the doctrine which presented to the belief and adoration of the Church a Redeemer who, heini^ very God, « Some say that Apollinaris at first denied any "soul," and then admitted a tivxv out denied a vovs. SoC. ii. 46. See Pearson on the Creed, ii. .'{:>!> ; Tillemoiit, \ ii. 602 tr". He sometimes spoke as if he thought the Word did not take a ^v X i'h Mai, vii. 803. Hut again begranteda o-ap£f^i' 1 - "The error of Apollinaris was, that Christ had no proper intellectual or rational SOUl, hut that the Word was to Him in the place of a soul." Bpiphanius says that Apollln- ; ,ris will not deny the (human) •' reality ol the flesh of Christ,*' Hear. 77. 85. Bee GaOand. ail. 704. He seems to have denied that he had ever called it nhstracttdly coessential or Divine. Being united to God, he thought, it should I'" called " Divine" and even "God," just as the " Word "could be called "flesh," (Jalland. xii. 7<»»>. 1 See the extract in Leuntius, ap. (ialland. xii. 701. " We have always written that neither is the Saviour's flesh from heaven," &c " It ii grant- ed as certain that the body is from the Virgin, the Godhead from heaven." Theodore! cites passages from him denying any "change of Godhead," and acknowledging the assumption of flesh from Mary, Dial. i. fin. and others, admitting that the body of Christ was a real body. Hut he did hold "fleshly" (human) "nature to have been from the beginning in the Son," Greg. Naa. Bp. 808, so Greg. Nyss. Antirrhct. 18, IS; meaning, according to Dorner, not that His material body had heen coessential, hut that the Divine Son hail heen from eternity an archetype of Man- hooii. it has been suspected that Apollinaris in his disclaimers was/ either inconsistent (see Theodoret v. .'{. ) or insincere. ( LeontittS : ) ami if he I never did assert any " change " of the Godhead, some Mich Ideas were cur- rent in the Antiocheoe district when Paulinus disclaimed them in .'>»;;{. iee the Tome. 11. Introduction. 81 had vouchsafed to become very Man, to enter in His unchanged personality into a human sphere of existence, to be " made in all points like unto his brethren, sin apart," a sympathizing- High Priest, an Exemplar of human sanctity. Certain texts b were adduced by the Apollinarian school in sup- port of their theory ; but it was really based on abstract considerations, or on alleged logical necessities c , and thus laid itself open to the charge of calling in rationalism to uphold will-worship d . Nor can the Apollinarians be acquitted of an equivocal use of terms, which often imposed on the simpler-minded Churchmen e . Their energy in disseminating their opinions by a copious array of treatises f , by poetry for popular use?, by the intrusion of their bishops into Catholic dioceses' 1 , was not cheeked by repeated syno- dic*] condemnations ', and by unwilling censures from theologians who could claim to represent existing orthodoxy, and who had with difficulty been persuaded that Apollinaris had fallen out of its path k . We are not here concerned with his alleged inclination to Sabellianism ', his "carnal" and "Judaic" Chiliasm 111 , the scandals caused by his contro- versial pertinacity, and the division of his followers into the more mode- b E.g. S.John 3. 13; 1 Cor. 2.8; 15. 47 ; Phil. 2. 7. They put a fan- tastic interpretation on 1 Cor. 2. 16. c Tillemont says, vii. 603, that they based their dogma on "pensees de l'es- prit Domain." See Mozley on Theory of Development, p. 42 ; " Each sect appealed triumphantly to the logical irresistibleness of its development . . . . All had one watchword ; and that was, Be logical . . . Be logical, said the Apollinarian : Jesus Christ was not two persons : he was not therefore perfect God and perfect man too." d Basil calls it a Kaivotyaivia, a theory unsupported by tradition, Ep. 244. 3. Epiphanius speaks of Apollinaris's contentious objections, User. 77, 18: cf. c. Apollin. ii. 18. e See above on the Tome, c. 7, and Greg. Naz. Ep. 102. In 375, Vitalis, of whom Tillemont says that he was " never anything but an impostor," deceived Pope Damasus by an appa- rently orthodox statement, Greg. Ep. 101: see Tillemont, vii. 618; viii. 406, and Timothy had been even re- commended by Athanasius, as ortho- dox, to Damasus, Facundus de Trib. Capit. vii. 3. 1 See Basil, quoted above ; and Ep. 263 (written in 377.) " He has filled the world with his writings." So we find extracts from his books against Diodore of Tarsus, a book to Flavins, On Tradition of Renunciation and Belief (for Catechumens), a Compen- dium, a little book on Faith, On the Union, a tract on the Incarnation, and a longer work on " the Divine Incarnation in the likeness of man," reviewed in Gregory Nyssen's Antir- rheticon. s Cf. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. on the " new psalters" of the Apollinarians, and Soz. vi. 29 on the charm of his hymns, and on his verses composed for men at convivial parties or at their work, and for women at their looms. He was here taking a leaf out of Arius's book, Philost. ii. 2. h Basil, Ep. 365. 1 By two Roman synods under Da- masus, and the Second General Coun- cil. k See Epiph. Haer. 77. 14, pleading with "our brethren." " Let us not lose each other :" ib. 1 8, disclaiming all animosity, and wishing that Apol- linaris might not be " separated from the Church and from the affection of the brethren." This was written be- fore the open breach. Basil also, in 377, wrote to the Egyptian exiles, Ep. 265, quoting Psal. 55. 12, and urging them to try to reclaim Apollinaris. 1 Theodoret, Haer. Fab. iv. 8. See a passage quoted by Basil, Ep. 12!>. as said to be by Apollinaris. His language about a scale or triple gra- dation of Godhead, Greg. Ep. 101, (cf. Theod. H. E. v. 3.) might be in- terpreted in a Sabellianizing sense, but Dorner takes it to moan that the Son and the Spirit bad affinities to human- ity which the Father had not. ■ See Epiphan. Iter. 77, 26 : l!a>>il Ep. 263 : Greg. Naz. Ep. 102. 2 : Jerome, de Yir. Illustr. 18. 82 Introduction* raff ami the inure extreme ". As to the dates of the controversy, ■ passage of Gregory of Naxianxns would place the first rise of Apolluuurianism ten years before the Alexandrian Council of 86*2°, to trhieh, as ire have seen, Apolliiiaris thought it advisabloto send delegates. Bui this date is some- what too early, for Basil intimates thai ApoDinaris was still unsuspected about 85fi p . But the oegatioo of a human soul in Christ came before that council: the further notion as to His body was rife at Corinth some nine years later : ami about B72, it i^ thought, Athanasius u rote these two books against the entire theory. In 373, and again in .'57.~>. Basil had reason to disclaim all fellowship with ApoUinaris \ at the end of 376, ApoDinaris openly formed a seet by nmsecratine; Vitalis hishop for the party at An- tioch', and in \\~il he and his chief followers were formally "deposed" by a Council at Kome. The seet gave great trouble to Gregory, both during and after his sojourn at Constantinople": and he was instrumental in procuring 1 from Iheodosius in 385 a general law against its freedom of worship. The books called "Contra Apnllinariuin" were directed against a number of ApoUinarian opinions as held by a school or party : and the vetierahle writer, who seems in some passages to have left his first draft uncorrected, re- frains from censuring his former friend by name. Referring to doubts which had been entertained as to the genuineness of the work, the Bene- dictines say that its affinity to the letters to BpictetUS, Adclphius, and Ma\i- niiis, is so manifest as to he decisive. ■ Valentinus being the representa- sion of faitli given by Theodoref. v. five of the moderate, Polemon and 11: it affirmed that "The Word of Timothy of the latter, see Leontiufl God did not Himself exist in His own adv. fraud. Apoll. and I'hotius, Cod. body instead of the rational and in- 230. Polemon even spoke scornfully telhgent soul, hut assumed and saved of Athanasius as " opinionated." our soul, that is, a soul rational and " Greg. Bp. 102: he wrote it in intelligent without sin." Vitalis could 382, and says it was 30 years since not evade this,and therefore refused it. ApolUnarianism bad begun. kn ApoUinarian bishop was set up t Basil, Bp. 226. I, written in 375. at Nasianxus; hence Gregory wrote • Basil, Ep. 131 and 224. his two important letters to Cledonius, r According to Tillemont, vii. 620, Bpp. 1<>1 and 102. this was after a test was proposed ' Through Nectarius, his sue, to Vitalis in the form of a profes- at Constantinople, Ep. 202. ON THE INCARNATION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AGAINST APOLLINARIS. BOOK I. 1. It is the persistent habit of a pious man, dear friend, to venerate the All a in silence, and with loud thanksgiv- ings to praise God his Benefactor, according to that saying of Scripture which runs, He will sit alone, and be silent Lam. 3. 28 and quiet, and do his own business. The words "alone" and £ his own business ' mean that he will order his own con- duct with jmrgment, and attend seriously to the command- ment of God. But since you have become aware of a very heavy weariness among those who seem to say the same things, you have asked me about the faith that is in us, and wherein lies the fault of those who think them- selves orthodox, yet who in their great extravagance fear not to utter unhallowed opinions, whereby persons unsta- ble in the faith are carried away, and know not that they are off the right path (for had they been established in the faith, they would not have yielded to language of that kind : but it is because their minds were unemployed that they have become capable of accepting such traditions, from which arise extravagant conceit and vast wicked- ness : and they, being blinded by antipathy, pervert the revelations of the Prophets, and the teachings of the Apos- tles, and the injunctions of the fathers, and the very and manifest sayings of the Master :) it is necessary to under- take to confute them b , in order that they may either wake up and see how the case stands, or may be disabled from deceiving any persons by promising them a very distinct comprehension of Christ c , understanding neither what l Tim. l. they say nor whereof they affirm. a Tb irav seems here to mean the b Lit. " whom to confute." The whole order of the universe as admi- construction of the whole sentence is nistered by the Divine; Word, who incomplete. " contains and combines in Himself c See Cyril Alex, de recta fide ad all things visible and invisible." Athan. Theodos. ltf. (Pusey, p. 48.) The c. Gentes, 12. ApolHnarians, he says, disregarding g2 84 Apollinarian opinions c.Ai'oll. 2. For t lie fathers have said that the Son is " coessen- tial with the Father, and very God from very God/' and Perfect from Perfed ' : and then that He "came down for our salvation, was incarnate and made Man," and then that He thus suffered and rose again. But lest any one, on hearing of Buffering and resurrection, should think that God the Word was altered, they definitely assert the un- changeableness and unalterableness of the Son 1 ', with a condemnation (of the opposite opinion.) But these men either imagine an alteration of the Word, or suppose the economy f of the Passion to be unreal", calling the Flesh of Christ sometimes uncreate and heavenly, sometimes co- essential with the Godhead 1 '. Then, they say, " in place u of the inward man which is in us, there is in Christ a "heavenly mind 1 , for He used the outward form k with " which He was invested as instrumental 1 : for it was not tli*- traditions of the ancient faith, and is that to nit' ?" asks Gregory ; " God- preferring to follow " human reason- head with flesh and soul, but with- ings" and "excessive refinement,' 1 out mind, is not man," Ep. 101. He argue that if Christ had a complete means, of course, Christ could not be Humanity, thru this Humanity could both God and .Man, if He had not a not be so united to Godhead as to human mind. form hut one Christ, because the con- k 2x*?M OT '» outward or bodily form, stituents of what is one perfect thing cf. Phil. 2. 8. must be themselves imperfect, s. Basil ' There is of course ■ true sense in says, that Apollinaris'a theology is which Christ's Manhood is the "in. based not on Scriptural proofs but on strument " of His Godhead, for the human premises, Ep. 263 ; again, that sanctification and salvation of man. Apollinaru "threw the doctrine of the So Athanasius, ( nat. c. ArL lii.31, .'k">, Incarnation into confusion, and ren- speaks of His LJody as His instrument ; dered the economy of salvation amlti- and see Aquinas, Sum. Theol. ',\. guous to the many by his muddy and 48.6; Newman's Sermons, UL lt!i; dark questions," Epist. 265. Greg, and IJddon'i Bamp. I. eft. p. L'.V.i : Naz. says that they jirofess to go by but the Apollinai ians Sflem to lia\e geometrical demonstrations, Ep. 101. regarded the Flesh of Christ as an See below, c ApoH. L 18. instrument merely for manifesting cl Here he paraphrases the Creed. His divinity. See Greg. Nat. Bp. 102, • See Ep. ad Adelph. l. The "as- andNewman, note in Atban. Treatises, sertion" is in the original Niceneana- ii. 143, and Tracts TheoL and Bodes. themas. p. 267. Comp. Cj ril Alex, ad Theodos. < See Tom. ad Antiocb, 7. «•. 12. (Pusey, p. 56) that if the pur- « A To rail Christ's flesh uncreate CApoll. ''and had carried it out, through the body, to the comple- tion of »in q . Wherefore Christ exhibited the flesh in a " new condition', by way of likeness: and each man ex- "hibitfl in himself tlie condition of the thinking clement " in us, by means of imitation, and likeness, and abstinence "from sin 9 . And in this way is Christ understood to be " without Bin." 3. These are their sophisms, and perverse notions : and they use more than one argument; for many are the per- versities of unbelief* invented by human reasonings. Let us then ask these men to consider tlie will of God's good Pis. 110.4. pleasure, (for it is said, The Lord s/rurc, and will not r<- pent,) and the completion of that economy which is most true, and the grace of that benefit which is most complete 1 , questioning them in tarn as to their notions, whether they all agree with the prophetic revelations, whether they fol- low the apostolic teachings, whether they walk in the line of the injunctions of the fathers, whether they do not Bel aside the manifest declarations of the Master ; so that from the prophetic revelations, and the apostolic teachings, and the things fulfilled by the Lord, may be educed the ac- knowledgment of the truth and the confutation of error. Tell us, then, you inventors of that new Gospel of yours, Ual. 1.7. which is- wit another, from what source it was announced to you that you should speak of a Qesh uncreated, so as either to imagine the Godhead of the Word to have been (•(diverted into flesh*, or to consider the economy of the Passion, and of the Death, and of the Resurrection to be unreal ". For the Holy Trinity of the Godhead is alone manifestly uncreate, and eternal, and unchangeable, and 'i Apolllnarii meant, '• In order to mind In as, respectively, lit a relation pecure Christ's Impeccability, we musl oof of Identity of kind, but merely of exclude from Him the human mind, possible similitude j see below, c 90, which ia ai inch morally mutable andc.ApuIlin.ii.il. (rpcwTSs) in virtue of its freedom of * Bee Bp. Bplct. I. ApoHlnarb is choice. It wai I cardinal point in quoted by Theodoret, and even by I us the Arian heresy t<» make the Word own follower Timothy, as denying any tliii> mutablet snd we hum deny it change or conversion of the Godhead again in regard to Him u Christ,* 1 of the Word into ** flesh" or ** the na. w " c. 17. tore of a body." p r Timothy*! quo- r Literally, M newness." tatlon, see Galland. xH. 704. ' Thai Is, ili«- relation between " a. ■,,>;, m\ see Newman, Tr eta Christ*i flesh and our flesh, and i>«-. Theol. and Bed. p. a79, where thii tween the mind in Chris! and the passage is quoted. involves carnal or Docetic views. 87 unalterable. But since Christ, according to the flesh* Rom. <>. sprang from men, from our brethren, as it is written, and c" i.i.]8. was passible, and first-born from the resurrection of the dead, as the Law had announced beforehand, how is it that you call that which is uncreate " passible ? s " or how is it that you name that which is passible " uncreate ? " or when you call the uncreate essence of the Word passi- ble, you blaspheme the Godhead : and when you apply to the passible flesh, adapted to the bones and blood and soul and throughout the whole of our body y , and made palpa- ble and visible, the term "uncreate," you break clown in (one of) two ways ; either by supposing the exhibition and the endurance of the Passion to be a mere appearance z , according to the impiety of the Manicheans u , or else you think the like of the essence of the uncreated Godhead. And then why do you censure those who imagine God to exist in a human form according to the flesh b ? 4. But you say, that "it became uncreate through its union with the uncreated One c ." But thereby your error will be exhibited as self-confuted : for the union of the flesh with the Godhead of the Word took place from the womb; for from thence did the Word establish it when He came from heaven: since it had not existed before His coming, or before Mary the Mother of God (l , whose x Leontius cites Apollinaris as ana- Jerome; Socrates, vi. 7. Comp. Ath. thematizing those who said that the Treat, i. 2(57, note on Orat. c. Ari. i. Godhead was passible, and that from it 61. Or perhaps he alludes to the came the feelings of the soul. Galland. Audreans : see Epiphanius, Hrer. 70 ; xii. 702. Theodoret, iv. 10. y Kcd o\ov ... !), and 121. 12. and Orat, c. Arian. iii. 1 1, 29, 33. b I.e. those who anticipated the See notes in A than. Treatises, i. 244 ; Anthropomorphist fancies of Egyptian ii. 420, 440. Cyril explains the term monks in the days of Theophilus and in reply to Nestorius ; the orthodox 88 Nor could His flesh " become ate. C.Apoll. descent alone is deduced from Adam*, and traced in ^e- nealogy from Abraham, and from David, together with cion. 2. Joseph who was espoused to her, both of them being one 2i - flesh, flesh, as it is written, not by cohabitation, but by their being derived from one, for it 18 well attested that they continued inviolate f . Christ then is born in Bethle- hem of Judea, calling Joseph, who together with Mary was from David, " father;" laid to rest in Bwathing-clothes, and held by Symeon in his arms in the Temple, and brought to s. Luke circumcision of the llesh according to the law, and inereas- *•**• 'nil/ in si al ure. If then "it became uncreate through the union," how is it that it was not seen as fully complete, but, as the Word willed, as increase of the body took place? But to ascribe increase to Him Who is uncreate, is impious. For by "uncreate" we mean what is by nature uncreate, admitting neither increase nor diminution. But that which shared with, or was united with, the uncreate, is said to be- long to the uncreate, but is not called itself uncreate, lest the benefit involved in the union should be forgotten, and the obligation of the benefit cancelled, and humanity, being still left in weakness, should fall into despair, being taught, as you hold, that it has no close tie to God, and the E should be made to disappear. For who, on hearing that the Lord's Body is uncreate, while he knows that iie him- self has been made and created, will not conceive the no- tion that the Holy Scriptures are false, and that he himself has no communion with Christ'-? If the Uncreated One assumed an uncreated body, the first creation is in that annulled: the archetypal' 1 Adam, whose posterity we are to this day by succession of fleshly descent, has perished. How then did Christ render as partakers of Himself J Heb. 9. and how is it that the Apostle saith. For lie who saneti- jieth anil they who are sn n clijit il are all from < >( reject the rery notion that the Word indent belief Id the perpetual Virgi- could take ■ new beginning <»f c\i>t- nltyof Mary, see .Mill on Mythical In- ence from the Holj Virgin, but call terpretation of the Gospels, p. 165 ff. her Tbeotocos because sin- gave birth ■ Here ire see Iww Apollinarianism to the Emmanuel, irho la bj nature is opposed in the interest of our true God," ;iiU. Nest I. 1. ( Pusejr, p. 69. ) fellowship with Christ. ■ Apparently he understood the pe- !i I.e. original. The Encratitea digree in s. Ijtike t" i>«- that ol Mary. li«-lu.. He effected on earth the condemnation of sin, and on the tree the abolition of the curse, and in the sepulchre the redemption of corruption, and in Hades, the dissolution of death \ having visited every place, that He might effect the salvation of the whole of man r , exhibiting in Himself a form resembling our own. For what nerd was t licit- for God to be born of a woman, for the Maker of the ages to increase in stature and have His years numbered, or again to have experience of the cross, or tin- sepulchre, or Hades, to which we all had become subject, unless He was seek- ing us, giving us life through His form which was like our own, and inviting us to imitate and resemble a perfect image? And how would imitation of perfection be ; hie, if there had not preexisted the perfection which knows (oi. 3.0. no detect? as the Apostle says, Having put off the old !/[''■ *• man, and put on the new man, which according to (i<>d has been created iii holiness and righteousness of truth, 6. Who then taught you to say "uncreated?" "If therefore a nature "becomes uncreate" by means of change, then it may becomealso invisible and immortal, not after death, but as being incapable of death.) How then was it that the Lord died, if it was uncreatedly that the (Jncreate One sojourned on earth? or how did lie become visible 1 S. Join and tangible, as it is written, That which we hare seen and ]] - our hand* hare handled? How is it, then, that you say what is not written — what is not lawful even to think of? For you will furnish all heretics with an opinion like to that most impious one of him who was once called Rheto- rius", whose impiety it is fearful even to mention. Hither then, deny the Divine Scriptures, or, if you acknowledge them, do not think of uttering, beside what i> in Scripture, r Gregory Nariansen Bays, Epist. perior be assumed also ? • . • . Bf ind 101 "Wli.it was n"t assumed" (by bad in fad been the first to fall in tin- Bon in the Incarnation) is mi- Adam, therefore mind eras assumed bealed: it is what aras united to God bj Christ/* See toohisOrat. 29. i;». thai i> saved, li Adam fell in half Ami Ambrose; "The rcry purpose his being, then what was assumed and for which He came "as to rare the red raai be only half. . . . [Here whole of man. si uon totum redemit, > cited "" <•• -• • • It !■ Welttt." Ep, 18. .">. raid t h.it our mind was condemned. Bee tuguatine, Heresies, 72, thai Is do< flesh, then, condemned too ? if Rhetorius held thai ail heretics had what is Inferior is assumed In order right "ii their side. Un this "libera- to in' sanctified, shall not what is mi- Ham" cf. Atb, Treat, i. 178. 7/ is He whom we adore in His body. 91 other words of incurable deceit. But you say again, " We / do not worship a creature 1 ." O unthinking men! why do ye not take account of this, that the Lord's Body, though it was made, receives that worship which is not due to what is created"? for it has become the body of the un- created Word ; for it is to Him whose body it has become that you address the worship x . Therefore it is both wor- shipped' as of right, and worshipped as Divine, for the ' oSikcos Word to whom the body belongs, is God, since, when the women approached the Lord, He said, by way of hindering them, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Fa- s. John ther : indicating that an ascension was necessary, and that 20 ' l7, such ascension would be one y . Nevertheless, they ap- proached, and took hold of His feet, and worshipped Him z . s. Matt. They took hold of feet, they worshipped God. It was 28# y * feet of bones and flesh that they were handling, but feet that were God's ; it was God that they worshipped. And elsewhere the Lord said, Handle Me and see, for a spirit ^- ] '^ c hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have; and yet He Himself was Spirit 3 , for God is Spirit. And when saying S. John that He had them, and exhibiting them, how was it that He said, A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me, — He saith not "being," but — "having," — if it were not to teach us, that the nature of Spirit is ineffable, while this handling relates to a body like ours, which He acquired for Himself from the Virgin not by a form of operation b , 1 Meaning-, " It is you who worship y i. e. that in the ascension of His a man." They used, says Greg. Naz. Cody He Himself would ascend. Ep. 102. to make much use of the z Quoting' from memory, he con- sentence, "We must worship, not a founds the scene in S. John 20. 17 man clothed with God, (or, carrying with that in S. Matt. 28. I). God,) but God clothed with flesh." a Compare the frequent use by the This was to them a irpdypaf.i.jxa ttjj dp- early fathers of " Spirit " for Christ's Co7)o|ias; they inscribed it over their Divine Nature, according to the use of house-doors. Of course, it had an it Rom. 1.4. (Bull, Judgment of Cath. orthodox sense ; see Theodorel, H. Church, p. l J7). See Athanasian E. IV. 8. The idea of worshipping Treatises, Lib. Path. i. 196. compare "a man Geoffr/ipos" was rightly con- Up. Lightfoot's St. Clement of Rome, demned by Cyril, Anath. 5. Explan. p. SOU; and Tertullian adv. Marc. iv. 5. a4v. Nest. i. 2, on the ground that 33. and Tertull. Lib. Path. p. 322. so to describe Christ was to rank Him Doubtless this use contributed to the with the Saints. Athanasius himself confusion between Christ's Godhead speaks of Jesus as &ebs o-apua <\>opwv, and the highest part of His humanity. Grat. c. Arian. in. 51. h Ovk eVep7€iav rpSircp, i.e. not as u Literally, " that worship which is if He simply created it by His own not created." See Ep. Adelph. 7. power. 1 See Ep. Adelph. 7. 92 To call Christ's flesh "heavenly in origin" C.Apoll. but by natural birth, that His body might both be natural, and also by way of nature inseparable from the Godhead of the Word? For thus also did the Death take place; the body was undergoing it by way of nature, but the Word permitting it by His will, and in the exercise of a right* delivering His own Body to death that He might sutler for us naturally, and rise again for us Divinely. And the whole transaction of His Nativity and Death looks to the object of seeking and recovering us. 7. This being so, and being acknowledged in the Catho- lic Church of God, how is it that you again say that the body was brought from Heaven d , and why did Christ do this? Tell us, was it that He might bring down a body from heaven upon earth, and make the invisible visible, and that which could not be outraged susceptible of outrage, and the impassible passible and mortal ? And what bene- fit was involved in this, O thoughtless men, if you say that that took place in Christ which took place in the proto- Rom. 8. plast Adam, unless Christ, having appeared in likeness of **■ sinful flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh, had restored by an incomparable restoration that which fell in Adam e : so that He both lived in flesh on earth, and exhibited the flesh as incapable of sin, that flesh which Adam had in a sinless state from his first creation, and by his transgression .made capable of sin f , and fell down into corruption and death? This flesh He raised up in a condition of being by nature sinless, that He might shew that the Maker was not the cause of sin, and He established it in accordance c 'E^ovfTiaariKws. cf. S. John 10. 18, fending the title "Theotocos," fa <>p- ((ovaiaf (x w Otlvai ai/r-qv. posed to the Dotioo that Christ's body d Greg. Nas. explains "The second wasbrought down from heaven. Theo- nian from heaven" oi tin- union (of philus, (Essen. I'.p. 2. translated by man) with tin- Heavenly One, Bpist. Jerome, Ep. 98) says that "He brought 101. Gregory of Nysai accuses tin- from heaven nothing nostra condi- ApoUinarians of making tin- Word tionis." fleshly, an. I, the Son's Godhead nior- ■ Literally "the fall of A.Iain." tal (c* Apollin. torn. Ui. p. 262. 8o In f Strictly, ol course, Adam was his Anturheticos.) Cyril Alex, ex- created capable of felling, as were the plains] Cor. 15. 47 to mean, not that Angels. Thai i». he had not the He brought down flesh from Heaven, " non posse peccandi "-—-only the hut that He who i> God eai limn, " DOSM non peccandi :" hut the Quod onus sit Christus, Pusey, p. 846. "non posse peccandi M belonged to Anil in bfa Bp. to John of Antioeh, OUT l/Ord's Manhood through Its per- called " LsBtentur cobU" (Pusey, p. 46) sonal union with God. See on <•. he showi that his Whole line, in ile- Apollin. U. 9. implies that He is not Second Adam. 93 with the original" creation of its own nature, that He Him- self might he the exhibition of sinlessness. ' Vain, then, are their imaginations who go astray and say that the Lord's hody was from heaven. Rather, what Adam brought down from heaven to earth h , Christ carried up from earth to heaven: and what Adam brought down into corruption, and condemnation to death, when it had been sinless and uncondemnned, that did Christ show forth 1 as incorrupti- ble, and capable of delivering from death, so that He had authority on earth to forgive sins, to exhibit incorruption S. Matt, (by rising) out of the sepulchre, and by visiting Hades to destroy death, and to proclaim to all the good tidings of resurrection, because God created man to be immortal, and Wisd. 2. made him the image of His own eternity, but by the devil's ' envy, death came into the world, and when it was under the reign of death unto corruption, He did not overlook it k , for He Himself became man ; not ! that He was turned into the form of man, nor that, as if neglecting real human ^existence m , He exhibited Himself merely under a shadow, — but He who is by nature God was born man, that these two might be one n , perfect in all things, exhibiting His birth as natural and most true. Therefore it is said, And p,lil - 2. 9 He gave to Him the name which is above every name, to g" j i m reign over the heavens and have authority to execute judg- 5 - 27 - ment. 8. For the Word, who is the Maker p of the universe, was seen as Son of Man, not as having become some one dif- ferent, but a second Adam, that even from that name we might understand the truth. And the Apostle shows the e Literally " archetypal." c. 4. have ov irapelSes ib. p. 41. The h This phrase, of course, is not to thought is expanded in Athanas. de be taken literally; it only means, what Incarn. Verbi, 6. Adam degraded. ' Quoted by Leontius, c. Nest, et 1 'Ai/eSe^er. It may have simply the Eutych. i. sense of "rendered," as in the in voca- m "Tnap^iu. To this word, in ad tion and subsequent intercession in Afros 4, farSarcuris is made equivalent. S. Basil's Liturgy, Hammond's Litur- " I.e. one Person : 'Lv eh y ra kno.- gies Eastern and Western, pp. 114, repu, so c. 16. This clearly supports 124. the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. k A touching Liturgic phrase : ° *ux v-rrfpriSes, " supernatural," cp. ad Max. 3 ; but Hammond's Liturgies, p. 14. and that He really became Man. S. Mark's Liturgy in the parallel p Ar)iJ.iovpy6s, ad Afros 4, ad Adelph. place, ih. p. 180. In S. James's we 4. 94 What is implied in u 8on of Man." C. A poll. u protoplast" to have been the elder, Bhowing that what r * is psychical is first) what is spiritual second. But in 15. 46. speaking of "psychical" and spiritual, he docs not show us two different bodies, hut the same body: the first under the authority and belonging to the nature of soul, there- fore psychical^ but the second under the authority and be- 87 John longing to the nature of spirit, therefore spiritual : for God the Word is a Spirit* : for so also we can understand what 1 Cur. 3. is said of our case, in the words, The Spiritual man search- lL eth out all thing 8) but the psychical man receweth not the things of the Spirit, And yet, while the body of both men is one, he shows that that which partakes of the Spirit is to be understood as spiritual, whereas he who has conti- nued in the soul's power alone is shown 1 " to be psychical. And if the truth be on your side, why in the world is it that Christ is not called merely " Man," as if He were some new one who had come among us from heaven, — but He be- came "Son of Man? " If then He became Son of Man on earth, and yet was born not of the seed of man, but of the Holy Spirit, He must be understood to be thought of as Son of one, the protoplast, Adam. For besides that Adam who is from earth, no other man is regarded as having ex- isted in heaven, so as both to have his body from heaven, and also be a Son of Man irrespectively of Adam*. There- fore Matthew records Him as son of Abraham and David according to the flesh, but Luke Tanks Him in the genea- logy as Son of Adam and of God. If then you are disciples of the Gospel, do not speak unrighteousness a^ainM God, but keep close to what is in Scripture, and to what took place. Hut if you choose to sav things contrary to what is in Scripture, why do you fight against us, who do not consent to hear or say anything contrary to what is in B. John Scripture ', as the Lord saith, If ye continue in My wordy s. 31,86. y e Man be free indeed? 'i Here again wptv/ta is used for the ' Again he Insists on the entire Difine Nature of Christ, cp. c. 6. Scripturalnesa of the Catholic doc r The construction in tin- Benedic- trine, see Ep. Jot. I. Bo below, be tine text Is irregular, (in the"psy- implies that what is" not in Scripture*' chical nun" see Abp. Trench, N.T. (not capable, ;it least, <•!' being dis- Bynonyms, U. 96. tlnctly proved thereby) Is "alien t.» 1 Alluding to the Apolllnarian notion true religion." Bui with tliis be of an archetypal celestial Manfa I. eombinei Church authority, c. 10 Christ's flesh derived from Abraham. 95 9. How then can you any longer be deemed faithful, or Christians, who neither keep close to the words of Scrip- ture, nor believe in what took place, but venture to de- , fine what is beyond nature ? Is it a small thing for you Isa - 7 - to enter into a contest with men, and how do ye enter on j,xx a contest with God? For if those who disbelieved the prophets were condemned, how much more those who do not put faith in the Master Himself? For how is it that you dare to think or to speak in a different way of the things which He Himself willed and was pleased to do, for the putting away of sin and death ? If we confess Him, He will also confess us ; if we deny Him, He also will deny 2 Tim. us, if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful, for He cannot ?• J?"/? 1, deny Himself For what means this extreme and wild ex- 10. 32. travagance of yours, to say what is not in Scripture, and to think what is alien from religion ? For you attempt to call the flesh coessential with the Godhead, not considering that the impiety in which you involve yourselves is thus doubled. For it, has come into your mind to say this, so that you should either deny the flesh, or blaspheme the Godhead, saying, in your words, "We say that He who was born of Mary is coessential with the Father u ." But this phrase of yours, which you deem reverential x , shall be shown to be either superfluous or foolish. For who among the faithful will not admit that God the Word, who came among us, and proceeded as Man from the Holy Virgin Mary >', being coessential with the Father, became man of the seed of Abraham z , whose son also he is regarded to have been, and that the coessential Word of God became, according to the flesh, Son of David? Therefore also do prophets and apostles and evangelists reckon Christ in the genealogy, according to the flesh, as of the seed of David. How then can you without a blush assert that flesh, which is genealogically described as of David's seed, to be coes- sential with the Word ? or, on the other hand, as we said, you say this foolishly, not considering that what is cocs- u As if to say, " We fruard the Cyril imitates Athan in Ep. ad Nest. Personal Union of God and Man in 3. 3, "God the Word .... irpoT)hOtv Christ ; but you imperil it." avOpwiros from a woman." * See ad Max. 7. « Cf. Cyril Explan. 1. y Cp. Epict. 12; c. Apollin. ii. 5. 96 To call His flesh "coessential with the Word" C.AroLL. sential lias indeed identity of nature, but exhibits its own perfection in itself*. For as the Son, who is confessedly coessential with the Father, is confessed to be perfect in regard to the Perfect One 1 ', — as is the Holy Spirit : for the Trinity is coessential: — you then will assign perfection also to the "coessential flesh," in addition to the perfec- tion of the Word, and on your theory a Quaternity ■ instead of a Trinity will be proclaimed. And what is to be said of such an impious notion ? 10. But you say, the flesh became coessential with the Word' 1 . How did it become coessential? tell me. "It became the Word, and eyen became Spirit." But if that which is not by nature Godhead became in fact Godhead by conversion, why do you blame Arians, who put forward the same notion as to the Word e ? And yet Scripture says, The Word became flesh, not, The Flesh became Word. But it is said, The Word became flesh, because the flesh became that of the Word, and not of some man f ; that is, God became Man ; and it is said, He c became flesh', lest you should pass by the name of flesh ". If then you are not content with the natural h union, apart from all confu- ■ So in de Synodis i.">, that the bishops at Nicaea used the phrase Ho- moonsion to set forth the truth that the Sou is not of different nature from tin- Father. 1 Co. ad Afros, ll. r This is a retort of the Apollina- rian charge against the Catholics, that they Imagined a Qnaternity instead of a Trinity. Ep. Epict,9; lee below, C. 12. B.AmbrOSe makes a like re- tort, " Itaqne qnartum Increatnm . . . InduCUOt." de Inearn. Sacr. 78. ■' Moderate Apollinarians disclaim- ed this. Bee Newman, Tracts Theol. and Kiel. pp. 272, 277. ■ Li-, that the Son or Word was made God in an Improper or titular sense, by 1 1 1 . - fiat of the Rather: lee ad Afros', ;, ; cf. e. A pull, ii. 11. Bo < yril, that it is •• not the flesh i f a man . . . connected n ith the Word," Bn. ad Nest. •'(. 7, and ri. Explan. l", that Nestorians regard tin- Virgin's Son as fripiVrim beside the Word. > Bee (Mat. e. Arian. i. ft'. " We ascribe the ' becoming ' to the flesh : " and ih. ii. 44, our "body which He assumed on becoming man, is Wis- dom's house, and with reason is it said by John, -The Word became flesh." 1 s. Augustine says that " flesh" is put for " Man," in order to emphasise the self-humiliation, de Div. Qussst. B3, n. SO; cp. (Mat. e. Art iii. BO. h ' Natural' here denotes an union in which the flesh really became that of the Word's own Person, see bckr* . e. 11, 16. s. Cyril, l-'.xplan. Cap. ;;. fPusey, p. 246) says that a "natural union" means a "real" one; that it implies no confusion of the natures, hut means the unity of Subject or Person. Theodoret, at the end of his second Dialogue, ent it led 'An •) \ i>t.k, quotes passages in which ApoUinaris disclaims the notion of a confusion. His comment is that "the man who was first to introduce the mixture of the natures was thus constrained by the power of truth to admit their dis- tinctness" is to disown Him as Son of Man. 07 sionj. between the Word and the flesh that became His own, and with the statement that God became Man ; in that case, you neither hear nor wish to believe, since you are not content when you hear of that which is above all the praise that we can think of, a Body of God k , according to him who says, Who will transform the body of our humi- Phil. 3. Ration, that it may become conformed to the body of His glory ; which is an indication of the age to come : and farther it is called "the body of His glory." And the Lord also says, When the Son of Man shall come ; He means S. Matt, that Son of God, who became Son of Man, being both ' Judge of living and dead, and King, and Sovereign, and very God. But you wish to proscribe the word c body 1 ,' or any application of the term . man' for Christ m . How can you go on reading the Divine Scriptures, when Mat- thew writes, the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, S. Matt. Son of David, Son of Abraham, and John, In the beginning s. John was the Word, and the Word ivas with God, and the Word l« l« was God ? Now if you mean to consider 'Word/ and' God/ and 'Son of David/ as separately existing 11 , you will have to speak of two words : but if, being taught by the Divine ' 'A. He means, " No human individual is a human person doubt, if you were asked by us to ad- (see Athan. Orat. Arian. Hi. 51 ; New- rait that the Son of God and the Sou man's Sermons, vi. (52.) ; but although of Man were two persons, that would Apollinaris himself sometimes spoke mean two Christs : but we utterly re- of Him as Man, the Apollinarians pudiate such an idea." The doctrine shrank from admitting in plain words of the "One Person in two Natures" 98 The One Christ is both God and Man. C. Atoll, i. 1 Tim. 9. 5, 6. Rom. !». 5. 8 Tim. 2. 8. l Cor. 11. 26. 1 s. Pet. 4. I. Scriptures, vou believe that tin- Word, being God, became Son (if Man, vou will know that the Chris) is one, the self- same", both God and Man: that the twofold aspect of the announcement '' of His coming might involve a convincing proof alike of the Passion and the impassibility, as when the Apostle says '•, The Man Christ Jesus, who gave Him- self a ransom for all, God blessed for ever. And writing to Timothy, he says, Remember Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, who was raised from the dead. And the same Apostle says again, We announce Ills death, nut it Uc come r . 11. If, then, on the strength of your acknowledging u the coessential," you take away the name of the flesh, and the application of the name "Man" to Christ, either you no longer "announce His death until He come," and then you nullify the Scriptures; or else, announcing, in your view, the death of Him who is coessential with the Father and the Holy Spirit, without acknowledging that Christ suffered in flesh, you will say that even the Godhead of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is itself capable of death 3 ; and then you have become more im- impliea thai it is possible for a Divine Person to adopt a human sphere of existence in addition to the Divine, and without prejudice to the oneness of His Personality. See above, j>. s;>. Compare Tom. ad Antioch. 7 ; and e. Arian. iv. B6, " Not some different Christ, i»nt one and the same." So Hilary de Trinit. x. I'd. M there is no other Son of Man than He who is Son «,f Qod : nor any Other in tin- form of God, than He who was horn SI per- fect man in tin- form of a servant." Thus Hilary, like Atbanasius, and like And. rose in de Pide ii. 7. ."»s. de Incarn. Bacr. <:. l*. and Augustine Bnchir. •">•">. excludes Nestorianism beforehand, ai did tin- Council of ( halcedon afterwards iii it » Definitio Pldei, M We acknowledge our Lord JeSUI Christ as one and tin 1 same Son, tin' same perfect in Godhead, the saint' p e r fe ct in manhood. truly Qod ami truly .Man, tin- same from a ration at soul ami a body, coessential with tin- Father as to Godhead, and the same ooessential with us as to Manhood," according to tin- formu- lary accepted by Cyril from John of Antioch ; sec (Aril, Bp. ad .loan. (Pusey,p. II.) i' lb SiT rKovv Kr.pvyua, romp. Orat. r Arian. Hi. 2i», that the account (tnayye\'iav) if the Saviour in Holy Scripture is twofold. And see below c. Id, and C Apollin. ii. 8, IS. This docs not mean that lie is htvKuvs in the sense in which Cyril rejects thai phrase, Bp. ail Not. .'!. S, that is, the sense of a double personality. \n instance «>f the combination of two texts. On the sense of limn. :». J, see Bp. Bplct. l<>. r KaTcc>7< KKofu •• . here understood ill its natural sense of announcing Of making solemn acknowk dgmentasbe- forfl men. The text is thus used in the Liturgies, see Hammond, Liturgies Bast, and West. pp. 12, 119, 187,211. Theodoret quotei from Apollina- ris several passagei admitting that the death was endured hy Christ's flesh, the Godhead being impassible, Dial. iii. j» below. He " suffered in flesh" not in Godhead. 99 pious than all the heretics. For it was the death of the flesh which became that of the coessential Word 1 . For it was not the Father nor the Holy Spirit that wore flesh, as those who hold the impiety of Valentinus imagine 11 : but " the Word became flesh." Wherefore we, in confes- sing Christ to be God and Man, do not say this for the sake of making a division, God forbid 1 ! but on the contrary, according to the Scriptures, to the end that, since Passion and Death have taken place, and are being "announced until He come," we may confess the Passion and the Death to have taken place in regard to the flesh of the Word, but may believe the Word Himself to be unchangeable and unalterable y . Therefore it is He who suffered and who did not suffer 2 ; being impassible and unchangeable and unalterable in the Divine nature, but having suffered in flesh, as Peter said a , and willed to taste of death : be- cause He became a Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ, ivho gave Himself a ransom for all, and again ( because He became a Mediator between God and men.' Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 1 S. Pet. 4. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Gal. 3. 20. 1 This should be read along with C. Apollin. ii. 11. Cf. Orat. c. Ari. iii. 31. u A lax use of " Valentinus," pro- bably alluding to the affinity between the " emanatist" form of Sabellian- ism and the Valentinian scheme of JEous. * See c. Apollin. ii. 10. 12. The Apollinarians accused the orthodox of asserting two Sons, a Son by na- ture and a Son who was afterwards added by adoption. " I know not with whom they are contending. I never yet knew of any one who said such a thing," Gregory Nyssen, c. Apollin. (torn. iii. p. 2(>2.) He goes on to refute such i'i notion by arguing that a per- son might just as well take each Theo- phany in the O. T. to belong to a dif- ferent " Son." But this is the Epistle containing the quasi-Eutychian pas- sage of which Hooker doubted the genuineness, E. I*, v. 53. 2. Gregory Nazianzen says, "They accuse us of breaking up the peerless and won- drous Union," Ep. 102. Similarly, in the next century the Monopbysites accused their adversaries of dividing II the one Christ. y Cyril of Alex, distinctly avers this. "Not that God the Word in His own nature suffered blows and piercings, for the Divinity is impassible : but since that body which had become His own suffered, He Himself is said to have suffered this for us ; for He who is impassible was in the suffering body, Ep. ad. Nest. 2. (Pusey, p. (>.) And in Apol. adv. Orient. 12. (Posey, p. 370, ff.) when charged with virtually holding that the Word suffered as the Word, he answers in effect, " Nobody holds this ; of course the Word could not suffer as God, but only as Man, Kara rb avOpwiriuov, and as having ap- propriated the conditions of the Man- hood which He had assumed.*' So as to change, Apol. adv. Orient. 1 . " They say they are afraid lest. . . any change should be supposed to have befallen the Word's Divine value. I applaud their anxiety (5e<>a), but, &C." z See c. Apoll. ii. 2, Epict. (». a Atbauasius had quotes tins text in Orat. c. Arian. iii. 34, with the same purpose. See below, on Cyril's 12th Anathema. 2 llel ). 8. 3, II). 1. 4. 100 To call His flesh a coessential with the Word* C.AroLL. 1:2. Wherefore they are in error who say that the Son who Buffered is one, and He that suffered not is another 6 . For beside the Word there is no other that underwent death and the Passion' - : but the impassible and incorporeal Word Himself endured to be born in the flesh of man, and fulfilled all things, that He might have something to offer for us. And He is said to have heroine superior to the Angels: it was not the Word Himself, the Maker of the Angels, that became their superior, as if He had ever been inferior 11 ; but that "form of the servant," which the Word Himself made His own e by natural birth, rose up as superior out of the generation of the protoplast, and brought us into intimacy with itself, as lias been said, when Eph. 2. we became fellow-citizens with the saints, and members >./ the household of God: and it became by nature God's own flesh, not as being coessential with the Godhead of the Word, as if it were coeternal, but as having become His own by nature, and inseparable by virtue of the union, while it was from the seed of David and of Abraham and of Adam, from whom we also are descended. But if the flesh is "coessential with the Word," and coeternal. you will next have to say, in consequence, that all the creatures also are coeternal with the God who created all things. And how will you continue to be Christians, if you en- tangle yourselves in such knots as these? For that which is coessential, impassible, and incapable of death, dues not admit of union with what is " coessenl ial" in regard to " hy- postasis," but in regard to "nature;" whereas in regard to "hypostasis" it exhibits its own perfection'. So that, by '■ Compare Eplct. 11. resigned His pre-eminence abore the ■ ThUi w;is tin- one point for which holy angels, bul reassumed it al His Cyril Alex, contended: see his Ex- ascension, flic, in Orat. c. Art ii. 59, plan. ( ap. i\ 8. and Apol. ad Orient. Athan. takes it differently. 8, fcc. It i> stated by Pearson, On ' 'Ifttovai^fforo. Bee Ep. Epict. 8. the Creed, art. i ; " when our Be- ' This passage should be compared riour fasted forty days, there was do with one al the end of c. !'. where li«- other person hungry than that Son ..f argues thai "flesh," erea if deemed Ood which made the world," fcc, and "coessential with the Word," cannot Hooker, r. Si. .'{, "No person was be thought to lose its own subsistence, liorn of the Virgin but the Son of and therefore will on their own show- God." log be I "fourth" beside the Holy 1 Cf. <•. ApoDln. II. 10. \-> ( nil Three. Bo here, assuming their pre- a own by union: and thus lie who was God before the ages appeared as man, the Christ. And we are Eph. :>. members of Christ, as it is written, from His jlesh and from His bones. What then is the meaning of all these con- tentious inventions of yours, in that you employ human wisdom to make definitions beyond the scope of human thought , saving, "Instead of the inward man which be- longs to us there is in Christ a heavenly mind?" O what an unhallowed opinion, what weak and unbecoming words of men who do not understand in the first place this fact, that " Christ" is not spoken of in one way only, but by that one name itself is exhibited an indication of two tilings'', Godhead and Manhood! Therefore " Christ" is called Man. and " Christ" is called God, and "Christ" is God and Man, and "Christ" is one. Vain then is your sophism, whereby you attempt to contemplate something else in Him beside "Christ." For those who are in an im- ■ Pauatus tin- Manichean held that ther stretch of boldness to invent for 9 Cor. 5. K» was a retractation <>f them terms do! Found in Scripture." Rom. 1. 13. S. Aug. <". Faust, xi. 1. "A reluctance," SUVS Card. Newman, " See this iii New man's Tracts The- "to fix the phraseology of doctrine ol. ami Socles. p. 327. According to ... is historically contemporaneous Manes, v in was not s peirerse ex- with the must unequivocal dogmatic ercise of the soul's power of action, statements." Traits The.il. ami Be- but belonged to the original constitu- dee. p. S93. He adds that "no better tion ut the soul Itself, as Including an Illustration" of this "can be given than element of «• darkness." See SAD. tO the writings of AthaiMSiuS hii If." B. Augustine's Confessions, Lib. lath. Compare c Apollin. ii. 19. Theinevi- p. ajj. table inadequacy of all human terms rhey claimed to he philosophical in regard to the mystery of the theologians: Ureg. Nas. Bp. 101. Divine Being is earnestly enforced Rpiph. liar. 77. 30. Athanasiiis pro- hy Hilary, de Trin. ii. 6, 7, who Bayi tests sgainst over-defining in Bp. ad at the same time that hereej has Berap. 1. 17, In terms which might constrained the Church to use such almost seem capable "t being utilised terms. Cp. Newman, An. p. 37. by the tcacians. it Is, he says, " im- ' Above, c I", and below, <•. Apol> possible tor ns men" to ipeak worthily I'm. ii. -. Cp. Theod. Dial. ii. p. 7 1. ft*. .(limit things Ineffable . but it is s tm - His human Soul is His Mind. 103 proper sense q called "Christs r " may perhaps be contem- plated as such from your point of view, but He who is by nature the only real Christ will not be described by human reasoning, as you, who have become presumptuous, dare to describe Him. For neither prophet, nor apostle, nor any of the evangelists, has uttered these things which you who have become shameless in mind s undertake to say. For if Christ is another than the "heavenly mind" that has come to exist in Him, and the "mind" is perfect, then on your own shewing there are two (perfects *) and you are convicted of holding that opinion which you seem to de- nounce. As for a "heavenly mind," even the prophets had it, for they spoke of things heavenly, and of things future as if present. But why do you so much as think of saying this, as if the existence of an inward man in Christ were not a thing acknowledged? Why then will you say of the soul, that the body and the soul are the outward man u , as one might say of the blood and the flesh ? But as the body and the blood, being visible, do not escape handling and also wounding, you have to prove to us that the soul does not escape these things, inasmuch as it is also visible. Or, if you cannot prove this, the conclusion is plain, that the soul is neither seen, nor killed by man, S. Matt. 10 2S like the body, as the Lord has said. Be convinced, then*, * ' that the soul is our inward man, as is shewn by the ori- ginal formation, and made manifest by the subsequent dissolution, this also being shewn not only in our own case, but also in the death of Christ itself y , when the body went (only) as far as the sepulchre, but the soul went on to Hades : and since the interval which separates these places was great, and the sepulchre admitted the presence of the body, it was there that the body was i YLaTaxp-qariKios, a term applied by u Apollinarians held that the animal Arians to the lax or improper sense principle or 'soul' belonged to the in which according- to them the Son outer, the rational principle or 'mind' was called Word, Athan. Deer. Nic. 6. to the inner man. Horner, ii. 365. r See Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Monach. E. T. See c. Apoll. ii. 8. 11. "All the others are with reason x This passage is cited by Pearson called christs because they have been on the Creed, ii. 327, to show that anointed, but Emmanuel alone is the Fathers argued against Apollina- Christ and very God." rianism from the descent into Hades. K Literally, " in soul." >' The construction is irregular, 5«k- 1 See c. 1. vv\xivwv . . . ihilavvTo. 1 < ) 1 Man doomed to the grave and to Bad c.Aio! i.. present, while the incorporeal presence was admitted by '• Hades. 1 !. How was it thai when the Lord was present there incorporeally, He was regarded by death as man? It was in order that, by presenting to the souls detained in bon- dage that form 7 of His own soul which was incapable of t lie bondage of death, as if capable of it, a- pre en1 in their presence, He might fix the boundary-mark of the resurrec- tion, and break the bonds of the souls detained in Had that the Fashioner and Maker of man, and lie who had Subjected man to condemnation, might by His own pre- sence, and His own act in His own form, set man entirely free. For neither did death prevail so utterly as to bring the human soul of the Word under its dominion, to be de- tained in bondage; nor again did corruption tyrannically rend asunder the body so as to produce its dissolution, as if events were not under the control of Providence ''. I'm to entertain such a thought as to such a thing, is impious : but He who held the enquiry into the transgression, and gave judgment, passed the general doom in a twofold form, Gen. 3. saying to the earthly part, Earth thou, art, and to earth sliutt thou depart: — and so, the Lord having pronounced sentence, corruption receives the body: — but to the soul, II). 2. is. Thott slmlt die tin' death : and thus man is divided into two parts, and is condemned to go to two places. For this reason the action of Him who had pronounced sen- tence became neeo-ary, that lie might by His own act annul His own sentence, after He had been seen in the form of him that was condemned, but in that form as uii- eondeinned and sinle-s ; that the reconciliation of (iod to man' might conic to pass, and the freedom of the whole ■ Hop^ir — the form or specific cha- faith In a Providence would i>»" ihat- racter: see «•• Apoll. ii. 1 ; compare tered. Phil. •-'. <;. Ambrose explains "form* 1 ■ A thanaalus dearly considered the there at the perfection of nature and reconciliation of man to Ood in 91 or. of condition, Ep. \r>. ",. Set- below, 5. 19, 20 u Involving (primarily) a ii. ]. nciliation of God to man. (com- » Thai i^. might shew them thai pare the next words, "not imputing," their detention would hare a limit, mc) Bo 8. Clement of Rome, Ep. ad thai they would be reunited to their Cor. 18, ** that He, being made propi- bodies. tious, might be reconciled t<> ns: M '• I. r. if such an one as Chriat could end so In the "Clementine" Nti i» apposed capable of dissolution, all "II' propitiated Thee Ills own Ood set free by Christ's going to both. 105 of man might be effected by means of man, in the newness of the image of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now if you can point out another place of condemnation, you may with reason say that man is divided into three parts d , and that the recall from two places has come to pass, but that in the third that which was bound remains in bonds. But if you cannot point out another place, beside the sepulchre and Hades, from which places man has been perfectly set free, because Christ set us free in His own form which was like to ours, perfect and most real; how can you go on saying this, as if God had not yet been reconciled to man- kind ? How then was it that the Saviour came among us ? Was it as if He were unable to set free the whole of man e ? or as if He abhorred the mind which had once sinned, or feared that He Himself might become a partaker in sin, if He, being God, were to become perfect man ? But those who form this notion of the case are full of impiety. For what definition of sin is that which you give when you say this, asserting like the most impious Manicheans, that sin is natural f ? 15. When you hold these sentiments, you become accu- sers of the Maker of nature g . When God at the beginning formed Adam, did He make sin innate in him ? If so, what need was there then of a commandment ? And how was it that He condemned man after he had sinned ? And how was it also that Adam did not know good and evil before his transgression ? Him, ivhom God formed for incorrup- Wisd. 2. tion, and as an image of His own eternity, He made with a nature sinless and a will free to choose 11 : but through the and Father, and reconciled Thee to e See above, c. 5. Greg-. Naz. says, the world." Hammond, Liturgies, Ep. 101, that the mind specially need- East, and West. p. 16. See Dale on ed redemption, because, as physicians the Atonement, pp. 202, 492. (the say of illnesses, it was the first part Congregationalist Lectures for 1875.) affected (by human sin :) therefore it d Athanasius here virtually reduces specially needed to be assumed by the the" trichotomy" of "body, soul, and Redeemer. If God could save man spirit," (emphasized in S. Iremeus iv. apart from mind, He could do so apart 9. 1.) into a dichotomy, treating" soul from flesh, and spirit " as the inward man, in op- f Above, c. 12. position to "body" as the outward, K Quoted in the Sixth General See below, c. 18, and C. Apoll. ii. 17. Council as from the second book where he identifies soul and spirit. In against Apollinaris. Mansi, xi. ;>f>S. c Gent. .'}0 he had spoken <>f the mind h Avrf^ovaiou. See Orat. c. Arian. i. as residing in the soul. Compare Gre- tin. an Arian question— AuTe|ou[iU ^ ^ l( ' Son of God came that He might destroy the ;{. 8. works of the devil* What sort of works of the devil did the Son of God destroy? Because after God had made a nature in a sinless state, the devil perverted it into trans- gressing His commandment, and finding out deadly sin, therefore did God the Word restore for Himself this na- ture in a state wheh it was incapable of being perverted by the devil and of finding out sin : and therefore did the S.John Lord say, The prince of the world cometh, and findeth no- thing in me. But if the ruler of the world found in Christ not a single thing that was his, much more did Christ abandon to the ruler of this world nothing of His own handy-WOrk. Or this was another reason for his finding nothing in Him, — because Christ exhibited the principle of newness in its perfection, that He might accomplish in perfection the salvation of the whole of man, of reasonable soul and body m , that resurrection also might be perfect. In vain, then, do Arians" use sophistry, suggesting that 1 Tins allusion to the parable <>f say, in order to refer the Passion to tin- tans recurs in <■. 17. ii. '». In the Godhead," see Newman, Tracts, Or.it. c. Aii. ii.:; I he connects it with Theol. and Bccles. p. 258. and Athan. Arianism. cp. Mist. Ari. 14. Treatises, i. 11'.'. where tin- passage k BeeAthan.de Incarn. Verbi, 1,5. in the text is quoted, in Mai's Nova 1 Bee Ath. Treat, i. 842. Collect \ii. 17. tin- Arian Eudoxius, \ phrase In the Chalcedonian !>»■- bishop of Constantinople, is cited as Rnition <>! Faith. Compare the Qui- saying, "Neither « i i « t He take a bo- ennque, "ea anima rational! el bo- man soul, but also mighl be ascribed to Christ, nol i Scripture ascribes to Christ a thinking Soul, 107 the Saviour assumed flesh only, and impiously referring to the impassible Godhead the notion of suffering. And in vain do you also, from another point of view, but with the same thought as theirs, say that He used the form with which He was invested, that is, which was " instrumental,' 5 and (that) "in place of the inward man that is in us, there was in Christ a heavenly mind." And how then was He in pain, and in heaviness, and praying ? And it is written, He was troubled in spirit. Now these things do S. John not belong to a flesh without a mind, nor to an unchange- * ' able Godhead, but to a soul possessing thought, feeling pain, and trouble, and in heaviness, and intellectually sen- sible of suffering . 16. But if, then, you do not choose to think thus of this matter, there are three possible conceptions, unreality, and blasphemy, and reality ; and which will you choose ? For if you suppose that what was said was said in mere ap- pearance p , then what took place must also be deemed un- real i. And if it was really said, but the soul of the Lord had become altogether estranged from its own thought, in that it possessed God the Word as a Mind, then to think that the Unchangeable was changed so as to feel pain, and heaviness, and trouble, is impious : and if the Gospels do say that Jesus was troubled in spirit, yet the Lord indicates His " mind " in the words, My soul is troubled 7 . Now if lb. 12. the Lord indicates a thought of His own soul, He does so ' Man, but as Son of God, and so, ac- Christ had an " anima" but tbat God cording to tbeir doctrine, the Son the Son was His "mens." Compare might be found to be inferior to the Card. Newman, Athan. Treatises, ii. Father," de Sectis, iii. 4. (Galland. 383, ed. 2. 289. xii. 635.) See Tbeodoret, Epist. 104, ° See Orat. c. Ari. iii. 56. So Ba- that Arians say that the Word was sil, Ep. 261, that to flesh animated, itself instead of a soul, wbile Apol- the animal soul, it belongs to be linaris, inventing a difference be- weary ; to the rational soul, or soul tween such a soul and a mind, says employing a body, to be sorrowful. that tbe mind was absent: and that Tbeodoret says, Hrer. Fab. v. 13, that Arians are refuted by the distinctions in S. John 12. 27 " lie plainly express- which refers the lowlier language ed the agitation which the soul sus- about Christ to His " assumed na- tained," &C. ture," the loftier to His Godhead. p Ao/cTjo-et, cf. c. 2. Marios Mercator (ed. Baluz. p. 168.) i ^avrania. See Epict. 7; Orat. c. ascribes this opinion nut to Arius Ari. iii. 32; and Basil, Ep. 261. 3, himself, but to some Arians, and to "of His Humanity which was real Eunomius ; and thinks that Apolli- and not Kara . 52. Bee Card. Newman's Athan. Treat, ii. 169, ed. 2. The passage in the text is qaoted by Leontius, c Nest »-t Bat. i. « Bee c. 2. » The Ebionites held that Jesus was an ordinary man, justified mere- • That the movement «>f thong-lit or feeling was believed to be real, m>t merely assumed in order to show sympathy, although Mich sympathy «ras involved in it, is plain from the context, which may illustrate the re- ference in Drat. iii. ">7 to our Lord's deprecation of "the cup," &c. ' Here a saying of S. Paul's is treat- ed ;b sanctioned by ids .Master. u KoiroV, perhaps alluding to Beb. 10. 29. See Cyril Alex. Bp. ad Nestor. ."{. 7, ( Puaey p. 26) " not receiving it as common flesh ; " and Bxplan. 11, "not believing whal is set forth to be the body of ■ common man.' ' I. e. it helps us to a fuller view Of Him win. i> actually God, as His blood is efficacious through His Di- vinity. Cyr. ad Aread. p. 229. Comp. the Quicunque, v. 82, and the Tome of s. I , c. ."». Bee Orat. C Arian. iv. .';."•- v )9 ainov &fOpuirov Tf ku. i i en in the Semi* Arian Macroetich, He was owned as " t fad by nature perfect," Ai nan. de Bynodls. 26. Bo nn the other hand. Bpiphanius, Hasr. 17. 29 ; "Not as If ||.- dwell in a man. hut that lie Himself became Man wholly." And Hilar} de Trin. a. 59, " nabens in se .i totum rerumque quod l"'" 1 " i ' i totum i ei umque • i ' ' * " ' '*' '" ' ,s| : " ly Kara npoKon^v tfdovs, Eusel ). ill 17. note in Athan. Treatises, lib. i. i. 10. that a prominent tenet Se Fa of Paul of Samosata was thai our Lord became the Sen by wpoKOTr-fi <>r growth in holiness, ( i. e. attained to a titular and ethical Bonship.) See Athan. de Synodis 26, (the MaCTO- stieii condemning the doctrine) and Orat. c. Arian. i. 13. and especially iii. 5.1. So Greg. Nyssen. c Bunom. Orat. iii. says that the Word i^ ever Kim'-, ever Lord, ever most high, and ( K)d, ii"t ha\ big become MN oi these t \- wpOKOW^f. So Greg. Sa/. Bp. 101. " If any OOC shall Bay that He wis adopted as having become perfect in conduct, let him be ana- thema: for that which advances ( nyj. kovtop) or is perfected, i>< not Ood." So Cj til Alex, ad Arcadiam he. 1 1 . Pusej , p. 168. ) " \N <• do those <\>^ that the Emmanuel was called oKi>7T7}j." See a! on Tome 3. and because God, sinless as Man. 109 that the two should he one b , perfect in all things, the self- same God and Man. For on this account also did the Lord say, Now is my soul troubled and is in pain. The s - Jonn word "now" means, when He willed : hut nevertheless it exhibited what was in existence, for He was not mention- ing what existed not as if it were present, as if what took place was spoken of in mere appearance d , for all things took place by nature and in reality e . 17. Since then the Lord became man by nature, and not by a fiction f , it is not possible for you to raise an objec- tion with regard to ' sin,' either natural or actual, as in the Maker. For in our nature the strife of invention (of sin) and the introduction of the (evil) seed sown, are still going on, through our weakness ; but the Incarnation of the Lord, having taken place in connection with the nature of God g , involved an incapacity for those ways of acting which go on in us in consequence of our "old man 1 '," and on this account we are taught to put off the old man, and to Eph. W. put on the new. And in this consists the marvel — that the ' " Lord became Man, and yet apart from sin: for He became wholly a new Man 1 to exhibit what He could do. And all things that He willed by (His) nature k , and arranged, b Repeated from c. 7. the human mind or spirit in Christ c Cf. c. 6. " Our Lord's suspense was made to exist apart from an in- or permission, at His will, of the dependent human Ego, and apart operations of His Manhood is a great from any principle of selfwill. On this principle in the doctrine; of the [near- subject cf. Epiphanius, Ancorat. 79, nation." Athan. Treat, ii. 296, ed. 2. that, being- God, He could so hold to- d AoKrjaet. gether the various elements of a e See c. 10. complete Manhood as to make mora] f 0eVei, cf. Ep. Epict. 2. disorganisation impossible: and [her. k The phrase, Kara (pvcriv 0eoD, 77. 27, that all the elements of hu- means practically, "because He who inanity were in Him kept free from became Incarnate was really God," taint. So Mozley on Doctr. of Predest. or " was a Divine Person." Here, and p. 97, that He had no sinful propen- more fully in c. Apollin. ii. 6, he meets sions or "concupiscence." And F. one of the most popular of Apollina- W. Robertson, Sermons, i. 11(5: " He rian objections. If Christ had a hu- had no evil propensities at all, — do ten- man mind, how could such a mind be deney to sin." See below, p. 127. free from sinful tendencies ? He an- h Literally, ' from the oldness.' swers in effect, "The Divine nature ' Literally, * newness. 1 in Christ exempted the nature as- k ©extras rfj (pvaei, — as we should sinned by Him from all evil propensi- say, by the will of His Divine Per- ties : His manhood had nothing of sou, compare C. Apollin. ii. 10. See the 'old man.'" It could desire, e. g. Newman's Tracts Theol. and Eccles. power, or freedom from pain, but not p. 308 ff. that Cyril Alex, uses cpvo-is as to, be attained by deviation from the rov A6yov for the Divine Being ia will of the Father. In other words, the Person of the Son. 110 Christ had " true body to be buried, c.apoll. lie took upon Himself, whatever things lie willed', that is, the birth from a woman, increase of stature, numberii years, labour, and hunger ami thirst, and Bleep, and pain, and death™, and resurrection. Therefore also into the place where man's body underwent corruption did Jesus introduce His own body; and where the human soul was held fast in death, there did Christ exhibit the human soul as His own, that He who could not be held fasl in death might at the same time be present as Man. and un- loose the grasp of death as God: that where corruption was sown, there incorruption might Bpring up, and where death reigned in the form of a human soul ", the Immortal ( )ne might be present and exhibit immortality, and so make us partakers of His own incorruption and immortality, by l Cor. the hope of resurrection from the dead: so that the COT- ' ruptible might put on incorruption, and this mortal might Ron. :>. l )l 't ,,n immortality ; that as by one man sin entered into the l - world, iind death by sin, even so by one Man Jesus Christ might {/race reign through righteousness unto eternal life, as it is written. What then do you mean by saying, "In- stead of the inward man that is in us, there is in Christ a heavenly Mind:"" Do you grant that having separated the outward and the inward into two, He thus exhibited Him- self both in the sepulchre and in Hades p ? But it was not possible to pay one thing as a ransom in exchange for a different thing on the contrary. He gave body for body, and soul for soul, and a perfect existence for the whole of man: this is Christ's exchange, which the Jews, the foes S. Matt. n f life, insulted at the crucifixion, as they passed by anil shook their heads. For neither did I lades endure the ap- 1 Again an Irregular con s truction; Ing here. The thought, though ob- ra i)0tKi](Tt, TointiTTi -)<»■- Miuvly expressed, SeeiUS t,. In-. " You virtus. say thai Christ's s,.ni was i Divine, ■ i.e. in becoming Man, He placed not ■ human iouI; that this was Hi* Himself, as Man, under the law of Inward man. Well, but Christ's In- mortality, see Athan. Treat, i. 248; ward man, whatever it was, went into cp. c. 6: c l-'.pirt. 8. Hades. Now, what was it I »• 1 1 lli> ■ [.e. where the human soul, pre* s.ml and that s human one? Por < 1 ) sent In Ita reality, or true character, He could not redeem human soula by wis an Instance of the sovereignty of the price of s ><>ul that was non- death, human; ind (-) it b expressly taught >.•<• shove, ■-. _. that what went into Hades was s hu- ;:». i' Mt;t<7i ipparently has this mean- man S0tuV and a true sold to go into Hades. Ill proach of a Godhead unveiled^; this is attested both by Psal. 1G. prophets and apostles. ^ c " ts 2 18. Further, the truth of these observations will be seen 31. at a glance when we consider the dispensation r of the cross, how the Lord exhibited the reality of His flesh by tha pouring forth of His blood, and by the addition of water indicated its spotless purity, and that it was the Body of God s : and by crying aloud, and bowing the head, and S. Matt. yielding up His spirit, He indicated that which was within g jjjj, His own body, that is, the soul; of which also He said, / 19. 30. lay it down for my sheep t . So that one would not call His ^ ' breathing His last a withdrawal of Godhead u , but a depar- ture of the soul. For if the death, and the dying of the body, took place in virtue of a withdrawal of Godhead, then the death which He died was one peculiar to Himself, and not that which is ours. And how could He descend into Hades with His Godhead not under a veil ? In that case, where then was the soul, which the Lord promised to "lay down for the sheep," and concerning which the prophets made revelations beforehand ? But if what took place was a de- parture of the soul, then on this account it was said that He underwent the death that was curs, that is, by endur- ing the dissolution that befals us, as He also endured our birth. 19. Vain, then, is your sophism : for how could His death have taken place, if the Word had not constituted for Himself both our outward and inward man, that is, body and soul? and how then did He pay a ransom for all, or l Tim. 2. how was the loosening of the grasp of death completely effected, if Christ had not constituted for Himself, in a sinless state, that which had sinned intellectually x , the i See c. Apoll. ii. 17. between death and resurrection, - r See Tom. ad Antioeh. 7. the Personal never for a moment, s Above, c. 6, 10. This is not a c. Apollin. ii. 5, 14, 15, for it was common explanation of the symbolism "indissoluble," ib. 2, 5. Gregory the water from Christ's side. Nyssen dwells on this in Antirrhet. 1 Observe the two senses of \pvxv 55, to the effect that as Christ was as "soul" or "life." So Theodoret, sinless in soul and body. Mis Divine H;er. Fab. v. 13. nature remained entire' in each dur- u Hence it follows that the God- in g their temporary separation, and at head was with the body in the tomb the Resurrection was present in both and the with soul in Hades: the at once, to reunite and to revivify. "Vital Union" having been severed « Kara (pp6vr)onl, Bsek. which had Binned intellectually, as it is written, The tout l& '• that rinneth, it shall die? on behalf of which Christ laid down His own soul, (thus) paying a ransom?. Bui what was it that God originally condemned ? that which the Fa- shioner fashioned, or the action of what was fashioned? If God condemned that which the Fashioner fashioned, He condemned Himself, and He would then he like to men. But if it is impious to think this of God, and if He con- demned the action of the thing fashioned, in that case He 5ph. 2. annuls the action, and renews the thing fashioned. For we are a thing of His making, created unto good irorks. 20. But again, you say, "It is we who call Him who was from Mary, God z ." Why then do you speak as Mar- cion did, of God as having come to "visit" us a , and of God as having come to us intangibly, as having a nature not re- ceptive of human flesh ? Or why do you speak of God like Paul of Samosata? for this was the face which he put on his impiety, to acknowledge Him that was from Mary as "God "in this sense, that He was pre-ordained before the 5, but derived from Mary the beginning of His existence 6 . And he acknowledges in Him an operative 1 Word, from heaven, and Wisdom (thereby granting Him, on his own y The language of "redemption" and being in bet a " common" man, Is used by Atbanaaini in !><■ Incarna- Lb. Hi. 51. See the letter of the Conn, tione 2,5; in that tracl be also speaks dl of Antiocb, Euaeb. vii. .'!<>. M He of paying for man what was due from does not choose to acknowledge with bun, ib. 9, 20, and, in both places, us that the Sun of God came down of offering ■ sacrifice on his behalf, fromheaven." In his own language, Again in Orat. «•. Arian. ii. 67, " pay- Jeans was a Virgin-born man in whom ing the debt in our atead." Compare the Divine Wiadom dwelt more fully Oxennam, Cath. Doctrineof Atone- than to the prophets and in Moaea;i.e. meat, p. ill ; and Dale on the Atone- the indwelling, in this case, waaam- iii. Ma. p. 278, who says, " Athanasins, pier and fuller than in others: hut however, had tar larger and deeper still the relation between Wisdom and conception of the nature oi Chriat's Jesus was a connection by way of In- redemptive work than this metaphor strnction and participation, Dot ofac- (paying the debt ) would suggest." tual or personal union ; s,.,- above, on • They insist, -,i that then* tl ry Tome, 5. Cf. c. ApoU. U. 3. tJone could estabUsh the Divinity .if ' This Word or Wisdom, according Jesus ona sure footing. Co. «•. II. to Paul, was operative, but not per- ■ Cp. Tertull. adv. Marc. Iv. 7. sonal. The six Bishops who addressed h Paul of Bamosata, as Athanaaras him therefore insist that it was not says, held that Christ had become annraVrcrror, but an energy living and (tftnlaiiy) God, being ■ mere man, fanraVroros, Routb, Rell. Sac Ui.298« De Bynodia 15, not having existed s. n the Tome, 6. before His birth, Orat. C Arian. i. 26 He is God who became Man. 113 impious theory, more than you do,) just as you speak of a heavenly mind in an animated body. But neither is an animated body in itself q perfect man, nor is a "heavenly mind " in itself God. For we mean by an animated body one in regard to which the name of " soul" is used with the notion of real existence r . Now a man's body is called body, and not soul : and a man's soul is called (soul,) and not body, each being in relation to the other, that is, spirit 8 to body. For it is said, who knoweth the mind of \ Cor. 2. the Lord 1 ? The "mind of the Lord" is not of itself the l0> * Lord, but is the Lord's will or counsel, or action towards something. Why then do you desire such language, adul- 2 Cor. 2. terating the word of God by made-up words? But the 17, Church of God has neither received nor handed down this notion u , but rather, as it is written, that that God and Word who ivas before the ages with God came among us S. John at the consummation of the ages, and was born of the Holy jj e ] b ' 9 Virgin, and of the Holy Spirit x , Son of Man, as it is written, 26. Until she brought forth her firstborn Son, that He might be- S. Matt. come firstborn among many brethren, being Himself very ^^ God> r ; that He might both suffer for us as Man, and re- viii. 29. deem us from suffering and death as God. Vainly, then do you imagine that you can effect in yourselves the renewal of that which thinks and directs the flesh z ; imagining that you can do it by imitation a ; not considering that c imita- tion' is imitation of a preceding piece of work, for other- wise it could not be called imitation b . But in that it is •> Literally, 'at once,' = ipso facto. * Cf. c. Apollin. ii. 5. So in the r 'EwnoaroLTCDs. See on Tome, ti. first of the two Epiphanian Creeds, 8 Again he used \pvxv and Trvedfxa " of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin as equivalent terms, as in c. 14. Mary," Ancoratus ad fin. The creed 1 The Apollinarians' comment on of Nice and Ariminnm had said "of this text was, " You see that ' the the Holy Spirit, of Mary the Vir- mind of Christ' is different from our gin :" Ath. de Synod. 30. own." Epiphanius, Iher. 77,31, says * As in the Nicene Creed, and in that it is simply amazing that they Athan. Orat. c. Arian. iii. 41, "He should thus misuse it. He again was true God in the flesh, and true treats of it in Ancoratus, G7 ; and Gre- flesh in the Word." gory Nazianzen says, Ep. 132, that z See ahove, c. 2. they are said to " have the mind of a See c. 3. Christ " who have purified their mind b I.e. "On your theory, there is by imitation of, and regulated their no model of a renewed human mind lives according to, that mind which presented to you in Christ for your the Saviour assumed on our hehalf. imitation : you have destroyed your u See Epict. 3. exemplar." I Heb. l!». Rom 0. .5. S.Jo I.n 1 1 I Variations of Apollinarianism. CApoll. only flesh which you acknowledge to bo renewed in Christ, you go astray and blaspheme. For if it were possible for men to effect for themselves, apart from Christ, the re- newal of that which directs the flesh, (and what is directed follows that which directs it,) what was the use of Christ's coming amongst us? 21. Those also talk groundlessly who say, that the Word so came, as lie did to one of the prophets . F ; oomp. <•. Apoilin. ii. 16. <•. Ariaii. i. 15, -l. he. Dc Deer. Ni< - . : Compare tin- Quicunque, \. i. Conclusion. 115 number of Principles 1 and Gods, settled himself in Judaical sentiments k ; so also Manichseus, disbelieving in the Lord's Incarnation, and in His becoming Man, became altogether impious, saying that man was subject to two Makers, an evil and a good: in like manner you also calumniously say, that we say there are two Sons 1 , and call us " man-worship- pers m , w or make an objection on the score of "sin 11 ," not in order that you may be truly religious, but that you may show off your own error as making good way by help of your evil inventions, and turn away the unstable from the faith by means of your impious words. Yet the solid foun- 2 Tim. 2. dation of God standeth, having this seal. ly - 22. This I have written, dear friend, although, in the truest sense, the Evangelic tradition being sufficient, no- thing more was necessary to be written : but I have written because you asked about the faith that is in us, and also for the sake of those who like to talk at random about their inventions, and do not consider that he who speaketh CfS.John from what is his own, speake'h a lie. For it does not come 8- 44, within the reach of man's mind to express the beauty or glory of Christ's body; but at any rate, it is possible to acknowledge what has taken place as it is described in Scripture, and to worship the God who is, that His love may be glorified and acknowledged, and we may have a hope of salvation, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. Those who confounded the Persons Epist. 210. 3. would accuse their Catholic oppo- l Comp. Greg. Naz. Epist. 101. nents of dividing- the substance. m See c. Apollin. ii. 12, and above ' See on Epict. 9, Compare the c. 11 ; Greg-. 1. c. Eucharistic Preface and Tersanctus. n See c. 17. k Here Sabellianism, as often else- ° Here apparently " Evangelic tra- where Arianism, is called by Athana- dition " means the Gospels, compare sins Judaical. So expressly S. Basil : Ep. Adelph. 6. But this, of course, " Sabellianism is a Judaism," because is an unusual sense of the word, it denied the preexistent Sonship, 3. 16. ON THE SALUTARY APPEARING OF CHRIST, AND AGAINST APOLLINARIS. HOOK II. 1. Let those who do not acknowledge our Lord Jesua Christ ;:s one, from God and man, as, it is written in" the S.Luke Gospel, who was Son of Adam, /"/to was Son of God, tell Phil. 2. lls '" wna * I'udit they regard Him who existed as God /'// G,7. flic form of God, and took the form oj the servant, or how ■• Johnl. they understand the text, The Word became flush and dwelt among us h . For lie who said, The Word became flesh, said is .i„i„, thai He (/ore His life for us. Do they suppose the Word to have undergone a conversion into flesh', or been made ''like-" to soul, or to have exhibited the human form in mere semblance, as the other heretics ll erroneously Bay? But the Apostle docs not allow of this, having told us who He was, and what lie received. For as "the form of God n is understood to mean the fulness of the Word's Godhead*, BO too "the form of the servant " is acknowledged to mean the intellectual nature of man's constitution, with its in- R.John Btrumental system j( bo that by "was" the Word should be understood, and '•became" should be acknowledged to refer to the Besh, with the soul, which is called u form of a '•• Apollin. i. s. ■ C. ApoIHn. i. \i. Compare the Proclui of Constantinople In Quicunque, v. 35. tame " to the Armenians ; iliat ,! Docetss. Comp. Ep. Epict 7. both the text*, "He became Besh," AdeJph. 2; c. Apouin. 3. and, M He took the Form <>f ■ nervant," « All the attributes of tin- Qodhead be held together. "The two, are included in f. So he understood in an orthodox sense, are says in Oral. <•. Arian. iii. 6. See eeds of salratl d. Forbj * !><•- Lightfoot on Phil. 8. 6. thai i came' tin- Evangelist Intimates the ";■■> osed t<. denote th<- specific indivisible character of the perfect rafter ..f ■ thing. Abp. Trench de- union:... and the wnl 'took* ex- fines i'.-. ••;■;., 0«oS to be " the manner presses the unchangeablenesa of tl f existence <>t (Jod," N. i. By- nature:" (i.e. that the Incarnation on nonrms, I the one band iras most true and per- ' The bodilj organism being the sonal, bnt that it implied no " confer- instrument of the soul. ( t. .-. Apol- ■ion of Godhead into flesh.") Mand, lin. i. •_'. i .. Crril, adv. Orient. 1. ]. 1 The name " Christ" implies the Manhood. 117 servant/ 5 being understood to be a certain intellectual con- stitution. On this account, man, when reduced to a state of death, is called " formless g ," and is wholly dissolved, since the soul, whose nature is indissoluble, has withdrawn from the body. Wherefore Paul adduces the evidence of the intellectual nature, but John of the " instrumental ex- hibition " of the body; so that both might proclaim the whole mystery of the economy 1 '. For it is plain ' that the preexistent God the Word, before He came among us in flesh, was not man, but was God with God, being invisible and impassible. 2. Nor is the name " Christ " employed without refer- ence to the flesh : for the name implies the Passion and death, as Paul writes, If the Christ toas passible, if He was Acts 2<>. first to rise from the dead: and elsewhere he says, Christ ^ £ . our Passover has been sacrificed, and the Man Jesus Christ 7. ivho gave Himself a ransom for us. Not that Christ is not 5 6 im ' " God, but that He is also Man. Therefore he says, Re- 2 Tim. 2. member Jesus Christ raised from the dead, of J he seed of h ' David according to the flesh. And therefore Scripture, when setting forth His being, introduces both names k , in- asmuch as invisibly He is thought of as, and really is, God, but visibly he is handled as, and really is, Man: not by a division of persons l or names, but by natural genera- tion, and indissoluble m union : so that while the Passion is s Aristotle says, Metaph. vi. 10, that sanction of the doctrine of the One the tyvxv of animals (that is, the es- Person and two Natures of Christ senceofan animate being) "is to such defined by the great Councils of the a body rb ddos na\ rb ri i,v that," the fifth century. Con)]). Orat. c. Ari. form "and that which makes it to be iii. 21) — 32. Newman, indeed, takes what it is; and in Metaph. x. 2 he uses irpoawrrojv in both places to mean e?5os as equivalent to /xopcp-f], as in vii. "characters," Athan. Treat, i. 1/2. 2 the tyvxh i s called the eWpyeiaof the But in c. 10 an existence of Godhead body, and euepyna is connected with and Manhood is distinguished from a fxopcp-fj. (These references are sufr- duality Trpoff&iewv. Athan. was familiar vested by the Rev. H. R. Bramley, with the use of vp6pi(TTos tj &Kpa evaxris, eil, March 7, 681 (Mansi, xi, ;}5i).) Apol. adv. Orient, f (Pusey, p. 290) ; k See c. Apollin. i. 10. compare below, c. .">. 1 1, 15. See on 1 See in c. 10 another anticipative c. Apollin. i. 18. Gr< con- II. 118 Thi Son is "Christ" as J 'near mil V. I 1 1 . truly acknowledged to have taken place in Him, He the self- same should be at the same time really acknowledged to be both passible and impassible . How then could the Word being God, become " Christ" before lie became Man ? For if the name "Christ" belongs to the Godhead apart from flesh , it must also be applied to the Father and the Holy Spirit : and the Passion itself will be common to Them, Sfl some' 1 erroneously say. Will you say that God the Word Himself, who is impassible and incorporeal, was capable of suffering and death, even before He was incarnate and be- came man? But how could the Son, who is coessential with the Father, and inseparable from Him in regard to the Divine Nature, be called passible, whereas lie is un- changeable and unalterable, unless He had taken from the Virgin's womb the entire form q of man's constitution in Himself, and become man, that He might alone be man in Buffering, and unchangeable as being God? 3. For therefore also did the anointing take place ; not as if God needed an anointing, nor again as if the anointing took place without God, but that God both applied the anointing, and received it in the body which was recep- tive of it r . It is plain then that the Word did not become Christ apart from human flesh, by dividing Himself into a " show" of flesh 8 or a "likeness" of soul; but remain- ing what He was', He took the form of the servant, that demning those who say " that His holy Arcad. &c 1-, thai He was Darned Besh is now laid aside," Bp. 101. the Christ alter He was anointed Epiphanius says, Christ's Manhood with the Holy Spirit, fPusey, p. 169 ;1 rannol be pot off, Hawr. 77. 23. In com}). Bxpl. 7. Tel in (Mat. c. An. the " Reformatio Legum " some here- iv. .'Mi Athan. says thai the Word was tiis ire referred to as holding the the " Chrism;" and S. Augustine says contrary, j>. 10. Compare the Second that the anointing took place, not at Article of Religion. the baptism, bul at the Incarnation, ■ c. ApoDin. i. 11. de Trin. \\. 26. - Both," sayi Bp. ■ Irrespectively of the Incarnation ; Pearson, "may well consist together," see below, c 14. Bxp. Creed, i. 1 7'.'. Noetiansor Patripassians. ' Becc ApoIDn. i. 19. BlBej is used in Orat. <•. Arian. iii. ■ This momentous phrase, which ;;. "the form . . . and Godhead of the recurs in «•. 16, is tdopted by Cyril, Father:" lb. 6; M the Son is the «l8os "Although Me assumed Besh and of the Father, the lather's rfBoi i s in blood, na\ f.itf.itvriKus inrtp i)i . > Him:** so too ib. 16. Here it is applied JnXordV*,* 1 Bp. ad Nest. ;<. ;{. "Al- to the whole of man's nature. though He continued to he what lie r I.e. when the Holy Spirit ile- was," Kspl.in. 2. See heh-w, e. ||J. icended on Him al His baptism, Orat. andef. c7< The phrase becam< I e. \ri. i. 17 (sec note there, Athan. tholic watchword in the West also; Treat. I. 848.) Bo Cyril Alex, ad see B. Augustine, Berm. 184, (tor Heresies deny a true Incarnation. 119 form not being devoid of a real existence openly manifested by means of Passion, and resurrection, and the whole eco- nomy, as has been written and made clear. Tell us then, how you suppose " God " to have come into being at Naza- reth : for all heretics are wont to say this, as Paul of Samo- sata u acknowledges " God " from the Virgin, " God," seen as from Nazareth and as having from thence had the begin- ning of His existence and received the beginning of King- ship : and he acknowledges in Him a Word " operating " from heaven, and a Wisdom, and that He existed in pre- destination before the ages, but was manifested in actual being from Nazareth, so that, as he says, the "God over all " might be one, the Father x . Such is his impious theory. And Marcion and Manichacus say that God has come among us through the Virgin, and come forth in- tangibly and as being incapable of communication with human nature, which had fallen into sin, and was subject to the ruler of wickedness y : for that if Christ had taken this nature in Himself, He would both be subject to the ruler of wickedness, and would not be free from sin : but that He exhibited from Himself at His pleasure 2 a flesh of His own " like to ours/' which was seen as having come from heaven, and which passed into the heavens, and was whole Godhead. Valentinus, again, speaks of suffering as common to the Trinity, imagining the flesh to be a part of Godhead \ And Arius b acknowledges flesh alone, in order to a concealment of the Godhead, and says that in- stead of that inward man which is in us, that is, the soul, the Word came to exist in the flesh : — for he dares to as- cribe to the Godhead c the idea of suffering and the resur- Christmas Day) " Eum assumpsisse the " first Sirmian " creed, anath. 5. quod non erat, et permansisse quod ? This, with both, was the lord of erat :" Serm. 186, " manens quod matter or principle of evil. As to erat." So Card. Newman, Ath. Treat, what " sin " meant for Manes, and ii. 426. ed. 2; " All that He ever had what interpretation his system gave continued to be His : what He took to the work of Jesus, see S. Aug". on Himself was otdy an addition," Conf. Lib. Fath. p. 322. &c. cf. ib. 384. z See Athan. Treat, ii. 297. ed. 2. ■ C. Apollin. i. 20. a See on Epict. 5. x That is, that Jesus, as a titular b Cp. c. Apoll. i. 15. God, might be absolutely separated c Not, of course, to the real God- from the one true God, tbe Father, head, but to the supposed created God- The notion that He preexisted only in head ascribed by Arians to the Son. God's foreknowledge is condemned in See on Ad Afros, 5. 120 Apollinarians mask Vocetism C.Apoll. rection from Hades. And Sabelliua expresses the o])inions of Paul of Samosata and bis followers: for, dreading the division invented by Arius 1 , he fell into the error which roya (the personal distinctions e .) Now to whom <1<> you attach yourselves, or whom do you mean to assist? Or arc you as the Baying is, "of a mixed race ' ? " For by disbelieving the "union V you have come to terms with all the above named heretics: and by denying the "com- pleteness V 3 y uu have gone the length of destroying, while professing to dread " division." Now as those who di- vide are mad, and those who abate arc in error, so those who destroy are lost: for the Economy 1 took place, and the truth was manifested, and the grace was attested, as real. 4. Why then do you employ sophistical pretexts? why do you use hypocritical concealment k , and not say openly that he did not " become man, having taken the form of the servant," hut that He "was seen as (if) man ?" This q lion is suggested by your language, when you repeat, by way of pretext, "the same" and "the same." For this reason you calumniously attempt to run down the true economy, saying, "They call Christ a man who was dei- "fied 1 . And what do they make of the text, In the be- "ginning i>-<:s the Won! .■ and, He took the form of a servant, "and became man? It is said to mean either a man who " was with God, or a man closely linked to (Jod m , or a man rl "Sabelliua" is rhetorically used human nature." Hooker r. 54. 1<>. fur the Sabelliana of that period, as ' Sec mi the Tome, 7. "Arias" I'nr Mime ( if the Ari.ins. k Greg. Nas. Bays thai "when they c Cf. the Tome, 6. spoke out t.. their initiated, they bard- <«pv\ot. Plat. PoUt. 291. ly allowed even flesh t«. the Saviour," Phe real union of Godhead with Ep. 102. a human body and mind: Apollina- ' The Apollinarians accused the Ca- rians, a> Athanasius adds, professed tholics of believing in this deification to be sealons for a " union," in their of a man, of being " Man-worship- own sense, a " thorough union," and pers." Bee on Ep. Bpict. _. Bp. accused the Catholics ol dividing Adelph. 8. It was what Tan! Christ Into two persons. mosata had held; and it was Involved u ApoUlnaris is quoted in Mai, Nova in the theory of Nestorius. Bo Pro- Collect. viL 810, as saying that Christ < - ln». in his discourse on the Incar- was not whole man nor whole <;•• own Rph. 3. will: so that the Gentiles should be of the same body and jointly partakers of Christ, as also the Apostle writes : that man might he truly God*, and God might be truly man, that lie might be truly Man and truly God: not that "a man was with God," as you calumniously say, disparaging the mystery 8 of Christians: but that God, the Only-begot- ten, was pleased by the fulness of His Godhead, to set up again for Himself, from the Virgin's womb, through a natural birth and an indissoluble union , the originally formed man c , and (to make) a new handywork, that He mighl perform the business of salvation in men's behalf, working out the salvation of men by Buffering and death and resurrection. 6. But you say' 1 , "If He assumed all, then assuredly "He had human thoughts: but it is impossible that in "human thoughts there should not be sin: and how then -will Chris! be ' without sin ?' * Tell us then; [f God is the maker of thoughts which lead to sin, to God we mu>t refer 4 1 1 is own production: for He came to refer to Ilini- ' AoKi',iT(t, -•••• ll|>. Epict, 7. &r. " Man became God," in the proper " c. Apollin. i. 80. sense of such words. See below on c7« x Bp. Bpict, .">. * I. e. the sacred revealed truth, tbe ( . Apollin. i. •'{. They r op re scn - "mystery of godliness M or of true !<•- ted the Catholics as holding this. Ugion, m Card. Newman, Ath. Treat. ; ' Seec*S; compc 11. U. 328, ed. 9. "While it be true to say, ' , c Apollin. L I. Man i>> God,' as well as to say, 'God ,] s<-<- »■. Apollin. i. 17. The chap ni- ls Man,' ii Is not true to say,* Man !»•■- ter in the text i> dted In the acts "t came God,' . . . .i^ i t is true to say,' God the sixth < teneral Council, Mansl, \i. • became Man/" Bo 8. Tho. Aqurn, 861. Bee on c Apoll. i. 17. Sum. :t. 16. 7. thai we cannot say • Literally. " attach." Objection as to "Sin" considered. 123 self what He Himself had made ; but in that case the judgment which condemns the sinner will be unjust, for if God made thoughts which lead to sin, how can He con- demn the sinner ? and how is it possible for any such judgment to proceed from God? And if Adam was sub- ject to such thoughts before he disobeyed God's com- mandment f , how could he be ignorant of good and evil ? He was rational by nature, and free in thought, without experience of evil, knowing only what was good, and as it were a " solitary e " being : but when he disobeyed God's commandment, he became subject to thoughts leading to sin ; not that God made the thoughts which were taking him captive, but that the devil by deceit sowed them h in the rational nature of man, which had come into trans- gression, and was thrust away from God; so that the devil established in man's nature both a law of sin, and Rom. 7. death as reigning through sinful action; for this cause, j ^ e j omi then, did the Son of God come that He might destroy the 3. 8. ivorks of the devil. But you say, " He destroyed them in that He sinned not." But that is not a destruction of sin \ For the devil did not originally produce sin in man in order that when He came into the world, and sinned not, sin might be destroyed : but the devil produced sin by sowing it in the rational and intellectual nature of man. Therefore it became impossible for that nature, being rational, and having sinned voluntarily, and incurred condemnation to death, to recall itself to freedom k : as the Apostle says : What was impossible for the law, in that it Rom. 8. was weak through the flesh. Therefore the Son of God 3 * came to restore it by His own act, in His own nature 1 , by a new beginning and a wondrous "generation : " not by f Although he was created capable sanctity would have presented to it of falling into sin, he was endowed no point of contact whereby it could with full power to withstand it, and have been rescued from the power of bad in fact been free from it. sin. b Mou6tpottos, alluding to Ps. 68 k See Athan. de Incarn. Verbi. 7. (IjXX. 07) 7. ' *wcts here, as elsewhere, e. g. h 'Eiriairfipas, alluding to the pa- c. 10. indicates the Divine Nature of rable of the tares. Cp.C. Apollin. i. Christ, in which He existed as God, 15, 17. and Ath. Treat, ii. 274, ed. 2. and with which He entered on His * Unless the Son had assumed the redemptive work, super-adding to it a inward nature of man, and thereby true humanity. In De Syn. 52. it redeemed it, His own simply Divine means His Person. 124 Manhood in Christ was without tin* C.Apoll. making a partition of the original constitution m , but by contradicting that principle of contradiction" which had ba.7.16. been "sown in" with it, as the Propb . in--. He- fore the child shall know good or evil, He refuses evil in order to ch< nl. But if Binlessnesa bad nol Been in the nature which had sinned", how could Bin have Rom. & been condemned in the flesh, when that flesh had no ca- pacity for action' 1 , and the Godhead knew not sin? And Rom. 5. whv did the Apostle Bay. Where sin abo\ race did /,/ uch more abound, (not as if describing a place, but indi- |l) - 1*« eating a nature) that, he says, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, SO by one Man, Jesus Christ, might grace reign through righteousness unto eter- nal ///'<• : so that the nature by which the advance of sin took place, might be the very nature" 1 through which the exhibition of righteousness should take place; and in this way, the works of the devil might be destroyed by the emancipation of man's nature from sin, and God might be glorified ? 7. But again you say, rt If Christ is man, lie must be a part of the world: and a part of the world cannot save the world." What a fallacious notion! what a blasphe- mous absurdity'! For let them say from what Scripture comes this dictum, or sophism of the devil, since the Pro- Pi. W. phet says, A brother redeems not, a man shall redeem*; 4g\ s ' and elsewhere. And a man was bum in her, and the Most High Himself founded her. How then can it be that Christ, who became man, did not save the world! when i! is plain indeed that the nature in which sin was gene- ■ I.e. nut is if the evil thing, sin, which Christ's Godhead is called His which bad no place in Him, was pari fiats, the term is also applied t<> His «.f man's nature, so thai He left a pari mauhood, as in (hat. c Arian. iii. S3, of thai nature unassumed. .">s. Cp. c. Apollin. i. 19; and see be- " literally, "rejecting thai rejec- low, c. It, See Card, Newman, timi." Tin- Tempter, be means, had A than. Treatises, ed. 2, ii. 128, tnd Infused into man's sail a disposition Tracts Theol. and Bed. p. 311. to se( aside, or abrogate by self-will, r There is s plaj i the law of < tod. This disposition was fardVoMS, BS i! to saj , " To lia\ e such a now itself sel aside, or abrogated, by though! in your mind, is to go out ,.f tin- absolute slnlessness of Christ, your mind." " Cited in note to Athan. Treatises, ■ \\r\r ■ \ ,,,,_ i. I'll. derstood affirmatively, nol Inten '■ Nol being human, having no bu- tively, and tin- fsalmist's mean man mind (-> art through it. misapprehended. S.. in thr Vi.' li. ir. in the lame chapter in bul nut in Jerome's Psalter. The Soul not essentially sinful. 125 rated is the nature in which the abundance of grace has Rom. 5. taken place. Now what is the abundance of grace? It '* consists in this, that the Word, remaining God \ became Man, in order that having become Man, lie might be be- lieved to be God : as Christ, being Man, is God, because being God, He became Man", and in form of man saves those who believe. For if thou shall confess with thy Rom. 10. mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Now God is incapable of being put to death, nor does He need re- surrection, but He raises from the dead. Wherefore it became necessary that God should have something which Heb.8.3. He could offer up for us x , either in death or in life: so that it is just because the W T ord became man, that He saved us. 8. But again you say, "But how can the nature which had become accustomed to sin, and has received the trans- mission y of sin, be without sin ? It is impossible : Christ, on that view, will be like one among men." This was what Marcion also thought : this was the conclusion which o Manicheeus also brought forward, placing the flesh and the very birth, of man under the sway of the ruler of wicked- ness, and entitling him "Potentate 2 :" since he by whom one 2 S. Pet. is overcome is he to whom one is brought into bondage. 2 ' ly ' These are they whose opinions you are reviving, while by a different method you give over the intellectual nature of man, which is understood to be the soul, and define it to be incapable of escaping sin, and have in the plainest terms described the soul as "fleshly a ," on whose authority I know not, for this cannot be found in the Holy Scrip- 1 Above, c. 3. 10. that " the limits of humanity" as u SeeOrat. c. Arian. i. 39 ; "It was assumed by Him "called Him to this not that being man, He afterwards function." became God : but, being God, He y Aiadox^u. This transmission is afterwards became Man." The Ma- just what the Pelagians denied. crosticl) Creed is e t uite right in say- ■ 'EZovo-tcHrrriv. The Manieheans ing, "not first man and then God, called " the prince of the kingdom of but first God and then becoming' man darkness" by various names, one be- for us," Ath. de Syn. 26. ing, says Augustine, c. Faust, xx. i>, x This bears out the tenth anathe- "Spiritum potentem." matism of Cyril, which insists that * They bad associated body and the Word Incarnate is Himself (as soul as making up the outward man. Man), the High Priest of men. See c. Apollin. i. 13. Cyril, K p. ad Nest. 3. 9 ; and Expl. 12G The Soul not "fleshly" nor per se sinful. CApoll. turcs, nor in tlie genera] sense of men, since the Lord Bays, s. Matt M ( ' n °t ofraid of them that kill the body, but arc not able to 10. 28. kill the Soul. And if the soul is as you s;iy, u fleshly," why docs it not die and decay with the body ? and again, why did Peter call the souls detained in Hades "spirit-." say- 1 s. ivt. ing, He went to announce the good news o/ the resurrection 8.30. f if lc spirits shut up in prison^. But you apply to every- thing the phrase "contrary to nature," in order to avoid giving a natural account of the Economy, and so Btating the truth about the Word, that the Word truly became Man. For you have said that it is God's voice that Bays, 8en. s. The mind of man is sedulously devoted to evil from youth ; 21. 1. XX. not understanding that by saying, "from youth," He in- dicated what was "sown in afterwards" and perishable. Acts 2. Therefore did the Lord swear a faithful oath auto David, :in - that of the fruit of his body He would raise up tin- Christ nj'ter the flesh: not to be "seen as" a man in consequence of a change of Godhead c — for then what need was there for the Lord to swear unto David? but as having taken the form Gal. 4. 4. of the servant, when He submitted to be horn of a woman, s. Luke and to grow in stature as we do, as the Apostle Bays, Since Heb.2 ff "' n ffu ' cftl, ' Jr ' JU were partakers of flesh and blood, He also 1 J. Himself likewise partook of the same. " Likewise," be- cause not from seed, but from the Spirit; "of the same." because not from any other source, but from the seed of David, and of Abraham, and of Adam, as it is written. '.). Why then, passing by the Holy Scriptures, and the manifestation of the truth, do you say, "If lie wafl not of u His own will seen as a man' 1 , but took human existence 6 "and became man, then He was combined ' with a man, '■ A wry u l,-i\ " quotation. Com- Theodore! answers, The likeness was pare Cyril Alex, de Rects Plde ;i«l dependent on the form, which, in Theodos. 29, (Posey, p. 70.) "while regard to man, aa t.» God, implies ll«- preached t<> the souls in Hades, nature, Dial. I. p, 12. He had s garment of His own, that ■ "Tvo^tr used, as in ad Afros 4, for ■on] which was united to Him." vni'l DO trace of Orl- 7?eray tra\iv rh ytvos rh avQpunivov, (final sin, and no affinity with evil," speaking of the gift <>f tin* knowledge Hutcbings, Mystery of the Temp- of God. tation, p. 111!. These were exelw- ■ frfVci here means "in reality:" ded by the relation of His Manhood «•. Apollin. i. 16, 17. and cp. lb. 7. to Hi^ Person. Vet that Manhood ■ Literally, "from the first forma- could feel, rery Intensely, cravings don." See e. ."». both physical and moral, innocent in > See this in Newman's Tracts themselves, as to which the question Theol. and Eccles. i>. 889; rump. would arise, Could they not be gnu Ath. Treat, ii. 838, ed. 9. The tified without prejudice to the law of Monothettte Macariut sdduced this obedience? There could not, even for passage in the eighth sitting of the a n -lit, be a question of gratifying sixth (Ecumenical Council, Mansi, them in conscious opposition to that al. 864: hut, it was remarked, with, law. Bee Hutchlngs, np, 121 — 140. out the context as to the whole of k Compare B. Ignatius, Ephes. l!>. the first Adain being assumed by the Mill nn the Temptation, p second. The desires or thoughts ex- 1 See it j. ii. Compare Ori- eluded bj Athanaahn hem the Man- gSSl e. ( ,|s. v. 'AJ. hood Of Christ are sueh as are sinful. Bo In De inearn. Verbi, ll. «\\ f - Compare c. ApolHn. i. 17. An ictual His Manhood free from all taint. 129 (was present) under the exhibition of the human form and visible flesh of the second Adam, not by a division of per- sons^ but by the real existence of Godhead and Manhood. For on this account did the devil draw near to Jesus, as to a man, but not finding in Him a token of the old " seed sown" in man, nor any success of his immediate attempt, he was defeated, and gave way in confusion, and being en- feebled, said, Who is this that cometh from Edom, that Is. 63. is, from the land of men r , walking with force and strength ? ' Therefore also the Lord said, The prince of this world com- s. j i, n eth, and findeth nothing in Me. And yet we are taught 14.30. that the Second Adam had both a soul, and a body, and the whole of the first Adam. For if the word "nothing" had referred to the real being of man, how came he to find denial of a human will in Christ would have been out of place in an argument against the Apollinarians, who put that denial into a pointed form ; see Apollinaris quoted by Greg. Nyss. Antirrhet. 31 . In the De [near, et c. Arian.c. 21, ascribed, but improbably, to Athanasius, there is an express assertion of two wills, one human, the other Divine, the human depre- cating suffering, the Divine ready for it. This passage was read in the ninth sitting of the Council as Atha- nasian, Mansi, xi. 381 : again in the tenth sitting, ib. xi. 400. Another passage of Athanasius, professing to be a comment on " Now is my soul troubled," was read in the fourteenth sitting, ib. xi. 597; and clearly assert- ed two Wills, one Divine, the other human, the latter being that which Christ calls His own in S. John 6. 38, tbe former inseparable from the Will of Clod, for whereas all men have more or less " wrenched themselves away from the will of God, in Christ alone was preserved the inseparable- ness of the will," (The absolute iden- tity of the Divine will of the Son with that of the Father is strongly accen- tuated.) This passage was quoted by three Cypriot bishops, who said that the tract whence it was taken existed entire in their country as part of the contents of " the book of S. Athana- sius;" but they had also found the same tract, on "Now is my soul trou- bled," — in a very old MS. of different Homilies of Athanasius, which they had found during the Council's sit- tings. Part of the passage — " It was necessary that the will of the flesh should be moved, but should be sub- jected to the Divine Will ; " and " calling the will of the flesh His own, for the flesh became His own," was embodied in the dogmatic formulary of the Council, Mansi, xi. 637. If the text were to be pressed strictly against a human will in Christ, a contradic- tion would follow at once, for it as- cribes to Christ the "form of man ;" but this has been defined above, c. 1, to mean the whole intellectual con- stitution of man, and He possessed the whole of the first Adam : and the context has urged that Christ took in a sinless state " the nature which had sinned ;" but that nature must have included a will, of which sin was the misuse. What Athanasius means to assert is, that Christ had not "the law of sin," cf. c. Apollin. i. 7, and that all His volitions were absolutely in accordance with the will of God. "A twofold 'voluntas' is quite compa- tible with a single ' volitio,' " Klee, quoted by Liddon, Bamp. Lect. p. 263. i See c. 2. and c. Apollin. i. 11. Athanasius seems to mean, Not that there are two Persons, God the Word and a human .Jesus, but that Godhead and Manhood did really exist in the one Person of the Saviour. Compare the Quicunque, v. 34. r Is there a confusion of Edom with Adam ? 130 Christ truly one with us as Man. c.Apoll. the visible body of Him who Baid "nothing?" But he did ii. - not find in him the things which he himself had produced in the first Adam; and thus was sin destroyed by Christ. 1 S. Ph. Therefore also the Scripture testifies, Who did no sin. >"i- titer was guilt found in his mouth. 11. Why then do you say, " It is impossible s that man, who has once been made captive, should be set free from captivity," so as to ascribe impotence to God and power to the devil, while you say, like the rest of the heretics 1 , that sin cannot be destroyed in the nature of men, and that therefore the Godhead, which was not made captive, came in the "likeness" of soul and flesh, that it might re- main itself out of captivity, and so righteousness might be seen as "clear?" When then was the righteousness of the Godhead not "clear?" And what benefit was hereby con- ferred on men, if it was not in identity of being u and new- ness of nature that the Lord was seen, as the Apostle says, Heb. n>. The way which He made new for us, fresh and living, - s John ln< i) I am the wa lh an d the life, and the truth ? But you 1 L ,; - say that those who believe are saved by likeness and by imitation, and not by the renewal and the " first fruits V Col. 1. Why then did Christ, who is the head of the body, the Rom 8 Church, become firstborn among many brethren, and first" 29. fruits of them that slept ? For a faith which has its object in full view cannot be called faith: but faith is thai which believes the impossible to be possible y , and the weak to be strong, and the passible to be impassible, and the cor- ruptible to be incorrupt, and the mortal to be immortal. Eph. :>. This mystery is great, as the Apostle says, but I speak in reference to Christ anil to the Church. For the Godhead came not to justify itself, for it had not Binned: but He • A sample of the I priori assump- is to have ■ perfect pattern set before tions, to which ApolUnarians resorted, us, how is thi> pattern practically 1 Probably alluding to the .Maui- available unless an inward grace is cheans. <• Apollin. i. 1 1. communicated from lli^ Person to u 'T7ra/)£ewy. realise this pattern in us?" 1 Bee c. Apollin. i. 9. Herein the Literally "to )»'• in power," to. ApoDlnarians approached the Pelagian He means, thai Christian faith must ground, which Ignored any mystical have for it -^ object not merelj that union between Christ, as Second personal holiness of Christ whichwas Adam, and his members. Dornercon- so self-manifested, but the whole of tends that Apollinaris himself did not Hi^ mysterious work for the restora- Pelagianiie. See Newman, Tracts Uonofman. Theol. and Eccl. |». s78. M Much as it 1 Cor, 15. 20. 32. Do not say that "God" suffered. 131 ivho was rich, became poor for our sakes, that we, through 2 Cor. 8. His poverty, might be rich z . \ And how did God become 9 ' poor ? When He assumed to Himself the nature a which had become poor, and, while retaining His own righteous- ness, put this nature forward to suffer for men while it was superior to men, and was manifested from among men, and had become wholly God's. For if He had not been born as firstborn among many brethren, how could He have been seen as firstborn from the dead? How then can you say, Col. 1. "The God who suffered and rose again through flesh?" 18, Alas for the extravagance and the blasphemy ! Such auda- cious language belongs to Arians. For they fearlessly put forward this blasphemy, having learned to call the Son of God " God" in an unreal sense : and yet Scripture teaches that the Passion took place by means of God, in His flesh, and not that God suffered through flesh b . 12. How then can you, who begin by promising to acknowledge the coessentiality promising c , degrade the indivisible 7 This text is used also in the De Incar. et. c. Arian. 11. being "for- merly rich, that is, God," &c. Cyril Alex, often dwells on it, ad Pulche- riam, &c. (Pusey, p. 208) ; Quod anus sit Christus (p.* 345) ; adv. Theodor. 10 (p. 472) &c. a See above, c. 6. ,J This appears prima facie incon- sistent with ad Epict. (I, and Orat. c. Arian. i. <><> ; comp. ib. iii. 32, "The Passion is said to be His," (the Word's.) Compare Card. Newman, Ath. Treatises ed. 2. ii. 328, 367, that Athanasius uses " He" (out^s), or "His," where "the next century would have spoken of His Person. But Athanasius, in the text, aims at bar- ring- out the Apollinarian conception of some change or alteration effected in the one impassible Godhead itself, by the assumption of a body of a hea- venly and not human origin. He is not retracting his former assertion that the sufferings of Christ's flesh were " referred" to His Divine self, by virtue, as Cyril would say, of hypos- tatic union, (see Cyril Art. 12.) He is but objecting to the unbalanced use of expressions which, without expla- nation, might lead to Patripassianism, or to an Arian debasement of the idea of God. In other words, he means to say, " When you refer the suffer- ings of Christ's flesh or soul to Him- self, because that flesh and soul were His, do not use the term ' God' abso- lutely, lest people should think you are speaking of the whole Trinity, and of the Godhead as such. Say rather, God the Word," &c. The passage, and the stronger statement at the end of c. 13, must be read in connection with c. Apoll. i. 11, "It is He who suffered and who did not suffer, &c. and ib. 5. Compare Epi- phanius, Hffir. 77. 22. (So the expres- sion " Mother of God," used without explanation, has often been miscon- strued.) Proems writes to the Arme- nians, " In regard to the Godhead, the Trinity is coessential and impassi- ble : for when we say, He suffered, we do not mean, He suffered in regard to the Godhead, for the Divine Nature is incapable of any suffering : but con- fessing God the Word, one of the Tri- nity, to have become incarnate," &c MansL, v. 429. See the next words in c. 12. Compare c. 5. and 13, and c. Apollin. i. 11 : and see Athanasian Treatises, ii. 330, 368, ed. 2. c They said in effect, "It is only avc who can guard the Iloinoousion." It is not usual with Athanasius in his doctrinal writings, to dwell on the O 132 Christ suffered as Man, not as dud. c.apoll. Name to a condition of Buffering? degrading to that con- dition, and acknowledging as risen again, the undivided Nature, the ineffable Godhead; the unchangeable and un- utterable coessentiality ? For if the Word, having made flesh, hy a change, out of Himself' 1 , went so far as to Buffer without having taken on Himself anything passible or capable of resurrection, then it must be He Himself that Buffered and rose again from the dead: and the Passion must have been, as Valentinus thought , common to the whole Trinity, since the Word in regard to the Divine na- ture is inseparable f from the Father. But if you choose to think thus of these things, what becomes of the promise of the prophets, or the genealogy of the Evangelists, or the testimony of the martyrs, or the mention of Mary the Mother", or the growth in stature, or the exhibition of His eating food, or the indication of the universal sympathy h , l Tim. 2. or the application of the Name, or such phrases as — "the *'• Son of God became Son of Man," or the Man Jesus Christ, s. Mark ,rn " 9 ave Himself a ransom for us," or the Son of Man 8. 31. must suffer many tilings and be killed, and the third day rise again from the dead ? But if you do not believe that Christ was passible because He was man, yet impassible because He was God, but, when driven into a corner, argue, that if you confess Christ to be God and Man, you will be saying, "Not one, but two 1 ," you must necessarily cither (like Marcion and the rest of the heretics) call the economy of the Passion and the Death and Resurrection a mere appearance k ; or like Alius 1 and his followers, call the Godhead of the Word passible. 13. For if" 1 , while reading the Divine Scriptures, vou have observed how, in the law and prophets, and the Gos- pels, and the Apostles' writings, everywhere they first call term, whilr Urging tin- ideal which ' S.i in Or.it. Aii. iii. 16, 1. it represents: see Athan. Treatises, •' Cf. Bpict. I. ed. •_'. ii. 56; " In his three orationa ' Observe t in> re fe rence to rock :i he hardly Damea the Homooosion, text as Heb. 4. 15, the force of which though the doctrine which if upholds was annulled i>y Apollinarianisin, is never oaf «»f his thoughts." ' Bee »'. Apollin. i. 11, 81. Baty- ■' I.e. a body of Divine substance, chiana made the like objection. Theod. \ slentlnua la often rather loosely Dial. i. and iii. referred t<>. Here the .-illusion aeema v Litnivuf, to be to the Valentinlan myth, ea to l C. .'*, snd <•. ApolHn. i. 15. Achamotfa sod her Bufferings, mv ' The sentence Ii anflnished. .M.-insfi's Qnostk Heresies. j». 184. " God," as such, did not suffer. 133 the Lord " Man," and then mention His Passion, in order that they may not utter at any time a blasphemous word against the Godhead ; therefore they have neither spoken of the "generation n of the Godhead of the Word, but ac- knowledge a Father, and proclaim the Son, and reckon Christ in His descent from Mary, as Son of David and of Joseph according to the flesh, by the assumption of the form of the servant, in order that His humanity may be believed to be from men, and He may be acknowledged as God the Word from God the Father, bearing the suffer- ings that He bore on behalf of men in the passible form re- ceived from men, exhibiting His impassibility in the body which suffered, His immortality in that which died, His incorruption in that which was buried, His victory in that which had been tempted, His newness in that which had waxed old, — because our old man ivas crucified with Him ; Kom. 6. for in this consists the grace ; and nowhere does Godhead admit suffering apart from a suffering body, nor exhibit disturbance and distress apart from a distressed and dis- turbed soul: nor does it feel heaviness, and pray, apart from a mind that is in heaviness and praying. But indeed, although what has been mentioned did not happen through any failure of nature n , yet what took place was so done as to indicate real existence. Why then have you written that it is "God that suffered and rose again through flesh?" for if it is God that suffered and rose again through flesh, you must call the Father also, and the Pa- raclete, passible, since Their Name is one, and the Divine nature is one °. 14. But from this expression one can perceive your drift to be that of men who do not fear God, nor obey the Di- vine Scriptures. For Moses writes about God, Our God Deut. 4. is a consuming fire, but about His coming among us in flesh, he speaks of the Lord as about to raise up a Prophet H>. 18.18. from among your brethren, and of life as hanging on the lb. 28. 28. tree p, as it were the Body of the Lord, given to be unto " I. e. of the Divine Nature. plained use of the assertion quoted. ° If pressed rigorously, this would For its truth when explained (as re- tell against his own use of such peatedly by S. Cyril), see Hooker v. phrases as " God's Mother" and 53. 4. Of. above on C. 11. " God's Body." He must be under- v Here he attaches "on the tree" stood as deprecating the naked unex- by wa\ of gloss (and with reference to 131- The Passion endured by the Manhood C. A poll, life for 1b' 1 : and [saiah loudly proclaims concerning God, isa. 10. God the Hence it is argued that Athene- •< Els (wV 7//x*V ytvoyiivov. Proba- sins diil not read BcoS In Acta 90, 28, bly a reference to some such Liturgic Bu( whal he sayi is, Bcripture the carnation. Sec Bcrirener, Introd. td Son's Divtaity, Orat. c. Ari. 1. 12. Crit. N.T. p. M6. Comp. <\iil i \\ Alex. adTheodos. 89. | Pusey, p. I (2.) ' 'Aft6pQov t c{.c, I. He means, not " although after the union He be not Of flesh Without I son!. thought <>f 5i\j 0>flpa ■ Sit ail Afros, 7. lee c. 8 j and p. Apoll. L 15. which was inseparable from the Godhead. 135 resurrection of God's body % a resurrection from the dead. But you say the very contrary, as if you were wiser than the Apostles > and more spiritual than the Prophets, and had better right to speak than the Evangelists, or even higher authority than the Lord, while by language falsely called reverential b you deny the truth, and speak against the Godhead, whereas the economy was plainly exhibited on the Cross, and His flesh was proved to exist by the effusion of blood : when a voice was uttered, and soul was indicated, not manifesting any severance of Godhead, but indicating the putting to death of the body ; for the God- head did not desert the body in the sepulchre, nor was the soul separated from it in Hades c . For this is the meaning of what was said by the mouth of the Prophets, Thou shall Ps. 16. not leave my soul in Hades, nor wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption. Therefore also the Lord said, No one S. John 10 18 taketh it from Me, but I lay it clown of Myself, that is, " I being present, declare this." 15. Therefore by the soul of God the grasp of death was loosened, and the resurrection from Hades was effect- ed, and was announced as good tidings to the souls : and in the body of Christ corruption was annulled, and in- corruption was displayed from the sepulchre d . So that neither was Man e separated from God, nor did God an- nounce that He would abandon Man, nor was the dying, a C. Apoll. i. 10, 18 : Ep. Adelph. 3. nasian teaching- in the words, "I b Apollinarianism began in a mis- verily believe that His Divinity was taken reverence, a onesided zeal for not separated from His Humanity, the dignity of our Lord. See Athan. no, not for a single hour, nor for the Treat, ii. 1 17, ed. 2. And cf. c. Apol- twinkling of an eye." Hammond, lin. i. 9. So Nestorianism regarded Liturgies, p. 229. See Pearson on an actual Incarnation as unworthy of Creed, ii. 328, " Capreolus, bishop of God; "he shrank from confessing Carthage, writing against the Nesto- the condescension of God, that He rians, proveth that the soul of Christ did not abhor the Virgin's womb." was united to His Divinity when it Dr. Pusey's Sermons on Faith, p. 61 : descended into hell." compare Cyril Apol. adv. Theod. 10. d See de Incarn. Verbi, 9. So in Ep. ad Nest. 2. he alludes to e "Audpwiros here, as elsewhere in those who reject the personal union Athan. (as c. 19, and specially in as oLKaWrj. Orat. iv.) and other Fathers, is used c Compare c. 1, 5 : c. Apollin. i. 18. for 6.vQpu)tv6tt}$ or manhood. There is a See the Coptic Liturgy of S. Basil : its similar use of "homo," beginning confession of faith, (made by the cele- with Tertullian, and going down to brant, holding three particles of the Leo. The Greek use is well illustra- Holy Sacrament in his elevated right ted by Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 3. 75, hand,) has some traces of Monophy- "The martyr resigning cheerfully sitism, but does not go beyond Atha- rhv tivOpunov," i. e. his human life. L36 The Son n-as glorified as Man. C.Apoli.. and t lie departure of the spirit, a withdrawal of God from the body, but a separation of soul from body: for therein was our death described. Hut if God was separated from the body, and its deatli was exhibited under that condition, how was it that the body, when separated from the incor- ruptible God, could exhibit incorruption ? and how did the Word also make His entrance into Hades? or how did He exhibit His resurrection from Hades? Did He Himself rise again in place of the soul that is ours, so as to construct a mere likeness of our resurrection ? Nay, how is it possible to imagine this of God? Your state- ment 1 ', then, is out of harmony with the holy Scriptures, and your opinion is incongruous with the economy that is. no. was fulfilled. And the words, Sit on My right hand, do ] - not express the dignity of a man, but of God: but since the dignity of God has become the dignity of Man, there- fore in order that the dignity of Man might be believed to be the dignity of God, it is said, Sit on My rigid hand, s ; .Toi in and, Glorify Me, O Father, with the eternal glory". He does not say this as if He was separated from that glory, but as having come to exist in a body that was not glo- rious, that He might exhibit the form of the servant as not separate from the Divine glory, but as Bhowing it lb. 12. forth. Therefore it is said, And I have glorified if, and I - s - will glorify it again, signifying that the glory which exist- ed prior to the body was one with that which dwelt in the Heb. i. body, as the Apostle says, Having become so far superior , " ) - to the Angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent mime than thr// h . For unto which of the Angels said He at any time, Sit on My right hand ! Assuredly the Word, who is the Maker of the Angels, did not become inferior to them a- if He bad been inferior, but by exhibiting that form of the servant, which had risen up in Him, as BUperior to the Angela, or indeed to the whole creation: since, Col. I. being the Image of the invisible God, He became firstborn of all the creation 1 , as [\ i> also written in the Gospels, 1 Literally, definition, '6po$. Word < l ) by entering into relations \ lax quotation. with the creation in Its Brat origin, *■ (Mi this teat s''«- <•. Apollln. i. 12, Rnd (2) by lli> a « - » i . • 1 1 ,-is if ^ spiritual 1 Athanasius, Orat. c. Arian. il. 62, Restorer, became tin- "brother" or explains t!ii> text to mean, that the re p re se ntative of " many.*' He had made human attributes His own. 137 Until she brought forth her firstborn Son. Therefore also s. Matt, in Him ivere all things created, and in Him the Passion L 25 - took place, and He is the Deliverer from suffering and death, and through Him all things came into being, and Col. I. He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is firstborn 16 ' 18 - from the dead, that He Himself, it is written, might become pre-eminent in all things. 16. In what sense then, according to you, did the Word, who is the Maker of all rational natures, having united flesh to Himself, become rational man, and how, being unchangeable and unalterable, did He become man, if it was not k by constituting the form of the servant so as to be endued with reason, so that the Word l might be unchangeable, remaining what He was, m and also the man, being God, might be seen on earth as rational ? For the Lord is u Heavenly Man," not by having exhibited His flesh as from heaven, but by having bestowed a heavenly condition on that flesh, which was derived from earth". Therefore also, as is the Heavenly One, such are they that J Cor. are heavenly, by their partaking of His holiness. Therefore also, the attributes of the body were appropriated by Him °. But you say again, " How was it that they crucified the lb. 2. 8. Lord of glory p , and yet in your view did not crucify the Word ? " God forbid ! on the contrary, they set at nought the Word, when they nailed to the Cross the body of the Word % For it was God who was set at nought, but it was the soul and flesh of God that went through suffering and death, and resurrection. Therefore the Lord said to the Jews, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it g, j„i m up : as the prophet says, Because His soul was delivered *'* 9 ' unto death, and not the Word Himself; and John says, 12.LXX. He laid down His soul for us. How then were the Jews * S -J° lin able to destroy the temple of God, and to break up the in- k Literally, " and not having con- Epict. G. So Cyril, Ep. ad Nest. 3. stituted " &c. C. 6; and again in his Scholia, 36, 1 Here we have \oyinr\v, A6yos, " God appropriates the things that \oyiK6s. belong to man, by the Union;" and m Mevwv '6 %v. See e. 3. Quod onus sit Christus, (Posey, n So Greg. Naz. explains this text p. 105.) as relating to tV ^P^s rbv ovpiviov p On this text, see on Ep. Max. 1. evwcriv, Epist. 101. i See above, C. 14, and c. Apollin. ,J 'n/ceiWat. See note on Ep. i. 10, 18. 138 // was Christ' » soul that left His Body CAfoll. dissoluble union ' of the flesh with the Word, if, as you hold, this wan the way in which the process of dying took place? For the body would not have become dead, if it had not been separated from something. For if no disso- lution took place, neither did death: and if no death took place, neither did resurrection. Grant, then, the dissolu- tion, and the separation from the body which took place, s. Luke as it is written in the Qospels that He breathed His last, s. Joha anfll ^ nat H e bowed His heady and gave up His spirit ; that 19. 30. we may see what sort of spirit you suppose to have depart- ed from the body, and how the dying took place. For you have said, "The Word, having united 8 to Himself a flesh which had no subsistence 1 , exhibited the truly rational and perfect man." If then it was the Word that departed from the body, and this was the mode in which the dying took place, the Jews did prevail against God by dissolving the indissoluble union. Consequently, it was not the deaf h that is ours that there took place, if the dying of the body took place after God w r as parted from it. And how could the body, thus parted from the incorruptible God, con- tinue uncorrupt ? On this view,the wounding will indeed belong to the body, but the Passion to the Word. For on this account you even speak of God as having Buffered", lining language in consistence with yourselves, or rather in harmony with the Arians, for this is what they assert x . r 'ZvyKpacriv is here used not fur mix- used without tin- B6DM "f fusion, in tore or fusion, but s i u i j > I \ for union, IrenSBUS, iii. 19. 1. Cp.TertllIl.Apol. as Greg. N;i/. uses it iii Ep. 101. 10. 21, (Homo Deo mixtus) and adv. So Origen nsei avaKpaaet in C. (Vis. ."Man-, ii. 27 ; and note in Tertull. Lib. iii. II ; and Gregory Nysscn speaks of Fat h. p. 48; Cyprian, de Idol. Vani- the Son as knuttprd/twop with our tate. 11. and Augustine, Bpist. 137, nature, Catechet. 27 ; and Greg. Nas. s. II. Theodorel gives instances in strikingly, "Preserve the whole of which things are said to be in this man. ku\ fxl^>y tV 0(oT7jTa," Kp. 101. Rense commingled without being con- Cyril Alex, explains that some Fathers founded, Dial. ii. p. 115. In some used the term spoon laxly, not in the passages quoted by Theodoret, Dial. mmim' nf araxuiris,;i> when liquids arc ii. p. 17". ApoUinaris himself repudi- blended with each other: "I relieve atea the idea of any actual change or you (Nestorians) of thai apprehen- fusion as wrought by the Union. Por sion : that W8S not in their minds, they the M indi8SOlublenesS, M BOS »'. 2. were onij anxious to express Thv (Is * SvyxcpdVos, see above. sapor tru'iTtr, ** adv. Nest. i. 8. (Pusey, ' 'ArinroVrcwor. c. Apolfin. i. 21. p. 7J.) Mifiv is described bj Gregory The flesh thus thought of, was do! Nyssen, Andrrhet. 51, as the union reel human flesh. Bee on Tome, 6. of things which are by nature diverse. ■ Comp.c II. Misceo ami coiuinisceo .ire similarly v Comp. c. II, 14. and w as present in Hades. 139 And moreover, according to you, it will be the Word who was raised up by resurrection. For it must needs be that some one received power to begin the resurrection from the dead, in order that the resurrection and dissolution of death, and the release of the spirits there detained * s might be perfect. 17. But if it was the Word who suffered this, then what became of His unchangeableness and unalterableness? And why was the Word, when seen without a veil in Hades z , accounted as man in death? And why did the Lord say to the Jews, " I will raise it up," and not, " I will rise again from Hades a ?" for if the Word, on becoming dead, was in need of some one to raise Him from death, the victory will not belong to Him, but to the person who raised Him up. And again, why did He utter through the Prophets predic- tions about His soul? Why did the Lord, when He came, say, in fulfilment of the promise, / lay down my soul for S. John My sheep b , — that soul which the Holy Scriptures clearly represent as being a spirit ? and the Lord moreover spoke of the body as being killed by men who yet were not able S. Matt. to kill the soul, because it was a spirit. It was the spirit s# j ohn in which Jesus was troubled • it was the " spirit " that de- 13. 21. parted from the body on the cross. And by this means the body became dead, and its dissolution took place, while God the Word remained unchangeably both with the body and with the soul, and with Himself who was in the bosom of the Father, so as to exhibit unchangeableness d . And in that form which is ours, and which belonged to Him, He there depicted the death which is ours, in order that in it He might also arrange the resurrection which should take place on our behalf : by exhibiting His soul on re- turning from Hades, and His body from the sepulchre, that in death He might overthrow death e by the exhibition of a soul, and in the grave might abolish corruption by the burial of a body ; exhibiting immortality and incorruption y Here conies in the idea of a release i. 17, 18. of souls from Hades as effected by our a Hut He did say, " He shall rise Lord's " Descent." See Pearson on again," meaning Himself. Creed, ii. 334. b See c. A poll in. i. 14. 2 I. e. on the ApoHinarian theory, c C. Apollin. i. 16. His Godhead was present in Hades d Above, c. 14. unveiled by a human soul. c. Apollin. e See our Easter Preface. 1 10 Captious questions by Apollinarian$. C.Apoll. from Hades and from tlic grave; having traversed our path in that form which is ours, and unloosed that hold which pressed heavily upon us. And herein lay the wonder: for in this the grace was hestowed. But you, who acknow- ledge flesh only, are unable to prove either t he condemna- tion of sin, or the overthrow of death, or the completion of resurrection, or the unchangeahleness of the Word ; heeause you have gone outside the Holy Scriptures f , uttering t li e sophisms of Arians, although the mention of a "soul" occurs plainly in Holy Scriptures, and the economy was fulfilled with an exhibition of all that could fuliil and complete it. 18. But some heretics, while they acknowledge II im who was seen, dishelieve in His Godhead-': and others, acknowledging Him as God, deny His Nativity in rlesh : and others, acknowledging His flesh as well as Godhead, deny the presence of His soul, and have hecome like to the frenzied children of the Arians, who fasten together knotty and crooked propositions 1 ' in order that by dint of the>e they may raise doubts, and get hold of simple people, while they themselves are in doubt about the faith. In like man- ner also they have learned to say, " Who is He that was born of Mary? is He God or man ' ?" and then if any one says, "Man," he may be led to disbelieve in His Godhead, and agree with those heretics who have disbelieved in it : or, if he says, "God," he will deny His Nativity in flesh, and be *led away with those heretics who deny it. And then again they ask, "Who is He that suffered? is He God or man?" so that if one answers " God," he may utter a blasphemous word, like the impious Arians; and if he says f Here, as in c. 1!», the Apollinrtrians i. 1(1. S. Hilary MJB, " He knows n,>- are rebuked for Indulging in nnwar- thing whatever of his own life who ranted speculations. < t. c. Apollin. knows not Christ Jesus to be true Man i. 13. even as He [| true God," 'le Trim i\. i As the Photinians, in effect: ami 8. Produssaji emphatically that "of more openly the Artemonites. necessity He, the same, is both God '' See Or.it. c. Arian. i. 82; com- ami man . . . Christ is in \ery truth pare Newman in Athan. Treatise-, ii. man, hut He became such when be- 1';;, ed. S, ami Arians, p. 99 ft. fore He had I n simph Godj for as ' That is, the lUggestloO of a false He is God, not created, BO i^ He, the antithesis may impel men in either of same, aK.i man not in mere BCm- two wrong directions. Athanasiusof blance M (i.e. really God ami really course would hare them answer, He ii man.) Tom. idArmenos, Rfansl, v. truly God ami truly ."Man, c. •_». c. Apoll. 139. Our Lord is both God and Man. 141 " Man/' he may on the contrary be speaking according to Jewish sentiments. Therefore the Holy Scriptures affirm the Word to be ineffably God from the Father, and to have Himself become man from the Virgin in the last times : that neither u God " may be disbelieved, nor the birth in flesh be denied. But where there is the name of "flesh," there is the orderly form of our whole constitution k , but without sin. And they connect the Passion with the name of man, and do not go further, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures : bnt conceiving the Godhead of the Word, they acknowledge its unchangeableness and ineffableness. Therefore the "Word" is spoken of as Divine 1 , but the "Man "is the subject of a genealogy; in order that the selfsame might naturally and truly appear in both aspects:" 1 as " God," in reference to the eternity of Godhead and to the Authorship of creation ; as " Man," in reference to His birth from a woman, and His increase in stature : " God," in connection with His life-giving operations, and as mighty in wonderful works : "Man," in connection with His feelings corresponding to our own, and His partici- pation in our infirmities ; " God the Word," in the exhibi- tion of His immortality and incorruption and unchange- ableness : "Man," as His being nailed to the Cross, and in the flowing of blood, and the burial of His body, and the descent into Hades, and the resurrection from the dead. Thus was Christ raised from the dead, and being God, He raises up the dead. 19. Foolish then are those who attribute the Passion to His Godhead, or who disbelieve His Incarnation, or who call the one "two," or who attempt to make a precise des- cription 11 of "His flesh," and venture to say, "how much," or "how," beyond the Scriptures . For by such notions have the minds of heretics lost their footing. Marcion lapsed through excess of blasphemy; Maniclucus was per- verted by an opinion about sin; Valentinus was led astray by a pretence of knowledge 1 '; Paul of Samosata, and he k See above, c. 1. ,n C. Apollin. i. 10. Comp. Orat. c. 1 OeoAoyrircu. Comp. the extract An. iii. 21), on the Scriptural account from the " Little Labyrinth" in Bnseb. of Christ as twofold. v. 28; and so in Orat. c. Ari. ii. 71, " Literally, measurement, "the Word is praised with the Pa- ° ('. 17. ther, and adored Ka\ dfoAoyov/xevos." p See Hooker, v. GO. 4. 1 L2 Safety Ml adherence to ScriptWt . C.Apoll. who was called Photinus, and their followers, fell away by disbelief in the Godhead ; Arias blasphemed through mad- ness q ; and you, who employ the same sophisms, say what is not written in Scripture, and pervert the unstable. But it is enough to believe in what has been written, and what Cf. Heb. has taken place (as Paul says, Like to vs in all thin;/*, 1*8. Pet. Without *'"? and Peter, Since Christ then Buffered for US in 4.1. flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind;) and not push speculations further, and so reject the truth. h On the " fanatical fury " of the Arians sec Atlian. Treat, ii. '677. «.l. 2. NOTE ON THE "DE INCARNATIONE ET CONTRA A RIANOS" AND THE " SERMO MAJOR DE FIDE." I. To the first of these two treatises, Cardinal Newman refers with a saving clause, " if the work be genuine," (Tracts Theol. and Eccles. p. 296) as formerly in Athan. Treatises, i. 264, " if it be his." There is certainly reason for questioning the authorship. The Benedictine editors, who uphold its genuineness, date it after A.D. 365, when the Anomoeans were assuming a bolder front; for it is avowedly directed against them and the Macedonians. But would S. Athanasius at this period have spoken of " three hypos- tases" in the Godhead ? (De Inc. et c. Ari. 10.) He had done so about 20 years earlier, (In illud, Omnia, 6,) when, as comparatively a young theologian, he might use "hypostasis" in the sense familiar to his predecessor Alexander, (Theod. i. 4 : see Newman, I. c.) But it would have been another thing to do so soon after that same phrase had been to some extent discouraged (though admitted to be orthodox after due explanation) in the "Tome," c. 6. Again, while Apolli- narianism was gradually diffusing itself, Athanasius could hardly have written of our Lord's "flesh" precisely in the style of de Inc. et c. Ari. 3, "that His flesh might become God the Word," (contrast c. Apollin. i. 10) without a safeguard in the context against the idea of " fusion," or of the coessentiality of the flesh with the Word. The recognition of Him as " perfect man," in c. 8, may modify, but does not remove, this objection : for that phrase was accepted, disingenuously enough, by Apollinarians, (Epiph. Haer. 77- 23.) Thirdly ; some important texts are explained otherwise than S. Atha- nasius usually explains them. True, he is fertile in exegetical alter- natives : but he would hardly have interpreted S. John 5. 26, simply of "life" given to Christ's body (c. 2; contrast Orat. c. Ari. iii. 36) ; or ib. 14, 28 " as touching the Manhood " (c. 4 ; contrast Orat. c. Ari. i. 58.) and, still more, the LXX. Prov. 8. 22 of the Church as founded in Christ, (c. 6; contrast the well known interpreta- tion given at such length in Orat. c. Ari. ii. 44 if. referring 1 ll Note on " J)< Tncam, ei t Arianos" it to the formation of His human body.) Fourthly, we cannot bul observe in liis treatise ■ certain amount of inconsistency in tin* treatment <»t" thai Divine self-humiliation, or "impoverishment" ( 2 Cor, 8, i», ) of which, as the writer says, quite in Athanasian Style, the Arians took a perverse advantage* Sometimes be shews a dis- position to narrow overmuch what s. Cyril calls the "limits of the fccyitfotff," as when he sees in the prayer, "Glorify Thou Me," (8. John J 7- 5») merely a request for the glorifying of believers, because " His shame was our glory," (c ">,) and avoids the admission of any with- drawal of the Father's felt presence from our Lord's soul at one moment of His Crucifixion by Baying that in 8. .Matt. 27. 47 Be "spoke as our representative," (c. 2); language which seems to L r o beyond the line traced in Orat. c. Arian. iii. 56, ."»7. if it finds some parallel in < Irak iv. 6, 7- < m the other hand, the realities of the ( <>n- descension are plainly recognized in such statements as, " The Eternal Wisdom increased in wisdom as Man," (c. 11) and "as Man He de- precated the Bufferings," (c. 21) and still more when the dogmatic decision of the Sixth (Ecumenical Council is verbally anticipated by the assertion of "'two Wills, human and Divine," in the Incar- nate (c. 21.) It may lie thought that 8. Athanasius, in presence of Apollinarianism, would have held the balance with a steadier hand. Yet too much stress should not he laid on this amount of difference : and it must he added that the interpretation of Phil. 2. !>, given in c. 2, taken together with c. 11, agrees with that in Orat. An. ii. 41 ; as that of Acts 2. 36 in c. 21 agrees with that in Orat. ii. 12: and the brief gloss on S. Mark 13. .'52, u He speaks humanly," in e. 7, is a condensation of the exposition given in < >rat. iii. 42 ff. There is also much that is Athanasian in tone, as the contrast between our Lord's Sonship by nature and ours by grace, in C. 8? and Athanasius might well have written such sentences as " His death is our immor- tality, and His tear our joy. and His burial our resurrection, and His descent our ascent," (c. .">,) or "whosoever carry the Spirit of God Cany light, and those who carry light are clothed with Christ, and those who an- clothed with Christ are clothed with the Rather," (c. 15,) Or the pregnant dictum a-- to what the "formulary of re- union" (Cyril, Ep. ad .loan.) calls the" lowly" text-, that M Christian truth in all its exactness is found among conunoiijdace BayingS and deeds," ( c, 6.) The writer's grateful acknowledgements are due to Cardinal Newman, who had the goodness to make a communication to him on the Bubject, and specified among other points, (such as the "new interpretations " of two important texts,) the repeated osc of the word a-rii/iy), the BtrCSS laid on "the idea id' mystery" in c!/y>j/ru><». and the " Scrmo Major de Fide" 145 d^pttcrTco?, a.KaTa\rJ7rT(D<; i (c. 8) and " the explicit mention of ' two wills,' — startling, since Athan.'s way is less dogmatic," — as con- tributing- to produce an impression " against the genuineness of the treatise." On the whole it seems most probable that this book was put to- gether by an admirer and imitator of S. Athanasius, — a disciple, so to speak, of his school, who might venture to differ from him on some points of exegesis or terminology, but would use, perhaps to a consi- able extent, memoranda of his teaching". II. " The Sermo Major de Fide," which Theodoret quotes in his three Dialogues as a work of S. Athanasius, was discovered in a nearly complete form, in a MS. of the tenth century, by Montfaucon : another fragment was published by Card. Mai in his Nova Biblio- theca. The beginning and the end are lost. The treatise is really a letter (c. 24) and as far as we can judge, was directed against the Arians, who "said that the Word was a crea- ture" (c. 21) and detracted from His Divinity (c. 28:) while the frag- ment attacks them for " attributing to Him flesh bereft of a rational soul." The first chapter, however, seems to allude to one of the Apollinarian opinions. " The Word became flesh, not as if resolved into flesh." The line of argument is Athanasian enough — to distin- guish between the Scriptural expressions which relate to the Divinity and to the Humanity of Christ. The peculiarity lies in the reiteration of a certain number of phrases as descriptive of that Humanity. "The Man of the Lord," avOpoi-rros KvptaKos, occurs nine times, in c. 4, 1 9, 21, 26", 28, 31, 38 ; and once in another form, tov Kvptov avOpunrov, c. 22. We have also "the man understood in regard to the Saviour," 6 KaTtt tov ^oiTrjpa voov/xevos avOpoinos, four times, c. 18, 21, 25, 28: "the man according to the Saviour," c. 21, 22: "the man of the Saviour," c. 24, 30 : " the man according to the flesh," c. 19: " the man whom He bore," c. 13, 10, 28, 29, 32, 37: (the phrase was used by Eustathius, Theod. Dial. 2.) "the man assumed," c. 20, and "the Word assumed the man," c. 31. (By "the Saviour" is meant the Word, in a certain degree of antithesis to Jesus : whereas in Orat. C. Ari. iii. 23 "the Saviour" is synonymous with "the Son of man.") The " Man " is described as Jesus Christ, the second Adam, the Me- diator, c. 25, 20, and is said to have gone willingly to death, being strengthened by the indwelling Word, c. 4. Then again this word " Man " seems in some places to mean " body," as c. 2, 13, 19, 24, 3/; we find "the body which grew" called a creature in c. 21, as is L 1 Hi On the - Sermc '•/ dejide." "the man whom He bore "in c 16, 26: "the 8on of .Man** i- ex- plained by •* tin- Lord's body" in <•. I 7. I'.'; the word- "Sit on My right hand." are quoted as spoken to "the man"* and to " the body," <■. 19, 29: the LXX. Prov. 8. 22 is similarly treated inc. 14. and 2\. In dm' passage "the flesh" i- described as "the Lord's humanity," e. 3. It is not easy to believe that S. Athanasius, irrhing after the rise of Apollinarianism, or even indeed before it. could be responsi- ble for such a jumble of phrases. It i> not merely ■ ease of the known use of foOpmros where we Bhould say " manhood,' 1 as ire find it in c. Apollin. ii. 15: it is oof merely an occasional use of the ex- pression, "the Man of the Lord."' which OCCUTS twice in the Athan- asian "Expositio Fidel," (probably the "hook of Athanasius " re- ferred to as containing it. .Jerome c. Rnf. ii. 20) and in Didymus de Spir. Sancto 51, and was used by Epiphanius, Ancorat. '.»">, to des- cribe Christ's flesh, while S. Augustine, when expressing a wish that he himself had never used the Latin equivalent, "Homo Dominicus," (which apparently had been used by Pope Damasus, Man-i. iii. 426) admitted that something might he said in its favour. (Retract, i. \ l .i. B, | even a- 8. Thomas Aquinas allowed that " Homo" might be used for the human nature of the Lord, not for a human person, Sum. iii. 16. '». What strikes as is the iteration of" the phrase, combined with other phrases of a like sort, the result of which might be >im- ply confusing to BOme minds, while to Others they might easily siii, r - Lrc-t that very error against which S.Athanasius contend- so ear- nestly in his Inter treatises, — the notion that " the Word dwelt in a man as formerly in the prophets," see Orat C. Ari. iii. 30. and compare the Tome, 7: Ep. Epict. 11, &c Surely, if he had at this time used the phrase, " Man of tin- Lord.*" which Apollinai ians adopted in their own sense (S.Greg. Nas. Ep. 101) and which might more naturally prepare the way for Nestorianism, he would have guarded it carefully against abuse, just as in Orat. iv. 35 he guards the >iiiL r le word " Man"* by insisting that the lc hyp08l of the Word i- inseparable fiPOm "the Man'" horn of Mary, and that our Lord A(n>> not say in 8. Luke 24. ">'.'. "as ft see thi- Man of mine have." The writer ofthe "SeUDO Major" does not thttfl clear- ly affirm the persona] Oneness ofthe Incarnate: he i- content to use "man" interchangeably with "body," or to say that "the Wop. hidden in JeSUS," c. 32. Moreover he regards the Mediation as pertaining to this " Man," c 26, whereas the Athanasian doctrine i- that mankind cannot he brought near to God Save by one who fa both human and Divine. Orat. c. Ari. ii. <>7 He interprets 8. Maik 13. 38 l»y saying 'hat the Lather pave all knowledge to --the Son," and therefore it was "Jesus" who "knew not On the "Sermo Major deftde." 147 whereas in Orat. c. Ari. iii. 43 it is plainly taught that it was the Son who as the Word knew all things, but " as man knew not the hour of the end." It seems, moreover, incredible that he who in Ep. Epict. 5 and Orat. c. Ari. i. 35 cites Heb. 13. 8, in connection with Mai. 3. 6, as a proof of the Word's Divine immutability, would explain it as in Serm. Maj. 21, of "the man understood in regard to the Saviour" as being "the same that was once an infant, then in- creased in age and favour, and began to be about thirty years of age." (Nestorius may have read this passage, see Cyr. adv. Nest, iii. 2.) The interpretation of S. John 14. 28 as relating to the Manhood, which has already been noticed as occurring in De Inc. et Ari., occurs thrice in the "Sermo," c. 14, 34, 39. There are passages in the " Sermo " which are highly Athanasian in tone, as c. 20, 22, 24 : there are illustrations which remind one of Athana- sius' early writings: (e. g. c. 24, 2/, 35) portions of the " De Incar- natione Verbi," 8, 9, 17, 20, 41, are actually embodied, with some verbal alterations, in Serm. 5, 6, 7, 11, 12. But it seems evident that another mind has been at work, selecting materials and develop- ing ideas in a way of its own. It seems not improbable that the reason why the " Sermo," in Montfaucon's words, " diu in tenebris latebat," was not so much the " carelessness of copyists " as the ad- vantage which had been taken of some passages by advocates of the abhorred Nestorian heresy. APPENDIX. *» v B.C7RIL OF ILRXANDRIA's INTERPRETATIONS Of BIS AHA- THBMASj AND ON THB DIALOG UBS OF rBBODOBBT. The chief object of 8. Athanasius, as ■ Doctor of the ( Ihurcb, was to maintain the truth embodied in the word Homoousion, — the truth, as he himself lo?ed to express it, that the ( holy-begotten Son of ( ""I is Son by nature and in reality. But, as work grows out of work, this advocacy of the Nicene watchword led on tit the defence of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in the four Epistles to Serapion, and again to a treatment of the doctrine of the Incarnation properly so called in the Third Discourse against the Arians, and in most of the tracts included in this volume. In reading the latter, our attention has repeatedly been called to that large and luminous insight, that majestic comprehensiveness, tbatstedfast grasp of the revealed verity as a whole, which made the genuine teaching of Athanasius on this BUbject an authority and a support in those tun momentous contro- versies" respecting the Person of our Incarnate Saviour which trou- bled the peace, hut matured and consolidated the thought, of the Church in the fifth age. Nor can we wonder if under the shelter of Kuch a name, some statements which in all likelihood were wrongly ascribed to him acquired a factitious importance, and that one of them, at least, eventually when quoted in good faith as his '', in- creased the complications attendant on the still partially unsettled condition of doctrinal terminology. If is proposed to illustrate the character and range of S. Atha- nasius 1 theological influence on the mind of Greek-speaking Chris- tendom in the Nestorian and Kutyehiau period by some detailed references to the best-weighed statements of two eminent men who represented the two aspects of ecelesiaatical Christology. One of them occupied the second see iii Christendom, which had acquired a new dignity as the throne of Athanasius. Mr was a \nlumiuous Commentator on Scripture: his criticisms haye preserved to us a large part, at least, of Julian's treatise against Christianity' : and what is more to our present purpose, he was. iii Cardinal Newman's * Sit note in Atlian. Treatise*, I s !•' the phrase, yda Uan, p. 982. Cyril and Theodoret. 140 words, " a clear-headed constructive theologian V with a keen per- ception of issues at stake, a thorough devotion to an " august mys- tery 6 ," a high courage, an indomitable perseverance, but also a vehement and masterful temper to which, — not merely, though mainly, in his earlier years, — the lordly powers of the Egyptian patriarchate f presented a serious temptation. The other was, as a prelate, among the rank and file of the hierarchy, doing good work, secular as well as spiritual, in the far north of Syria, for an out-of- the-way city which he could not pretend to likes, and a diocese in which old-world heresies were the popular religion of peasants, and efforts to root them out, though in the long run triumphant, were made at the cost of bodily peril and harm h . And the bishop who had such work to go through was at the same time "facile princeps" among his brethren for varied learning and persuasive church oratory, for ability of a richly versatile type, and for a warmth of heart which, if it made him think too well of some old friends, drew out men's affection together with their admiration ', gave him special aptitudes for comforting the sorrow-stricken k . fills his extant letters with a living human interest, and enables us to feel towards him as we can hardly feel towards any of his con- temporaries in East and West, alw T ays excepting that most noble and loveable Saint who fell asleep in beleaguered Hippo when the Nestorian strife was less than two years old. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrrhos came somewhat roughly into collision with each other in the progress of that strife : each of them made some mistakes, each for a time deemed the other heretical : ar,d although at last they were substantially in agreement, each looked mainly at his own side of the shield. The mystery of the Incar- nation has two aspects, one relating to Christ's single Personality, the other to the distinctness of His Manhood from his Godhead. Cyril emphasized the former, while really acknowledging the latter: Theodoret reversed the process. Cyril specially dreaded a " sever- d Newman, Historical Sketches, nous porte a regardercomme legitime iii. 34o. ee qui semble nous pouvoir fcrire reus- e He calls the Incarnation rh sir dans lea entreprises saintes . . . rreirrhv r)fuv fivrr-qpiou, Quod Deus II faut combattre pour Dieu scion les sit Cliristus, (Posey, p. 357.) loix de Dieu, si Ton veut qu' il nous f Newman, Historical Sketches, couronne." xiv. f»41. iii. 339. It is especially in regard & Theodoret, Ep. 32, 24, 81, 138. to the presents sent by Cyril in 433 Compare Synodicon, c. 71, in Mansi to Court personages in order to enlist v. 847. their influence that Tilleinont says, h Ep. 81, 113. " S. Cyrille est saint, mais on ne pent ' See Historical Sketches, iii. 330. pas dire que toutes sea actions soieut Compare Theod. Ep. 1, 2, !>, 24,33, saintes;" adding, in words of memo- IS, 1!>. 59, 02, ()(», 123. rable significance," les puis saints ont k Theod. Ep. 7, 8, 12, 14, 1.1, 17, beaucoup a craindre la tentation qui is. 21, °27. &<\ 150 Cyril and Theodoret* ance," Theodore! a " confusion." Cyril was on the watch against the rationalising temper which would explain away the Incarnation into an association inch as might exist between the Divine Word and a preeminent saint, and substantially such as had been imagined by some professing Churchmen in the latter years of - s - Athana- s'ms 1 . Theodoret believed the chief peril to lie in the direction of that peculiar mysticism which, by its crude method of asserting the Redeemer's oneness, had cut the bonds which linked Him to our humanity: and he was therefore disposed to put the best construc- tion on that whole line of speculation which Theodore bishop of Mopsiiestia, the father of Nestorianisni, and already the favourite "commentator" in the East m , had struck out as against the Apol- linarianism which he abhorred. Vet Cyril had a true belief in our Lord's Manhood, and Theodoret was not less sound as to His Persona] Divinity. Thus each of the two men did that sort of work for which his antecedents and habits of thought had fitted him, and thereby gave in his appropriate contribution to the ultimate settle- ment of the twofold question raised. Let us look first to 8. Cyril. The doctrine which, in the language of divines, suggested origi- nally by Cyril himself, is called that of the " Hypostatic" or Personal i% Union," can be stated quite simply, and brought home to the con- sciousness Of ordinary Christians, to whom '* dogmatic technicalities" are uncongenial Or unknown. In fact, they repeatedly, or even ha- bitually, state it with their own lips. For instance, when they join in what may he called our national Christmas hymn, and lift up their hearts in the exulting stanza, " Christ, by highest heaven adored, Christ, the Everlasting Lord, Late in time behold Him come, Offspring of a Virgin's womb," Charles Wesley is teaching them to say just what S.Cyril would have had them say, if they had lived in his time, and attended his 1 Tbuj \\<- find him literally repro- paralleh in tin- works of "glorious dadng 8. Athanasius' words, doubt- fathers." Pot Theodore sec a re- less with an allusion to Nestorianism. markable article in < buret) Quarterly M The Word of God became Man ; He Review for October, 1875: but corn- did not come into a man, as in the pare a sterner view "f him in Christ, case of the prophets." Thesaurus, Remembr. July, 1851. Dorner, in p. 882. Cp. Bp. Bpict. •_'. I. is*- Person uf Christ," considers thai in i.is (nil \M-it.-s thai in tin- Theodore's Christology was detennin- Byriau churches the people cried out, ed by his wish to provide for a ■• free u 8uccesa to the faith of Theodore: moral development" in the Saviour's ire believe as In- did." Bpist.p. 197. manh 1: for which reason besuppo- Bee p. l!'.'; for i synodical letter of sed a specifically dose alliance between John of Antioch, admitting that Theo- tin- Divine WTord and Jesus asa bu- dore used some ambiguous express- man person. This night, h«' said, i><- inns, but pleading that these had callea a union, bul only as marriage Doctrine of the "Hypostatic Union." 151 services in the " Caesareum" of Alexandria. They are saying in verse, — and verse has no privilege in presence of the Third Com- mandment, — what he meant hy insisting on Theotocos as an accu- rate title for the Mother of the Emmanuel. But moreover, in every act of worship addressed to Jesus Christ, the doctrine is logically presupposed. For to adore Him implies that He is God; that He is not a man who beyond all other men has been penetrated by a Divine spirit, or realised a Divine fellowship, or represented the Divine idea of humanity, but simply and literally that He is Himself God, the Eternal Son and Word, who has become Man ; so that He who was born of Mary, was crucified, rose again, ascended into heaven, is the same " He" who in the beginning was with God and was God ; and it is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who has actually entered into the sphere of a human life, taken into union with His very self a human soul and human body, and thus far be- come in all things like unto us, sin only excepted. The " Ego," so to speak, of Jesus is that which could say, " Before Abraham was, I am." Or, to put it otherwise, Scripture and the original Christian faith teach that " Jesus Christ is God." Now here the predicate cannot, with due regard to the whole current of Scriptural thelogy, be taken in a lax sense for an image or delegate of God, or one who was preeminently " godlike" in character. And the copula cannot be taken to mean " represents," " is the chief agent of," " is in closest sympathy with," Sec. ; for such glosses fall short of the require- ments of Scriptural Christology as a whole. Both words, then, must be taken simply. Therefore Jesus Christ is Himself God, that same Divine Son and Word who was from eternity in the bosom of the Father ; He is that Son as manifested in flesh, as having taken on Himself a true humanity. This is the doctrine of the " Hypos- tatic Union :" this is what, in the fifth century, was condensed into the phrase "One Christ." We may vary the terms in which we state it : we may present it to the devout imagination under those stirring and touching antitheses by which devout minds in various ages have striven to set forth the stupendousness of the Divine con- is a union : and John 1.14 was not cess, that He should have fallen under to be taken "too strictly." On this temptation. For if this was not pos- view, Jesus, being guided from the sible, then neither was it possible to very dawn of life by the indwelling establish that parity for which Tbeo- Word, easily advanced to higher and dore had sacrificed so much of the yet higher moral attainments, &C. faith. Kxtracts from Theodore's writ- But in order to make His "develop- ings are preserved in the acts of the ment" entirely analogous to that of Fifth General Council, and in Leon- men, Theodore would have had to tins c. Nest, et Kntych. lib. 3. Dio- take a further step, and admit that it dore of Tarsus held similar views, was in fact possible, during (be pro- see Cyril, Epistles, p. 135. li>^ What the doctrine meant* descension 11 ; we may try to think out some of what Mozlej calle its M inexhaustible logical contents," to follow out the "explanatory de- velopments 9 " which have elicited them in detail: we may transcribe and repeat what Booker P and Pearson' have written in comment on the formularies of the Councils, or on the texts which exemplify "the interchange of properties ;" we may say. in words still dear to many', "God became -Man, yet still w*s God, having His Manhood as an adjunct, perfect in its kind, but dependent upon His Godhead . . . He was .Man because Me had our human nature wholly and perfectly : but though Alan, He w;is not, strictly speaking, in the English of the word, a man: not . . . one out of a number; His Person IS not human like ours, hut Divine . . . All that is nee ;r \ U) BtitUte a perfect manhood is attached to His eternal Person abso- lutely and entirely, belonging to Him as really and fully as His jus- tice, truth, or power:" or in the words of another •, " The Person of the Son of .Mary is divine and eternal: it is none other than the Person of the Word .... Christ's Manhood is not of itself an indi- vidual being; it is not a seat and centre of personality; i- hi - do conceivable existence apart from the act whereby the Eternal Word, in becoming incarnate, called it into being and made it His own:*" or with a German Protestant writer, "There Mas not a created hu- man nature in the sense of concrete subsistence (a man): tor the Son of God was oot united to a son of man, hut became Man. as- sumed the properties of the human form of existence 4 ." We may point out how this personal identity of God and Man in tin- Christ, whereby the k - Ego" in the Man of Sorrows was absolutely one with that of Him who preexisted in the form of God, 18 a necessity of His character as a true Mediator between God and man. who could "lay His hand upon both" in right of a twofold coessentiality : yet, after all, we feel that our best words are inadequate; they add nothing to, they can hut -'in part" indicate, the substantia] idea of the In- carnation, the truth that God became Man", that "our Lord Jesus ■ Some have been referred to above, Compare Wilberfbrce on the Incar- p. 53. Bee also Dr. Posey's Serraoni nation. p. 132, that our Lord's person, from Advent to Whitsuntide, p. 69. ality most be on.', ami that it must » Mozley on Theory of Development, be resident in His Godhead, even as r I 18. n, Himself said, M Before Abraham f Hooker, B. P. \. c. 59. was, I era*." ■< Pearson on Creed, (art. 4J vol. 1. ■ Ebrard, quoted by I r -i. ed. Barton. Image of Christ, p. 151. Newman, Paroch. Ber ns, vi. ■ Motley on Theory of Develop. 61,69,65. Compare ib.il. 32, "He ment, p. i i!». Bee also but Essays, came, selecting and setting; apart for ii. 118, where the manifestation of Hlmselfthe elements ofbody and soul, God through tin- imager; of human then uniting them i>> Himself from character in the Old Testament la their first origin of existence," &c. viewed ai i preparation for, and a^ Uddon, Bamp, I i i •■ wbstantiated" by, M I Nestorianism. oo Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man," that in Him, " God and Man is one Christ." To this idea, held fast as Divinely revealed, S. Cyril's mind was thoroughly devoted x , And he saw it confronted by another idea, set forth in the sermons of Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism, as Cyril knew it, came to this : that Jesus Christ was a man existing" individually like other men, with a distinct human personality >', but taken into exceptional close- ness of relationship to the Eternal Son, who dwelt in him as in a temple 2 , used him as an instrument a , wore him as a vesture b , was borne by him c , admitted him to a share in His own titles, authority, and dignity d , and in this sense to a oneness with Him, which Nes- mystery" whereby " God the Son . . . reveals his character, not through a metaphorical hut through an actual manhood. The human medium is now a mysterious reality instead of a symbolical expression ; and humanity has an absolute basis in theology which it had not before." x Dorner, while considering that Cyril was to blame for not sympa- thising with the Antiochene school in its desire to define more, clearly the relations of Divinity and Humanity in the Christ, and that he did not bring out the " ethical" aspect of the In- carnation, admits that he had "afar dearer perception of the religious importance" of the question than had the Antiochenes, and was "anxious that God's marvellous love manifested in the Incarnation should not suffer the least diminution of its glory," ii. 1. b*0, 73. y 'ISikws, Cyr. Ep. ad Nest. 2 ; Expl. 2, 3, 4 ; adv. Orient. 8. 9, 11 ; adv. Theod. 4; Idia, Expl. 12; adv. Orient. 3, 1 1 ; ai/a fj.4pus, Ep. ad Nest. 3; Expl. 2, 3, 12; adv. Orient. 8; adv. Theod. 4 : Ep. 1 ad Acae. Melit. aua fx6uas, adv. Orient. 3, 8 ; Ep. 1 ad Succensum (Epist. p. 136;) Kara \x6v- as cos avOpwiTOV Kal erepou ovra i/ibu, adv. Orient. 3, so Quod _unus sit Christus, I'usey, p. 372, 373, &c. Com- pare Nestorius' words, IVlansi, iv. 1201 , and his Sermons in Marius M creator; while disclaiming the idea of two Sons, he says, " The Word of God is called Christ because He has a conti- nuous connection with the Christ." "Let us reverence that man who by the Divine connection is adored to- gether with God." And ap. Cyr. adv. Nest. iii. 3, that He who was yester- day and today, not He who said, " He- fore Abraham was, I am," was Abra- ham's seed, (whereupon Cyril says, "You are dividing again, and very plainly.") Much of his language might have been taken in a sound sense ; but his real meaning was illus- trated by other passages, by his asso- ciation with Theodore, (Epist. p. 197,) and by his saying, " 1 will never call a child of 2 or 3 months old God," Mansi, iv. 1881. z Nestorius, serm. 1. 8 Nest. serm. 2. b Nest. serm. 2, 4. c Cyr. adv. Nest. i. 1. comp. Anatb. 5. &c. See Dr. Pusey's Two Sermons on Faith, p. 62. In another sense Nes- torius used to say that the Word " bore" the Man Jesus as a garment ; Aia rhv (popovvra rbu (popovjxtvov , quoted in adv. Nest. i. 11. (Pusey, p. 127.) d See Nestorius in Cyril adv. Nest. ii. 5. iii. 2. ap. Mercat. And the creed called Theodore's, condemned by Council of Ephesus, described the Man Jesus as partner in the honours of the "Word, Mansi, iv. 1349; see Cyril, Quod unus sit Christus, ( Posey, p. 3o4j ; and Ep. ad Nest. 2. 5, (I'u- sey, p. 22,) "Not that a man is sim- ply connected as by oneness of dignity or authority with God." So Expl. 2, 5 ; adv. Orient. 3. So de Recta Fide ad Arcad. c. 8, "Not holding His dignity iv xdpiTOS /j.tpet Kal erra/cT^." The Fifth (Ecumenical Council con- demns those who say that the union was by grace, operation, equality of honour, authority . . . power, good will, or identity of names ; and affirms it to be a union by way of combina- tion ((tvvO((tiv) or hypostasis, so that both confusion and division are e) (luiied, Anath. 4. So Damascene \~)\ What Nestorianism involved. tonus usually expressed by the term cnW^cio, connection or com- bination 6 . Thus, however Nestorius might disclaim the idea of two Sons f , <>r Bpeak with profound reverence of Jesus, or admit the term Tbeotocos in ■ sense -'. or Beem to be only " distinguishing the na- tures," still in bis view there Btretched between the 8on of <;<><] and the Son of Mary a trap not to lie bridged over. It could not be said of .Jesus that in him the "self 1 was Divine; hur only that he was the human agent of redemption, the human medium of a Christian Theophany. The connection between Him and the Eternal 8on was thus, as Cyril called it, (TyiTiKi) \ that i>. DOn-CSSential or accidental, and was therefore "ejusdem generis" with that which linked saints and prophets 1 , (not to say all baptized Christians k .) to Him who in so many ways draws His servants into fellowship with Himself. Christ, in short, was hut the supreme instance of moral intimacy be- tween holy men and God. As Arian magniloquence in praise of" the. Son 1 " could not veil the fact that He was regarded as, bo to speak, a loftier archangel, so in this case, to adorn the "associated" Christ with names belonging of right to the true Son of God (lor Nestorius was quite free from Arian views of the Sonship, as from Photinian views of the Word) could not avert the inference, " Christ, then, with you, is the chief of saints, and nothing more.' Another result fol- lowed, which seemed like an echo of the Arian controversy. Arians excludes an union of character, dig- membering probably how Athanasius nity, unanimity, joint honour, joint as well as others had used it, ho said name, &c. do Pid. Orth. iii. ."> : and he would agree to use it ifAnthropo- Aqninas, an union by indwelling, af- tocos might he used too. fection, operation, dignity, inter- h B.g. Ep. ad Nest. 3. fi ; adv. Nest, change of titles, Sum. 3. 2. 6. i. 1, ii. I : adv. Theod. 1, .'5. The Nestorius acknowledged a " com- Stoics called non-essential qualities plete abiding (Tvva. 100. 7. See Ep. ad Nest. ;{. 5, M We re- ■ Comp. Ep. ad Nest. •'!• 1 : r.\|'l. ject the term vw&tytw. as inadequate;" 5; adv. Orient.!*, adv. Theod. 1.5. and Explan. 2, .';. .">, 11. In Quod In Quod onus sit Christus, (Pusey, onus sit Christus, (Pusey, p. 36*0,) p. 360,) Cyril says that " tn^os tjs Cyril says thai tins "term might de- might have d. 146) thai Nestorius, Ing tn tin- constituents, e.g. <>i a when he did speak of *' union," used and 6t' degree. lb. U. 5. Su in Serin. I. (Dec, 180.) k Adv. Nest . ii. S. SchoL IS. Iii his liisf sen i he spoke of ' S.e Newman's Arians, p. 846. Theotocos aa heathenish: later, re- Ath. Treat, ii. 36. ed. 9. Celestine and Cyril. 155 had been taxed with idolatry on their own principles ; for they wor- shipped the Son, while regarding Him as a creature" 1 . Nestorians spoke of worshipping the Son of Mary along- with, or on account of, the Son of God n , on the ground of a partition of dignity : and Cyril had to remind them that association could not constitute adorable- ness, and that the God of Christians was the same who of old had said, " I will not give My glory to another ." The first stage of the controversy extended from the end of 328 to the August of 330. Cyril wrote much during this period, — a letter " to the Monks," a first letter to Nestorius, perhaps his notes or " Scholia " on the Incarnation, — three treatises addressed to Theodo- sius II. and to the princesses of the imperial house, Arcadia, Marina, J'ulcheria and Eudocia ; above all, that second letter to Nestorius which received such especial and emphatic acceptance from Oecu- menical Councils P. He was in correspondence with Celestine, bishop of Rome, to whom, about April in 430, he put the momentous ques- tion whether one who was teaching downright heresy from the chair of Constantinople could be retained in the communion of bishops who held the right faith. Some months elapsed before Celestine could hold a synod; at last, on Aug. 10 or 11, he laid the evi- dence before his neighbour prelates, and Nestorius was pronounced to have taught heresy. Celestine forthwith wrote to Cyril °., direct- ing him to "join the authority of the Roman See to his own," and to signify to Nestorius that " unless a written retractation were execu- " ted within ten days, giving- assurance of his acceptance of the faith " as to ' Christ our God ' which was held by the churches of Rome " and Alexandria, he would be excluded from the communion of " those churches, and ' provision ' would be made by them for the " church of Constantinople," i. e. by the appointment of an orthodox m Ad Adelph. 3. Basil, Ep. 243. on account of the ' connection' with 11 See adv. Nest. ii. 10, /xaKAou 5e Godcalls that which was seen Divine." (rvjjLTTpoaKvvels, ep. Anath. 8. Ep. ad So that " God blessed for ever" was Nest. 2, &c. to be a title assigned to the Man Jesus ° See Cyril, Quod unus sit Christus, because God specially dwelt in Him, (Fusey, p. 358,303,410.) Coinp. adv. And he proceeded to quote " 1 have Nest. ii. 13, "How can you pretend made thee a god to Pharaoh," as if to honour with the same worship to Christ's relation to God was but dis- uvtws a\\r]Kots auiaocpvrj, and which ferent in degree from that of Moses. are separated in their very essence by Mansi, iv. 1200, Cyril adv. Nest. ii. 3. a difference which admits of no com- P The letter beginning KaTcupAva- narison?" See Dorner, Person of povcri, "obloquuntur," written early in Christ, ii. 1. 59, 27., representing Cy- 130, ( Posey, p. 2.) After it was read ril's argument, "A God somewhat in the Council of Ephesus, bishop after resembling God would be &ebs v^euSw- bishop, in varying terms, expressed j/u/uos." Nestorius showed his laxity his agreement with it, Mansi, iv. 1139 of thought on this supreme point by — llt!!>. interpreting Rom. U. o thus, "He '« Mansi, iv. 1018. Cf. Christ. Re- first acknowledges the man, ami then memb. April 18,">5, p. 425. 156 Third Letter to Nestorius, bishop. Had Cyril been as violent and imperioaa a> he ifl often represented, he would not have deferred by :i single day the carrying out of those instructions: irhereai he waited all through September and October until he could assemble his suffragans -usuallj reckoned •a> nearly a liundred in number, — and then he wrote ■ third letter to Nestorius '. This Synodical document, which begim by • reference to the "e/presa words of our Saviour,"*' He that loveth fattier or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Mr.*' peremptorily called on Nestorius, who was still addressed as a "most pious and devout fel- low-minister," to " give up his perverse doctrines, and adopt in place nf them the right faith," — and not merelj to declare his adhesion t<> the Nicene Creed 1 , but expressly to anathematize his own " pro- fane dogmas') Recording to a series of articles subjoined to the let- ter, hut introduced bj a long and elaborate exposition of doctrine, in which, as in the "second letter" of the preceding year*, care was taken to brand as heterodox those very positions of the ApoHinarian school against which Nestorius professed to he contending, — e. g. that the flesh of Christ had heen formed out of the Godhead, that the Godhead was in this respect passible, that Christ had not a ra- r See it in I'lisey's edition, p. 13; M.in-i, iv. 1067. It was rr.nl at Kphe- viis, hut no acclamations are recorded, ii,. 1 139 ; but tin- Council in its " me- morial to tin" Emperor' 1 sa_\s that it lias compared "Cyril's epistles about th.- faith " with tin- Nicene Creed, and found th.-iii to I..- in accordance with it, lb. 1237. I" 'I'.' letter to (V- l.'stiiit' the phrase is not tiri(TTo\as (which, however, might mean only one letter) but ypdniJiaTa, il>. 1332. 'j'li.' M Eastern " party in their second petition to Theodosius say thai Cyril's partj ( the Council ) confirmed in wri- ting the heretical"artlcles" (of Cyril), ib. 103. At the end of the first session of (half. -.ion the imperial commission- era announced that their master ad- hered to Cyril*i M two canonical l«'t- ten, those which were confirmed In the first Council of Ephesus," Mansi, vi. ;i;;7. But In the second session, the letters of Cyril which the archdea- con of Constantiople read, and the Council heard with acclamations, were the second letter to Nestorius an.l the epistle '■• ''"l 1 " "' inttoch or letter of reunion, written In tii«- spring ol ii.. vi. 960. Thus tin- third epistle to Nestorius, with the appended "arti- cles," was significant!} pasted over, Bui .it til.- .in! "t the ■■• ision Attkus of Nicopolis requested that it might ii.- brought forward, i. e. in order that Leo's Tome might be compared with it also. In the fourth session the Tome was solemnly accepted, three bishops saving, inter alia, that it was in harmony with the "epistle*" of Cyril ; but as one of these was Theo- doret, tin- reference is clearly to the second epistle and the epistle to John, Mansi, vii. 20. Several others speak of ('Mil's "epistle," i.e. the second to Nestorius. It was therefore a mis- take as to fact when the Tilth t.e- neral Council, in 650, asserted that the Council of Chalcedoii had accept- ed "'Cyril's synodical epistles, to one Of which the |2 articles were app end- ed." .Mansi. i\. 341. gee Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 252. - That is, the Creed as framed at Nicaea, not as afterwards revised. < \- ril did not recognise the Council .»f Constantinople (A. l>. 881.) 1 " Not as if Qod the Word in His ,.\\ii nature endured beatings Off piercings, fcc." "Not that, as tar as His ..wn nature was concerned. He experienced death, for it were insane to think thus: hut that ... it was His flesh that tasted death." Comp. Athan. Bp. Bptct. 'Thc Articles, all but one, are found- not exterior. (Art. 9.) ed on passages in the letter; but the 11. " Theotocos." (Art. 1.) order of the points taken is different. The 7th Art. is not a condensation That in the letter is as follows — of any passage in the letter. 1. Hypostatic union, i.e. one Christ. z Tillemont, xiv. 454. See the letter (Art. 2.) in Mansi, iv. 1061. It is of consider- 2. Christ not a God-bearing man. able importance, for it fully bears out (Art. 5.) Cyril's doctrinal contention. " If we 3. "Connection" an inadequate do not accept what the term signifies, idea. (Art. 3.) we are greatly in error, or rather 4. The Word not " Lord" of Christ we imperil our belief in the ineffable as if of a distinct person. (Art. (5.) ' economy ' of the Only-begotten Son. 5. " One adoration." (Art. 8.) For it will follow at once . . . that u\ He suffered in flesfa which was He who undertook the ineffable eco- His own. (Art. 12.) nomy for our sakes is not God, and 158 Objections to, anil explanations of y to give np his objections to the term " Theotocos," Beeing thai the true sense of thai tern iras part of the Church's faith. Bat when he read the twelve Articles, which Nestorinfl sent to hi in apart tnnn the "third letter," lie was shocked with what appeared to liim a de- cided affinity to the heresy of Apoilinaris *, Be desired Andrew, bishop of Samosata, to confute them; and Andrew produced a criti- cism which was published iii the name of the M Eastern " Bishops. lint he applied to a more accomplished controversialist in the person Of Theodoret, who undertook the task, and sent hack to John his observations on the Articles, with a letter prefixed, in which he pro- fessed to think it possible that some " enemy of the truth " had heen misusing Cyril's name. Cyril's expectation of a summary settlement of the question had heen baffled by the imperial summons of a Gene- ral Council, which necessarily suspended all proceedings against Nestorius: and he employed himself, during the earlier part of 431, in replying to Andrew and to Theodoret b , and in writing his M Re- futation" of Xestorins in live hooks. Even when the Council met at EpheSUB, and condemned Nestorius on the 22nd of June, it ex- pressed no opinion on the merits of the twelve Articles: and Cyril, while undergoing detention at Ephesus during the harassing period which followed on the close of the Council's work, yielded to the request of friends that he would write a further " Explanation n of his Articles. From these documents we can form a correct notion of the objections taken, and of the replies offered, — as follows. Anath. I. " If any one does not acknowledge that the Emmanuel is very Gcd, and therefore the Holy Virgin is God's Mother (Theo- tocos) — , for she bore, in fleshly manner ( i it. \ Latin in a fen boars," it Nestorius would version is given hi Marius Mercator. consult with some true friends who ' it was for the sake ol the Son could freelj t<-ll him "what was ad that Cyril emphasised this title of the the Twelve Articles. 159 To this it was objected (1) that "in fleshly manner" was incon- sistent with the Virginal Nativity ; (2) that the phrase might suggest a change of the Word into flesh ; (3) that if John 1. 14 were pressed too rigorously, the texts which describe Christ as " made sin," or " made a curse," would have to be pressed as far d . These were Andrew's objections on the part of " Eastern bishops." Theodoret, for his part, said in effect, (4) God the Word could undergo no change: He did not actually become flesh, He assumed flesh ani- mated and with a rational soul ; therefore He was not by nature born of the Virgin, but was present with and united to her Child, and it is in this sense that the term Theotocos is orthodox e . Cyril answered (1) that his language fully recognised the miracu- lousness of the Nativity ; (2) that the Union, as he conceived of it, in- volved no confusion f , and that the term Theotocos did not mean Mother of the Word as God, but guarded the truth that Mary's Son was God Incarnate ; (3) that the texts as to sin and a curse were not parallel to John 1. 14, for they could only mean that Christ was reckoned as among sinners, or called accursed. He adduced pas- sages from Peter of Alexandria, from Athanasius, e. g. one from c. 2 of Athanasius' letter to Epictetus, and from Amphilochius of Ico- nium. (4) He contended that Theodoret's position was ambiguous : that it was admitted on all hands that the Incarnation involved no change in God, and that the Word really became man, while continu- ing to be God. Therefore the term Theotocos was orthodox, while the term Anthropotocos was superfluous s. He added that Theodo- ret must, from his own words, be regarded as holding a real Union. In his " Explanation" he urges that the Nicene Creed implied an ineffable Union without any " change " or " confusion : " and that " Theotocos " was necessary in order to guard the true sense of " Emmanuel." Mother, which does not appear in the man. (Baluz. p. 143.) second Ep. to Nest, until close to the d Compare Nestorius, Sermon 4, end, and which is the subject of the in Mercator. (Baluz. p. 81.) Athana- l lth section of the third Ep. to which sins interprets those texts to mean the Articles are appended. In both that Christ took on Him the curse, cases we find the needful caveat, — and bore our sins, Orat. c. Ari. ii. 47. " not that the Word's nature or God- c This was quoted as Nestorianiz- head had its origin " from the Vir- ing language in the Fifth General gin," or "from flesh." Nestorius, in Council, Mansi, ix. 290. the first of his counter-anathemas, f In his letter on the Holy Symbol, preserved in Latin by Marius Mer- Epist. p. 181, he excludes " not only eator, condemns those who call the fusion or blending, but "what some Emmanuel God the Word, &c. On talk of as awovalwaiv . . ." " It is im- this shewing-, says Mercator, "God possible." the Word did not dwell among us:" « Alexander of Hierapolia demand- and what becomes of the name Em- ed that Theotocos should never be manuel? It suggests a present God : used without Anthropotocos. Mansi. but it is turned into the title of a v. 875. 100 Objections, to, anil explanations of, Anath. II. u [f any one does not acknowledge that the Word from God the Father lias been united bypostatically (i | with flesh, and that He is one Christ with His own flesh, that is, the same at once God and man; let him be anathema*." The Easterns do not comment on this; bnt Tl doret practically asks, " What does anion l>y hypostasis mean ? I inspect it u the no- tion of " fhsion " in disguise*." Cyril answers that Nestorianism has made the new phrase neeessaiy : and that it mean! >imply that there is one Christ, God and Man, — which truth, he adds, Theodoret him- self holds. In his kk Explanation" he gives the same account. Anath. III. " If any one divides the Hypostases after the Union, in regard to the one Christ, connecting them by a mere connection (trwafw) of dignity or authority or power, instead of a meeting by ' natural ' union ; let him he anathema w ." It was objected by " the Easterns " that ( 1 ) Cyril in his first work ' mu the controversy had appeared to recognize '"two hypostases:" that (2) lo call the Union natural was to deny its supernatural character, to make it a mere result of physical law. {'.)) Theodoret objected that there was no real opposition between ** connection ** and " meet- ing:" (4) that "natural" implied necessity: (.">) that "hypostasis" meant "nature," 1 " and as we may say " two natures" in man, there eould he no harm in "dividing the hypostases" in the Christ. (Mil answers that (1) there is no inconsistency between his earlier and later language: he recognises a distinction between the Godhead and the Manhood ; what he has to insist on is the unity of the subject or Person : (2) by " natural " he means " real," and Nestoriua by asser- ting a community of honour between the Word and the Christ has made it nteessarv for him to assert an unity. An allusion to Apol- !i This objection to the phrase " hy- union] Bains, p. 147. postatk anion " iras quoted against k <'f. Ep.ad Nest. .'{. 1,5, that ti» him in the Fifth Council. Mansi,ix. talk of such a connection is acyo^arm 290, and nothing else. NeBtorhu' ana- 1 The sciisr uf kuO' viro Him bj association, ^li<> i*. ed any who said that the combination not t«> in- called either Bon or God, of God tlir Word with flesh Involved except by fiction, a local change of the Divine fissnnrn. ' Bp. to the Monks, <•. 15. p. 11. or .in rxtriis'ion of tin- fi<">li to take in m Sir tin- Tmm\ C 8 ! ad Mi"-. I. Clod, fcc. Met cat off remarks, "As it' In ma " Dialogues M Theodoret makes Followed" from the hypo sta tic bypostaais mean person. The Twelve Articles. 161 linarianism in the Easterns' remarks he meets full in front : " With the doctrines of Apollinaris we have no concern whatever." (3) He charges Theodoret with uttering- a truism ; (4) repeats his explanation of " natural union," and sets aside as frivolous the attempt to make " natural " mean " necessary." His object, he says, is to exclude such a so-called union as is merely accidental and moral. (5) As for the analogy of soul and flesh in man, Theodoret would not separate them in the concrete n : and it is agreed on both sides that abstract- edly Godhead and Manhood stand apart. Similarly, in the Explana- tion, he repeats that an association between a Divine and a human person is not an Incarnation of the one Son of God. Anath. IV. " If any one assigns to two Persons or hypostases the expressions in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, used either of Christ by the saints, or by Christ of Himself, and refers the one set to a man considered by himself apart from the Word who is from God, and the other set, as appropriate to the Divinity, to the Word who is from God the Father ; let him be anathema °. " We also believe," says Andrew in effect, " in the completeness and inseparableness of the Union : but we object to any confusion or want of distinction, between the properties of Godhead and Manhood, — it tends to an Arian debasement of the former." Theo- doret takes the same line, and insists that such sayings " as Neither the Son," "If it be possible, let this cup pass away," "Save Me from this hour," " Why hast thou forsaken Me ? " could not be as- cribed to God the Word P. Cyril replies that Nestorius denounced " Theotocos" as an Apollinarian symbol, equivalent to " Mother of the Godhead," and that, as the Easterns really held the Personal Union, they ought not to complain of a phrase which simply as- sumed it ; they were making out differences which did not exist. For himself, he fully admits that some Scriptural sayings were ap- propriate to the Divinity, others to the Humanity, and Christ, as God and Man, spoke now Divinely, now humanly ; but what he in- n This analogy is recognised by Cyril distinction of words relating to Divi- in his first letter to Succensus, his nity and to humanity (as did the letter to Valerian, and in his Scholia, " Antiochenes " in the formulary of 8, 27, where he remarks that it must union,) was not to distribute them not be regarded as perfect. See below, between the Word and a human in- on Theod. Dial. ii. Cyril clearly dividual, and so to incur this anatlie- means, not that soul and flesh are ma. The Nestorian anathema virtu- blended in man, but that they consti- ally charged him with applying these tute one man. texts to "one nature," and thus at- ° Here irpo-nois occurs, clearly in tributing sufferings to the Word in its ecclesiastical sense. This article is Godhead both in flesh and in Godhead. referred to by Cyril in Epist. p. 116, p Cited as heterodox in the Fifth 147. He explains that to own the General Council, Mansi, ix. 290. M [en Objection* to, and explanation* of, listed was that both sets of sayings belong to the one Christ*. (This passage of itself would Bhow h«»w he came to accept the Antio- chene formulary of reunion in 4.'5.'{. which concludes by recognisi distinction between the sayings respecting the Lord. Ep. ad Joan.) He adds some quotations, one being from Aniens, late bishop of Constantinople r , on the antitheses of the Incarnation. (2) He re- monstrates with Theodore! for misstating bis meaning. I deny, he -ays, all fusion; I distinguish even between words of Divine and of human tone. What I plead for is that whether He Bpoke in majesty or in humility, it was the one Christ who Bpoke. Since the Word became .Man. instead of linking Himself to a man, why should He not speak as Man ? The text " Neither the Sun," means that the Word, as Man, " appropriates" to Himself human limitation- of knowledge 8 , just as He submitted humanly to the human sensations of hunger and weariness. (The expression, " appropriates econo- mically," here means that He made such limitations His own in ac- cordance with the conditions of His self-humiliation.) It is to the Word, hut to the Word in His humiliation, or "self-emptying," that one must attribute the deprecations and cries of distress*. In the Explanation of this Article, Cyril summarises this answer, and withal shews that, like Eastern Fathers in general, he interpreted <>\ tywray fxuv rpfqaaTo to cimi Tern ©co) in Phil. 2. (5 as referring to the self- humiliation u , for after Citing it, he adds, M hut rather He towered Himself to a voluntary emptying." Anath. V. k * If any one dares to say that Christ is a man carrying God (0co(/>o'por), and not lather that He is God in truth, as being < me Son and (Son) by nature, in that the Word became flesh, and was partaker like ourselves in hlood and flesh : let him he anathema." See below, p. 174. ■ Compare Cyril, Qnod anus sit r Por Attieas see 8oc. rii. 2, 95. Christas, Posey, pp.373, ill. Evi- ( niii].. Atlian. Orat, c. Arian. iii. dently he understood the clause as, i - tt . In his Thesaorns, pp.319, 220, u did not Insist on remaining*, u Be Cyril gives this explanation, but with might have done, in the enjoyment it also soother to the effect that He of His coeqoallty, but oonsented t«> did, eren as .Man, know, bnt kywotip sssome, by Wnrnt , the form of a ser- t' S. Ignatius's name of Tlieophoros " his Emmanuel." (p. 150.) is explained in tin; " Martydom of a It was quite another thing to say Ignatius" as implying, " He who that He was the God or Lord of His carries Christ in his breast:" but humanity. Funk regards it as a Greek proper b Nestorius condemns those who name, Patr. Apost. p. 172. identify the Virgin-born man with M 2 164 Objection* to y and explanations of, We own, say the Easterns in effect, thai He waa not wrought upon as were prophets and apostles ; He was not «>n their level. Hut still we must jnre due weight to the Scriptural assertion that God wrought mightily in Christ by raising; Him from the dead, 8tc. Theodoret is very brief, but refers similarly to Bph. i. 29,20. Cyril replies -imply, thai what he aims si is to exclude the idea of an ex- ternal Divine operation on the Christ, seeing thai M«- is Himself that very Word liy whom the Father operates, that Hi- Resurrection is also ascribed to Himself (e.g. 8. John 2. 1!'.) and that it was in His .Manhood that He, the Lord ofglory, is said to have heen glori- fied. So in the Explanation he says that those who hold what this Article condemns do in fact hold M tW0 Sons.** Anath. VIII. "If any one dares to say that 'the man who was assumed 1 Ought to he adored along with God the Word r , and glo- rified with Him, and with Him styled God, as if different from Him (for the word 'with,' constantly appended, will oblige U8 to under- stand it thus) and does not rather honour the Emmanuel with one adoration, and offer to Him one glorification, since the Word became flesh : let him he anathema 11 ." The Kastems here acknowledge Cyril's principle. There are not two persons, or tWO Sons: there is one Son, to whom is due an adoration presupposing such unity. They only charge Cyril with a petty verhal inconsistency. Theodore! is briefer, and acknowledges the same Christ to be both (oid and .Man, and to he glorified as one 1 '. He speaks, how- tin- Only-begotten, Instead <>f saying nection with the nature of tin- Only- tli.it. as united to the Only-begotten, begotten. Cyril's anathema is deve- ll.' shares in that title. Here, says loped in the ninth of the Fifth (Ecu- Mercator, be supposes an < mly-begot- menical Council, Mansi, i\. 381 . "it t.n. a real Bon of God, vrho ye! is not any one says thai (lnist is adored in the Emmanuel ; ami a "temporary" two natures, irhereby two adorations Emmanuel, who is but titulaxry Son of arc brought in, one proper to God God. By united, he meant associated, the Word, and one proper t.» man: 1 Theodore bad saidthal tin- Word or it" any one adores < lnist on the gave to the man by irhom !!<• deter- theory of a taking away of the flesh, mined to judge all men the privilege or a confusion of the Godhead and the <.t joint reception <»f adoration, s.. thai Maul I. or as Imagining one nature all should render due worship to the or essence of the dements that bare Divine nature, but should Include in come together, ami does not adore by th.it adoration him who mu Inaepa- one adoration Ood tin- Word as ln- i.ii.iv joined t" Him. he. Mansi. i\. carnate, irith his own flesh ■ . . lei 207. sueii ;i person be anathema.* 1 Hence, •' The Neetorian anathema Involves no adoration is to I flered to the a irross misrepresentation. It eon. Humanity conceived of aa apart from . I. •mns any who saj that M the form the Godhead: all adoration of the of a servant M is to be worshipped in Incarnate must have reaped t.. His reference to it> own natme; (as if one indivisible Person. Cyril had said so!) ami asserts that r Similarly, many years later, it ourht to he venerated For its con- Theodoret wrote to Flavian. "Him the Twelve Articles, 165 ever, of " the man " as not losing- what he was. Cyril replies that what he objects to is the notion of a duality of persons : and that " the man assumed by God the Word " is a phrase which would favour that notion. His Explanation adds nothing to these state- ments. Anath. IX. " If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, in that He used the power that came through Him as if it were foreign to Himself, and received from Him the capacity of energising against unclean spirits, and of per- forming Divine miracles before men, instead of saying that the Spi- rit through whom He wrought the miracles was His own : let him be anathema f ." The Easterns again try to fasten on Cyril a charge of inconsist- ency. " Formerly (in Epistle to the Monks) he owned that Christ acted by the Spirit of God, and even was quickened by Him: now he seems to deny this, and to forget the text, ' If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils.' (2) And to call the Spirit the Son's own is to impair the undivided action of the whole Trinity." (3) Theodoret again falls into an "ignoratio elenchi," attacking an imagined denial of the anointing, &c. of Jesus by the Spirit, and accusing Cyril of ana- thematising prophets, apostles, Gabriel, Christ Himself. (4) He grants that the Spirit is the Son's own Spirit ; but denies that He has His being " from " or " through " the Son e. Cyril tells the Easterns that their first objection is a mere cavil : he had said that Christ's miracles were wrought by the Spirit as His own Spirit : among these, of course, he included the casting out of devils. (2) His point was that the relation of the Spirit to Christ was not, as in the case of saints, an exterior relation : and in order to bring this out, he had called the Spirit Christ's "own," not that He was not also the Father's own, but that He did not thus belong to any holy man as such. (3) Theodoret should bear in mind some words of Nestorius, which appeared h to identify Christ's relation to the Spirit with any (Christ) I know to be both God be- Holy Spirit : which Mercator calls fore the ages, and Man at the end of " inaudita." the days, and I offer one adoration as of God, and that He received therwitfa other passages; e.g.The- justification from, and was made spot- saurus, p. 354, "The Spirit being by less by the Spirit, Mansi, i\. 805. nature in Him and out of(4£) Him," lie avoids, bene, the question of ami iii De recta fide ad Theod. c. '■'<<•. eternal derivation, and only says that (Pusey, p. 180) the Spirit which is since the Sou lias what the Father both <' ; i In the has, II,- may he saiil to ha\e as His passage in l!p. ail Nest. .;. 1 U, the own the Spirit who proceeds from the words "He (the Spirit) is poured Father. This is not n. "imply," as forth 7r«,>' oftroi even aa Ik toD . . . Mr. Swrt.' represents him. (Hist. norpaV' refer to the Mission, bol the Doctr. of Hoi\ Spirit, p. 143) that Mission from the Sou is based on an there is a sense in which the Spirit essential derivation from the Bon in may he said to he from the Son with- ThesaUTUS, p. 358, 8tC out blasphemj ; for although else. ' Bee Nestorius in Cyril adv. Nest, where < lyrll ^^ as much, (-.-. next iii. t. and his third Sermon ap note) he dors u<>t sa\ so here. Bee cator. Produs had said that "God Pearson on Creed, it. 135. Theodo- became* Priest." Homily, i the Twelve Articles. 167 says that He offered the oblation for Himself also, and not for us alone (for He who knew no sin would not have needed an oblation) let him be anathema" 1 ." The Easterns here insist on our Lord's Humanity as character- ising His Priesthood. " God the Word," they say, " could not be our Priest," meaning, obviously, as God the Word : for they proceed to admit the personal unity. " The union," they say emphatically, " remains for ever: at the same time, amid the sufferings of the flesh, the Godhead, though inseparable, remained impassible . . . Where- fore we acknowledge one and the same as Son, the natures remaining unblended (davyxvTwv) and we say not, one and another, God forbid! but one and the same ; " and they proceed to describe Christ as our High Priest, but not as a human person apart from the Word. Theo- doret infers from Heb. 5. 1 ff that He who was " made perfect through sufferings, and by experience of suffering learned obedience, and offered up supplications with tears to Him who could save Him from death," could not be the impassible Word, but that which was assumed by the Word, which was mortal and passible n , &c. Here he does not say " he who was assumed ; " yet at the close of his objection he drifts back, as it were, into Nestorianising language : Jesus was called, in Heb. 3. 1 , " faithful to Him that made him ;" but no ortho- dox person would apply the phrase, " a thing made," to the Word, but to " Him who was of the seed of David." Cyril answers the Easterns at some length ; in the course of his remarks he quotes a passage from Nestorius to the effect that He who was sent to be our High Priest " advanced by degrees to the High-priestly dignity." This might assuredly bear a sound sense ; but Cyril vehemently denounces it as quite irreconcileable with the personal Divinity of our Lord. He then says that what he contends for is this — that Jesus, our High Priest, is God who has become Man, is our High Priest as having become Man , and could not have m In the basis passage, Ep. ad Nest. ° Both parties reject the Arian no- 3. 9; lie insists that the Son became tion (found, e.g. in Milton) " that the Mediator, and offered up His own our Lord's Priesthood preceded His body, not for Himself but for us : and Incarnation, and belonged to His Di- we do not assign to a man different vine nature, and was in consequence from Himself (i.e. to a merely human the token of an inferior divinity .... Christ) " the name and the reality of The Catholic doctrine is, that the Di- Priesthood." The Nestorian article vine Word is Priest in and according insists on assigning, as regards "ob- to His Manhood," Newman, Athan. lationem," " qme Dei" to the Only- Treatises, ii. 2-15, ed. 2. i. e. so far as begotten, " qua? hominis" to the man relates to sacrificial Priesthood, as united to Him, i.e. to the human and distinct from that sort of Mediation titular Emmanuel. which belongs to Him as Word. " The passage was quoted as hete- Theodoret says in Kpist. 145, "He rodox in the Fifth General Council, " is called an High Priest not as God, Mansi, ix. 291. "but as Man, and He offers as man, 1(5* objections to, and Explanations of, been so If He had not become .Man. To Theodore! he replies thai Nestoriufl had imagined a merely accidental and moral union: he l.ty- 2 Cor, Bi BtresB on the text, " Though He was rich, yet for your Bake* He be- came poor," a- incompatible with such a theory: he urges that tin" \.i-t condescensions of God should not he cavilled at a- humiliating to His Majesty, but welcomed as marvellous evidences of His love, and that although the High Priesthood in question was dependent on our Lord's Humanity, it wa- exercised by Him a- personally Divine. Similarly, in the Explanation, he says, that "being by nature Lord of the universe. He lowered Himself. . . and was called our High Priest . . . inasmuch as the limitations of His humanity imposed this office upon Him." Anath. XI. " If any one does not acknowledge the Lord's flesh to he lifegiving, and proper to the Word Himself who is from God the Father, hut regards it as the flesh of some other than Himself, who Was connected with Him in dignity, or who really had God dwelling within him, and not as lifegiving, as we said, because it became pro- per to the Word who has power to give life to all things; let him he anathema P." The Easterns' criticism is here peculiarly captious. Of course, they say, all admit that ( hrist's flesh " belongs" to Him. and not to any one else ; therefore, this reiteration of " proper" i> suspicious: it seems to intimate an Apollinarian idea, as if His flesh were not of human Origin. 2) And why should Cyril condemn the phrase, ••connected with Him by dignity," when lie had himself acknowledged the exalta- tion of humanity in Christ ? ,'}) Tlicodoret owns the Word to have flesh, hut ask-,. Why not add •'mind?" and treats Cyril's admission of the diversity of the two natures as wrung from him. Here again Tlicodoret is conspicuously unfair. Cyril answers; By Calling the flesh the Word's own, I meant to exclude the notion that it belonged "but Mr recelva the Sacrifice as For being by nature life, as God, "God, nrith tin' Father and the Holy when He became one with His own spirit." Compare Cyril adv. N<->t. flesh, Hi' rendered <,-.-<;) i* hi. 2, thai the Word, at Man, Is act- lifegiving." Nestorius anathemati- Ing as Priest in heaven. ses any who say that the flesh ( |>. Bp.ad Nest. 8.7. "Wecde- united (i.«-. conjoined) to the Word brats tlif Moodiest service, and ap- is by its own natural capacity life- proach to the sacred Bucharistic ele- giving, contrary m s. John menta, ami are sanctified by being Another ignoratio elenchi. < \iii made partaken <•! the bolj iksli and calfa it lifegiving as being the Life. preciooj HI I . . . ami not as it re- river's own. in ad Pulcheriam, c .~>t; ceiving common fleah, or that "t ;i (Posey, p. 329); "when He made the in. mi connected with the Word by bod] received from the Hoh Virgin oneness of dignity, or as having God His own, lie rendered it lifegiving, dwelling in him; hm as truly life- ami with good reason, for it is the giving, and ••• the Word's awn fleah bod) "t the .ill qiiickenmi I the Twelve Articles, 169 to a separate human person : it was Nestorius's absurd remark, that our Lord said, " He who eateth My Flesh," not, " He who eateth My Godhead V' which constrained me to show that His Flesh was " proper to the Word." Let us not, he adds, complain of the vast- ness of the Condescension, but recognise the body of Christ, in Athanasius's language, as the Body of the Incarnate Word. He dis- claims the notion that it came down from heaven, as unsupported by the words of S. John 3. 13. Theodoret, lie observes, might as well ask why mind was not mentioned in S. John 1.14. " Flesh " is often used to signify the whole of man. In the Explanation he emphasises that reference to the Holy Eucharist which had been made in the Third Epistle. " We perform the holy and lifegiving and bloodless Sacrifice in the churches, not believing that which is set before us {irpoKu^vov) to be the body of a common man, one of ourselves, nor again the precious Blood; but rather receiving them as having become the Body and Blood which belong to the Word who gives life to all things. For common flesh cannot give life, and this the Saviour Himself attests, saying, ' The flesh profiteth nothing : the spirit is that which gives life.' For since it has become the Word's own, on this account it is thought of as, and is, lifegiving r ." Anath. XII. " If any one does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in flesh, and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh, and became firstborn from the dead, in that He is life and life- giving, as God; let him be anathema s ." Again the Easterns try to set Cyril against Cyril. In his Epistle to the Monks, they say, he admitted the impassibility of the God- head. How then could the Word be said to suffer? " It was not God, connected with the flesh who suffered : it was the flesh united to God the Word which suffered what was natural to it, by His own permission :" qualifying the phrase, " suffered in flesh* does not save the impassibility. It still comes to this, the Word was passible. In acccordance with His own nature ? In that case, either the Father is also passible, or the Word's Deity is other than His, i. e. the Word is not coessential. Or was it contrary to His Nature? But how could He be under duress ? If it be said, " He had a fitting object, 1 See this in adv. Nest. iv. G. Cyril has the salvo, " although He was im- is justly severe on this absurd speei- passible in His own nature," and men of false antithesis. " He was in the crucified body, appro- r In adv. Nest. iv. 5 he contends priating to Himself, Impassibly, the that the benefits of the Holy Com- sufferings of His own flesh." The munion are not to be limited to a Nestorian article is unobjectionable. reception of the Holy Spirit. It merely forbids to assign the suffer- s Here to read the article apart injrs alike to the Word and to the from the letter might have an unfor- flesh, "sine discretione dignitatis na- tunate effect. For it is the letter that tuiarum." 17<) Antiochene Proposals the stlvution of man," could thai end 1><- promoted by ■ debasement of Deity? Theodoret's criticism contains one of bis Nestorianising • It iras n"t God \\li«» Buffered, but the man who iru as- Bumed from among us by GodV Cyril tells the Easterns thai they ire "beating the air," and refuting what nobody holds, Qf course thr Word could not suffer a^ God, but only a> baring appropriated the passible condition of bumanity. To Buffer in flesh, is not to Buf- fer in Godhead: and Gregory of Nyasa, Basil, and Athanaaus 11 bear iritness to this idea. He takes the same ground in answer to Theo- dore*, and concludes with the weighty remark, that it' we would appre- ciate the redemptive virtue of the Passion, we must ascribe it to One who is Himself "the Lord of glory, God over all, blessed for ever. Amen. "' The same thought is summarised in the Explanation. The criticisms to which Cyril's " Articles" were subjected by the Easterns, and which called forth from him repeated elucidation- of his meaning, did what nothing else could have done, and what was eminently necessary to he done, if the balance of doctrinal truth was to be preserved. They kept before his mind the necessity of aelf- explanation ; and they prepared him ultimately to resume communion with John of Antioch, and with the more moderate of the Easterns. Me had indeed refused the proposal conveyed to him in 432 \ though Acacius of Beroea, to the effect that he should withdraw his u articles and letters," and he content with Athauasius* letter to EpictetUS Bfl a comment upon the Nicene Creed. But his reply to Acacius, in which he promised that, when peace had heen restored on the basis of the condemnation of Nestorianism and a recognition of the deposition of Nestorius, he would explain, as to brethren, " whatever points in his articles had not heen understood \" seemed to open a prospect of reconciliation, which by this time, and under BtfOng urgency from the court, had hecoine acceptable to John. The letter, indeed, was not Satisfactory to Andrew ofSamOSata, Who u'ives a curious account of a dream in which he -eemed to Bee Apollinaris alive again and giving presents (eulogise) to the bishop of Antioch; hut bethought it ne- cessary to " economise," and make some show of concession '. Theo- dore! Considered the letter to he orthodox, and irreconcileahle with the obnoxious Cyrilline articles, which he had again assailed in a treatise called Pentalogus : : while A lexander of Hierapolis read it as reaffirming * Tin- expression, "God the Word ■ Bee Synodlcon, <•. .">;:, ;.i ; afansi, inffered in flesh," i* spin elabo- v. BS9, B80. ralely eeiisineil liy The. ..hurt in liis % Sit a Latin version ..f this, 1. | t»- t - 3rd Dialogue, lmt the difference be- in Bynod. 56; Mansi, r. 881. tween Cyril end himself on tliis point ' Bynodicou, 59, I appears rerbal. Bee below. ■ lb, 'i", 86, 7". See Theod. Efist. Orat. c. Aii. Hi. 2 11 to Cyril for a Reunion. 171 them, and flatly refused to have any part in a negotiation with the writer b . It was however determined that Paul, bishop of Emesa c , should visit Alexandria as John's agent. He brought a letter in which Cyril was requested to withdraw his articles, and to give further explanation of his meaning according to the promise contained in his letter to Acacius. The letter was displeasing to Cyril d ; but when Paul produced, as a new basis of reunion, a doctrinal formulary which was, in fact, a recension of one drafted by the Antiochenes at Ephesus, in 431 e , as a counter-document to Cyril's articles, the latter accepted it, although its wording was somewhat different from his favourite phraseology. After a preamble, it proceeded thus f ; " We acknowledge one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only- begotten, perfect God and perfect Mans, of a reasonable soul and a body 11 : begotten of the Father before the ages, as to the Godhead, but at the end of the days, the Selfsame, of the Virgin Mary, as to the Manhood, for us and for our salvation : the same coessential with the Father as to the Godhead, and coessential with us as to the Man- hood ( . For there took place a union of two natures : therefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord k . According to this con- ception of the Union without confusion we acknowledge the Holy Virgin to be God's Mother, because God the Word was incarnate, and became Man, and from the very conception united to Himself the temple which He received from her 1 . As for the Evangelical b lb. 65, 07. man." Eutyches had never, until bis c For Paul see Tillemont, xiv. 528. trial in 448, admitted that Christ was Compare John's letter, Synod. 7b'. "coessential with us as man." Vin- d " Tins letter," he says, " I did not cent of Lerins, in 434, said that accept," Epist. p. 111. See it in Christ's human "substance" was Synod. 80. " consubstantalis matri," Commo- e See Synod. 22. Cf. Tillemont, nit. 13. xiv. 531. " k Here the sense of "an union of two f Cyril, Ep. ad Joan. (Pusey, p. 44.) natures" is defined to be their union s Compare this phrase in Athan. in one personality. This, as distinct c. Apollin. i. 10"; and see the Qui- from any "fusion" which would ab- cunque. Alexander had recently urged sorb one into the other, or blend one that Cyril should be required to own with the other, was what Cyril had Christ to be both God and Man, Sy- maintained : and, as he afterwards nod. 58. pointed out, when the Easterns ad- h Compare the Quicunque. mitted this, they made a chasm be- 1 This phrase, whioh ocenrs in tween themselves and Nestorianism, Nestorius' 3rd Sermon, preached in Epist. to Acac. Melit. (in Epistles, reply to I'roclus, (see Marios Merca- p. 115.) tor, p. 72, ed. Baluz.) was not in gene- l According to Nestorius, He who ral use among Churchmen at this time, was born of Mary was not God the Newman's Athan. Treat, i. 108. It Word, but a titular Emmanuel : and received oecumenical sanction by be- the "temple," in his way of speaking, ing inserted into the " Definition" of meant, not the body assumed by the Chalcedon. Yet Cyril had owned in Divine Son or Word, but this human adv. Nest. iii. 3 that the Son had be- Christ who became His habitation, come "coessential with us, that is, See Marius Mercator, pp. 143, 55. 172 The Reunion and Apostolical baj ings respecting the Lord) we know that theologians' make some common, as relating to the one Person, and distinguish others as belonging to two natures", and thai they refer to Christ's Godhead those which indicate Divine majesty, and to the Manhood those which indicate humiliation." Paul found Cyril unexpectedly easy to treat with 11 ; received from him a corresponding profession of faith 9 , and after disowning Nesto- rins in a written document, and publicly affirming the TheotOCOS by Word of mouth P, was allowed to communicate, and even to preach in the cathedral of Alexandria, on Christmas Day 432* He delighted lii> auditors by announcing the good tidings of the Nativity in the unequivocal sentence, "Mary, God's .Mother, (fives birth to the Em- manuel 4 !" He added that the Word had "completely assumed our nature,"' and disclaimed all belief in a *• Quaternity." He preached again on the 1 st of January', taking care to insist on the impassi- bility of the Word in His Godhead, and explaining "The Word be- came flesh" a-> equivalent to, •• He assumed our flesh and dwelt in our nature," so that this text indicated the one Person and two \;i- tures: and Cyril, in a short address, approved of Paul's statements. It must have been a great satisfaction to him to answer Paul's question, " Do you accept Athanashis' letter to Epictetus?" by com- paring Paul's copy with the authentic text, proving that it repre- sented a corrupt text, and peimittiqg him to make correct copies for use in Syria \ Hut some further negociations were required by John's reluctance to acquiesce in the condemnation of Nestorius. On this point Cyril firmly insisted': he had the support of Theodo- ■ Properly, all lnmin^ to the the Lord spoke both dtoirptirus ami one Person, as Atlianasius intimates, av8pu-niv." Thereupon John re- Orat. c Ari. 'hi. ll, ami as Cyril plied thai it was therefore necessary explains In Epistles p. 117 '. 134, 150, to distinguish the texts. But "these ami Theodoret admits, Dial. iii. (<-p. words," Cyril adds, "are liis, not Hooker v. 53. 1.) but some texts spe- mine," Epist. p. 120. let the idea ciaDy refer to Him as both expressed in Man, e.g. (as Cyrilsayi in Ep. l t<> Apol. adv. Orient, i. Melit. and En. 2 to Saecensus) " Bp. ad Joan. (Posey, p. 12.) licit. 18. 8, Rom. i». ."». The distinc- Paul, however, had to give np plead- ticin, saj s ( yril to Acadus, might -rem i » i j_r for certain Nestorianising prelates subtle, but i' liav Apollin- nation took place, He was still the aris: and cp. the compilation called one selfsame Divine Word, although Patrmn Doctrine ap to Baccensas, Epist. pp. U7. 1 l!'. ^5tj vourai t)tVtf, ft*ra t?,: -- W herein do the words of I he 7/ avrov ret! Aoyou crtcrai'Kuuo-i), jast Antioehene hrethren agree ^^ i 1 1 1 the as ire may reasonably understand in novelties of Nestorins?" so Bp. to oar own case, for there is reallj one Valerian, "The Easterns then bo- man composed of dissimilar things, l lieve that Mis Person (vpdVara mean SOOl and ho.ly. Nothing v the same who was God before the ages, and Man born of the Virgin,' as Thomas called Him both Lord and Cods. I have learned this from Scripture, and from Alexander and Athanasins, 'who adorned your Apostolic and from Basil and Gregory, £cc r J nat I 'use the treatises of blessed Theophilus and Cyril, in order to stop the months of those who ven- ture to gainsay, my writings themselves hear w itness." I have quoted them against those who deny the difference between Christ's flesh and His Godhead, and say sometimes that the Divine nature was turned into flesh, sometimes that the llesh was changed into the na- ture of Godhead. Tor those teachers plainly teach the difference between the two natures, and the immntahility of the Divine: and while they call Christ's flesh divine as having hecome the Word's, they reject, as impious, the notion that its nature was changed into that of the Godhead. Yon know, I think, that Cyril ofblessed me- mory often wrote to me; when he sent to John of Antioch BOOBC f Bpist. S.'! : Till. 'in. .nt. w. -27'.). but DiOBOOTUS |uiarts utterly effect that certain charges had I d from Theodore, who explained away proved against Theodoret, see Bplit s.'ri iss's words as a thanksgiving rheodoret then wrote Bp. 83 : to God, Mansi, ix. 90 "Essence" and "Hypostasis." 179 writings of his to be shewn to Eastern theologians, I read them with admiration, and wrote to Cyril, who replied to me, recognising my careful study and kindly feeling; and this letter of his I keep. . . . Let your Holiness turn away from false accusers, and endeavour either to reclaim those who attempt to corrupt the true doctrine, or, if they are irreclaimable, drive them out of the fold. That I really believe as I have said, my commentaries and my anti-Arian writings will show. To sum up all — ' if any one does not confess the Virgin to be Theotocos, or calls Christ a mere man, or divides the one Only-begotten into two Sons, let him fall from his hope in Christ, and let all the people say, Amen, Amen.'" In the following abstract of the argument of the three Dialogues, the actual words, when specially interesting or important, are given between inverted commas. DIALOGUE I. " IMMUTABIL1S." Orthodox. " It were better for us to be of one mind: but since you bring forward new opinions, let us amicably inquire into the truth." Eranistes. I need no inquiry, for I hold the truth. O. So say heretics and Pagans. But let us not be enslaved to pre- conception, but discuss the question on purely Scriptural grounds. This is to keep the straight road. Now first as to "essence, hypos- tases, persons, properties ;" " do we say that there is one essence of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Scripture and the Nicene Council, or do we follow the blasphemy of Arius ? E. We confess one essence of the Holy Trinity. O. Is hypostasis different from, or synonymous with, essence ? E. Is there any difference between them ? O. Well, secular philosophy identifies it with essence h : essence being what " is," hypostasis what " subsists." But according to the h " The whole school of secular which indicates and circumscribes learning understands by hypostasis what is general and uncircmnscrihed nothing else than usia." So says Je- in anything by means of manifest rome, Epist. 15. 4; cf. Newman, properties," so that in regard to the Athan. Treatises, i. 70. See S. Atha- Trinity it means that which distin- nasius, ad Afros 4. Theodoret seems gnishes the Father from the Son, &c. to be following S.Basil, who says Epist. 38. cp. Epist. 214.4: 236. '». expressly that "hypostasis is not the Similarly S. Greg. Naz. (hat. 42. 10. general notion of essence, but that N 2 ISO How the Word " became flesh." Fathers', hypostasis fa to essence as the particular to the general, as species fi» genus. Hence hypostasis, in regard t<» the Trinity, means Person . Father, Son, predicated of the l>i- rine nature, as the names of God, Lord, Almighty, is common to the Father, *<>n, and Holy spirit. Bui names denoting Persons belong to the Persona respectively, as Father and (Jnbegotten — Sou, and Word — Holy Spirit and Paraclete* E. Is not the name Spirit sometimes given in Scripture to the Father or the Son ? (). ITeB, to show that the Divine Nature i> incorporeal, and ua- circumscribed. Hut the phrase Holy Spirit means the PerBOD of the Spirit. Does the word " Immutable," then, belong specifically to some one Person, or to the Divine Essence? K. It is common to the Trinity. (). Well said; for as mortality is common to men, 80 IS immutabi- lity to the Trinity ' : the Son, then, is immutable. E. He is so. (). Why then do you interpret "the Word became flesh " meaning that the immutable Nature was changed" 1 ? E. I do not say that He became flesh by way of change, but in some way known to Him. O. If you say that He did not become flesh by taking flesh, — one of two things follows: either God was changed into flesh, or Hia appearance in flesh was merely Doeetie ". K. We merely say. He was incarnate. ( ). How " incarnate ?" Explain " became.' 9 E. He endured change into flesh, and became flesh. All is pos- Blble to Him. He changed the Nile-waters into blood, &C. ( ). Yes, creatures are changed as He wills. But He cannot Mai.:'. 6. change; He says, " I change not ." E. We must not pry into what is hidden I'. 1 See on the Tome, c l. the possibility of Godhead, and yet ss- k Ts wp6ffc»wop Ka\ Tiju !ot6TijTa. serfs 1 1 1 « - nature of the A\ ord and of 1 The original is cited by Hooker tin- less t . • be one, be lapses Into In ootc to \. 54. 1, where be says. Valentinian and Bf anichean Docetism. " This admirable anion of «i with ■ Ao*4<( sense, Bpist 1 1 1. Bo Ath. I'.pi.t. .">. the Holy Spirit, and the undlvlaed So s. Basil, Epist. 869. unity ami consubstantlal equality of • Bntyches, whin questioned by the everlasting Trinity is alike im pas- the envoys of Flavian's synod in 148, sible, alike Immutable." He adds said thai be would not "speculate that if an I'.utyi hian BO tar departs al t the nature ot his dm!." .Maiisi, from ApullinatianiMii as doI to SSSOrl \i. 738 Not by any change in Godhead. 181 O. Nor ignore what has heen manifested. E. I know not how the Incarnation took place. I do know that " the Word became flesh." O. Yes, but was it by change from what He was? If so, He did not continue to be what He had been : as sand, in contact with fire, becomes first fluid, then glass, — and is sand no more; as grapes cease to be grapes when made into wine ; and wine to be wine, when changed into vinegar. E. Yes : it is just so. O. Is it thus, then, that He became flesh ? If so, the change is indeed vast : He cannot, of course, be God any more. E. I said before, it is not by way of change : He continued what He was % and became what He was not. O. But " became " implies change if not explained to mean. He took flesh r . E. " He took" is your invention. The text has it not 3 . O. Did the same Spirit speak by the Apostles, as Paul, and by the Evangelists ? E. Certainly. O. Paul, then, may interpret the Gospel : and he says, Christ 'i See above, p. 118. Athanasius, in Orat. ii. 47, explains " became flesh" to mean, not that the whole Word Himself is flesh, but that " He put on flesh and became man." r " Strictly speaking, one thing be- comes another by being changed into that thing which before was not :" [as in the case of the water which became wine.] " It is a contradic- tion that a thing should become a pre-existing thing." Dr. Pusey on Doctr. of Real Presence, p. 232. See Cyril, Quod unus sit Christus (Pusey, p." 339.) It is objected by A. in that dialogue, that if the Word became flesh, He no longer remained Word. B. answers, That is senseless ! " Be- came" does not signify change. A. rejoins, Yes, it does, as when Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. But, says A. what if the Lord " became my refuge?" Surely when "became" is spoken of in regard to God, it must be understood consistently with this unchangeableness. And Theo- doret says in Demonstr. 1. 5. that the "tabernacle" was the flesh it- self: but if He became flesh in the sense of being changed into it, lie did not make Mi-, tabernacle in flesh The words " dwelt among us " re- move all obscurity from " became flesh." Exactly what Cyril had said in Adv. Orient. 4 : and see Ephraim of Antioch, in Photius, no. 229, (p. 256. Bekker) against those who explained away the phrase " became flesh." Compare Proclus, in his Tome to the Armenians, A.D. 435, " Every thing that ' becomes ' either conies into being out of nothing, as the heaven did ... or is changed from what it was before, as the Nile-stream was changed from water into blood. But both these modes are inapplicable to the Divine nature, .... therefore . . . Scripture said ' became,' and of- ten used the word * took,' in order to signify by the former the oneness of the Person, and by the other the unchangeableness of the nature," alluding to Phil. 2. 7. So too S. Chry- sostom in Joan. Horn. 11. 2: "lie added, 'He dwelt among us;' as if to say, Do not infer any tiling absurd from ' became' . . . One thing dwells in another." s Cyril had expressly used this phrase in Ep. ad Nest. 3.3, " Having taken flesh from the Holy Virgin " L82 The Word assumed Manhood, II.!,. 2. 16. l s. Pet. 2. 2i. Iaa.41.8 M took hold of the seed of Aliniham V Now. had not the seed of Abraham what Abraham had by nature? E. Not altogether; Christ " did no sin." ( ). M sin does not belong to nature— but to our evil choice "."* I Baid, "of what Abraham had hy nature," and that is, both body and rational soul. Deny this, and you fall into Apollinarianism. But again; Israelites, yon will grant, have souls and bodies ; and when Isaiah says, "Thou, Israel,— the seed of Abraham," ire think of the Jews not as consisting merely of flesh, but as men composed of .Minis and h<. dies, and of "Abraham's seed" as not soulless nor mindless, but as haying all that characterises Abraham's nature. E. "To Bay this I8 t<> assert two Son-." <>. "To say that the Word was changed into flesh, is to assert no Son. I confess one Son \ who took hold of Abraham's seed."' K. Then Paul and John cannot be made consistent with each other. (). You think so, because you do not understand, or because you arc contentious. The two texts arc quite consistent. The Word became flesh, not by being changed, but by taking hold of the seed • Theod. Bpist. 104; " Divine Scripture says that lie became man, nnt by a change in Mis Godhead, bat by the assumption of the human nature from the seed of Abraham." Epist. ll'», "because the form <>f a servant was assumed from the seed of Abraham ami David." Epist. 185, " lie took bold of Abraham's seed, ll. was not changed Into it." Epist. 130, that He was both " seed of Abraham ami Maker of Abraham." Compare s. Ath. lip. Bpict. .">. ( yril refers to the same text in adv. Nest. i. 1. Explan. 1. In adv. Theod. .'!, be explains it by " appropriating the limitations of humanity." Observe how Tl loret, like Cyril, confidently quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews as s. Paul's. Compare i>. 80. " Bee A than. »•. ApoIHn. i. 15. x Here as elsewhere In- is careful to disclaim the notion of "two Smi\" as bj do means Ini olved in the dis- tinctness ol the Manhood. Bee Dial. ii, ami tin- tract, " Th.it e\en after tin- Incarnation, our Lord ... is one Bon," ( Bchulse, i\ . 1807. i Ami see Epist. S3, ' i i elude from tin- portion of Christ's friends those win. < l i \ i < I « * our out' Lord into two Persons, two S.uis. Let him who parts tl 10 Onlj begotten into two Bons Fall from Ins hope in Chi 1st." I pist. I'M ; \\ • kw'f the natures, we are bound to adore the one Bon . . . the same Sou of (iod and Son ^( .Man," \c In Epist. 1 l."», he " does m>t think that there ,ne any perSODS who actually divide tin- Son, the incarnate, into t wo." Bpist. 1 1."> ; " Because I con. fen the two natures of Christ, they ISj that I assert two S.uis ... I do imt s.,\ tWO S..iiN." fcc, So at « 1ml- cedon, after the letter ol < j i ii to John was read, Theodon I anal '■- ma* tiseil any one w ho said tWO Sons, " for we adore one s. n. one Lord," 8tc, Mansl, ^ i. 678. s. . ,.i >\ . . p So Christ is both God and Man. 183 of Abraham. You remember the promise, " In thy seed shall all Gen. 12. nations be blessed ; " it was reaffirmed to Isaac and Jacob. 3 - E. Yes, I remember. O. And that seed " was Christ." Remember also the text, " There Gal. 3. shall not fail a prince from Judah." . . . Was not that fulfilled in Ge ' n 49< Christ? 10. ' E. Yes: "Jews misinterpret such prophecies ; but I, as a Chris- tian, unhesitatingly take them as referring to our Saviour." O. See then how Paul exhibits the fulfilment of the old promises, as if to say, " God has kept His word ; — by assuming- Abraham's seed (and not Angels), He confirms the ' expectation of the nations.' '" Paul also says, that " our Lord sprang out of Judah," and this fact, Fleb. 7. recorded by Matthew, had been foretold by Micah, whose words **• the Jews garbled while quoting them to Herod, by omitting, "And Mic.5.2. his goings forth V' &c. E. You do well to quote the whole passage : Micah " does shew that He who was born in Bethlehem was God." O. " Not God only, but Man too : " Man, as born there, — God, as existing before the ages : " a Leader," — as Man, and " going forth from eternity," as God. So Paul calls Him both Christ sprung Rom. 9. from the Jews as Man, and " God blessed for ever," Maker and 5# Lord of all things as God z . E. But Jeremiah calls Him God simply, " This is our God . . . Barueh He was seen on earth, and lived among men a . Not a word about 3 - 35 » 3 7. flesh, or manhood, or man. O. " What is the use of arguments ? Do we not believe that the Divine nature is invisible ? " E. Unquestionably. O. How then could It be seen without a body? Does not Paul i Tim. 1. say, " whom no man hath seen nor can see ?" *?• E. You cite an apostle against a prophet. Does the prophet speak falsely ? O. No, both expressions are from the same Spirit. E. Then let us consider how the Invisible was seen. y This need not, says Dr. Mill, He called Him 'who is' . . . He called (on Myth. Interpret, of the Gospels, Him 'God' ... He called Him ' bless- p. 321.) be ascribed to "malignity." ed' ... He called Him 'for ever.' 2 Quoted also in Theod. Epist. 83. Since then we have Cbrist, and one (to Dioscorus) and in Epist. 146, and who is God, and blessed, let us adore 151, to prove the Divinity of Christ. Him," &c. See above, p. 58: and see the elabo- a A confusion between Jeremiah rate comment at the close of Pro- and Barueh, which he again makes in clus's Tome, Mansi, v. 436. "He Epist. 151. So Ambrose, de Fide, i. called Him 'Christ,' . . . he called 28. Athanasius cites the text cor- Him ' of Jews according to flesh ' . . . reetly in Orat. c. Ari. ii. 1!». lsi I was geen through Hisfli (). u Do not give mi your human reasonings*; I follow Scripture alone." E. [fyou can solve the difficulty by Scriptures, I shall acquiesce. (). "Well : I quoted Paul as to the true -ruse of John j 1. 14.) I 1 Tim. now quote lit fii as to DOW God was BCCD OH earth. "God* w.i- "• "' manifested in flesh,' 1 &c. His ;n-t-> through the flesh revealed His power, and even the Angela beheld Him through thai medium. s. .Matt. E. But th.-y "always behold God'a face." • (). They arc said to sec God ;is men are s.iid to liavr seen Him ; Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and other- prophets, who yet never saw- Hi- Bxod.33. very Self, but only what it was possible for thcni to see. - {K E. You mean that "the benignant Lord measure- Hi- revelatlOUfl by the capacity of the beholders?" Ilns. 12. (). Just so. God is shown hv "resemblances," by media of re- in. presentation. E. This is not clear: do you mean that those favoured persons U ho M saw ( Jod " did not see His essence ? (8. John 0. Undoubtedly. What they saw was not His nature, hut " eer- *• 1*0 tain visions adapted to their capacity." So with Angels; not evm they can hehold " that Divine Essence, which is uneircuinscrihed, UnCOmprehended, inconceivable : they only see a certain glory adapted to their own nature. " But when God became Incarnate, then they saw Him iii " real living flesh," which was like a veil. K. M Veil n is a novelty in language. (). You cannot have read Scripture with due care: Paul expressly calls Christ's flesh a veil.* 1 . Vj. That is decisive. ( ). "Then do not charge me with novelties." Again, the pro- phecy about Judah refers to Christ's flesh as a garment. " He shall wash his garment in wine, and his mantle in the Mood of the grape." E. The patriarch was speaking of clothes, not of a body. (). Did He then ever wash His clothes in wine? E. Did He ever so wash His hody ? ( ). Speak, 1 beg, With more reserve. There may he some juv- S. John *Cnt who are uninitiated ( '. — Did He not call Himself a M vine ? " is not la. 1. A orl of retort, see above. 'Die nof %$, But Cyril evidently read Zs, Eutychiani professed t«> distrust •>]>«'- Expl. - : de recta fide ail Tneod.c 7. eolations, and t" cling t<> this or Bcnot. 10. Bee Hammond, Textual th.it t.'\t, m- this «'i thai < 1 i « -t 1 1 1 1 1 of a Criticism of V 'I', p. 106. Father. Bee an important note (by Dr. Bee Newman's aote in Athan. Newman) In Oxf, Transl. ol Pleury, Treatises ii. 891: an. I Tracts Theol. \,,l. iii. p, 840. "Orthodox" means, and Bodes. i>. 867. •• ii is inv turn t" protest against khintofthe"Dis- 'human reasonings' on jrourslde." cipQna Arcani" (for which, see New. 1 1 , ,,,|, i.i.' in or- .\i i.iii-. |. .i I i Bet illusion Heb. 10. 80. (nil. 19, 10. Mystical sense of " wine" " bread" fyc. 185 the fruit of the vine made into " wine ? " Did not blood and water flow from His side ? Here then was a fulfilment of the prophecy ; the " garment," that is, His body, was " washed in the blood of the grape," that is, the blood of Christ the true Vine, which flowed from that body on the cross. For as we call the sacramental f fruit of the vine, after its consecration, " the Lord's blood," so the blood of the true Vine was called ' the blood of the grape.' E. You have given an interpretation both mystical and clear. O. Now, another proof: Gods, you know, called His own Body " bread." Did He not elsewhere, call His flesh " corn ? " E. Yes : " Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die," S. John &c. ,2 - 24 - O. But in the institution of the Mysteries, He called the bread " body," and the mixed drink h " blood ;" whereas, naturally, His body would be called " body," and His blood "blood." E. Unquestionably. O. But our Saviour changed the names, and gave to His body the name of the symbol l , and to the symbol that of His body. So having called Himself a "vine," He called the symbol " blood." E. True : and why did He make this change ? O. The initiated understand that it was because " He desired the communicants not to attend to the nature of what they saw, but by means of the change of names to believe in the change effected by grace. For He who called that which is by nature body ' bread,' and called Himself a ' vine,' honoured the visible symbols with the title of ' body and blood,' not having changed their nature, but added grace to their nature k . Now, of what is that most holy food a symbol ? Of the Deity of Christ, or of His Body and Blood ? " E. Doubtless, the latter. O. Spoken like a lover of truth. Christ, in taking the symbol, said not " This is My Godhead," but " This is My Body 1 ." ' Then He had a body ? to it even in the Church-historian guage. Compare the Athanasian Sozomen, with reference to " the phrase, " God's body," &c. p. fii. mysteries," viii. 5, and still more h Compare S. Justin M. Apol. i. 65. strikingly when he tells us that he S. Iremeus v. 2. 3. on the " mixture." had been dissuaded by pious friends ' Here Theodoret means, our Lord from inserting the Nicene Creed into called His own body bread, (as He his work, because such matters were called Himself a vine) and called bread onlyfor" initiated andinitiators,"i. 20. His body, in order to fix attention on f Literally, "mystical." Cp. Serin, the sacramental as distinct from the Major, ."Hi, to the same effect that the natural character of the bread, garment means Cbrist's body, and k See a similar passage in Dial. ii. wine Mis blood ; and that He called which states more fully what Tbeo- wine His blood, though it is the blood don't believed as to the Eucharist. of the grape. ' Here be is adopting an expression b This is clearly anti-Nestorian Ian of Nestorius .- Cyril adv. Nest, h <» II. 1 >b. ."i. 1 . II. •I.. in. s. Mi itt, 1. 80. 186 Christ had a true body, B. "Well, I call Him bodiless*. I say the IFord became flesh." (). Truly, I am "filling ■ cash thai has boles. 91 After all our ar- foment, l>ark ymi come to the same point ! You quote the Evan- gelist's phrase: but I interpret it by Paul's, e. g. "Every high priest"— &C. And lie distinctly says tiiat Christ, IS ;i Priest, bad " a body prepared for Him to offer. 91 Be does not say "Thou bast changed me into :i body.*' And this body, .Matthew teaches. WSJ tunned by the Spirit. K. Therefore what was born of .Mary iras a body only. (). Vim do nut even oIimtvc the wording, tar lesfl the meaning. The reference is tu conception not to birth. Well, I have Bbown how Paul interprets the Psalmist: Christ is man i- a Priest : ;i- a Priest, He had tu offer a sacrifice; He could not offer anything but lli> own body; therefore He had a body. E. I cannot admit that He BSSUmed a body. O. As far as I see, this is the old error of Gnostics 1 and Mani- cheans r or worse, for they never said that the immutable nature was changed into flesh. E. Abuse is not Christianlike. < ). "I am not dealing in abuse: I am contending for truth, and am sorry that vou dispute about what is beyond all doubt." Hut you remember in a Psalm, written with prophetic foresight of the cap- tivity, and full confidence in those promises which spoke of a M seed of PS, B9, 1. David," who was to be "established for ever." E. This referred to Solomon. ( >. Was Solomon, then, the "seed" spoken of to the patriarchs? Wa- it in him that " all nations" were " blessed ?" E. Then to ZerubbabeR < ). Yon go from one extreme to another — from (inosticism to the Jewish "faction:" like all who leave the right path, you wander hither and thither. ■ Cp. Atli. c. ApoDin. i. H) : the by Valentinus and Bardesanes, and Apollinariani "wished t<> i n ppr osi tin' Mardoo, and .Manes." See slso Atb. word body." Theodoret, in Epist. 1 30, Ep. Epict. 7. c. Apollin. L 3. 19 : ii. .'{. quota the reference to tin- "body of " It is curious tu set Theodore! Jeans" in tin- Qoapel narrative "t tin- here ascribing t « » Eranistei thai hum burial. disposition t.> minimise tin- Messianic I L r . " w hn was tnaile of the seed element in the Psalms and PfOpbetfl of D;i\iil according to the flesh, \e. whieh was .me of the offensive te.i- Bo Theod. Epist. B9; and again tum In Theodore*! lystam of Inter- Epist. 125, th.it since the Godhead pretation. "Omnes psahnos," says is Impassible, < brist must bare bad a Leontios of Theodora, "Judaic! ad human nature uhieh could MitVer : Korobabelem e1 Esechiam retniit, iitherw be "1 here \m mi hi he h.'^iuus in- tlibui taiitnin ail I >• m i i 1 1 n in reject is." Btead of reality, and the great mysterj QaHand. \ii. 687. Here Theodore! of the economy would he seen tu he diners widely from Theodori "in. Thii myth was prod u ced his '• Pnefatio in Pwihmn" He was predicted as Heir of David. 187 E. " Railers" have no part in God's kingdom. O. But Paul on occasion used severe language. And I may well use it, when you are advocating the Jewish negation of the Messi- anic sense of these prophecies , and applying them to men who died and passed away, as the whole Davidic line lias done. E. Are the Jewish so-called " patriarchs" of David's lineage ? O. No, — of Herod's ; but even they are gone ; their government passed away long ago P : whereas the prophecy spoke of One who should reign for ever, — that One being sprung from David. Yet we know that God cannot lie. How then, in the face of facts, can we prove that He has kept His word to David ? E. The prophecy must refer to Christ. O. Very well : now observe, in the middle portion of the psalm it is said of this great King, the Son of David, " I will make His throne to be as the clays of heaven, Sec. E. None but Christ can be the subject of this promise 3. O. Then, if the promise cannot fail, and the Jews have no Davidic kingdom left, Christ, as Man, is the seed of David. E. I admit it. O. Then His Manhood is proved. See too the words "I have set i sa . 55. Him for a Leader to the nations," and the other passage, "A rod 4 - from the root of Jesse." "*■ "• ■• E. I take that of Zerubbabel. O. Even the Jews did not so take it r ! The context suits no mere man ; for all the powers of the Spirit rest on the Person intended. And at the same time, the context indicates Him as really man, exercising judgment. So that part of the prediction relates to hu- manity, part to Divinity. The passage also points to a general union of all classes under His rule, men of diverse characters in one faith ; and this is fulfilled in our experience, for Christians of all classes, the Sovereigns of the world inclusive, have one " bath," one teach- ing, one mystical Table, the same portion as believers. It shows too that He is not God only, but also Man, a " rod from the root of Jesse." E. Did the apostles own Christ to be of David's seed ? O. Yes, Peter did ; His testimony would suffice, for the confession p See Cod. Theod. xvi. 8. 29. and seed to which He is said, in the Gothofred dates the extinction of this very beginning of the Gospel, to be- patriarchate between 415 and 42U. long." Cp. Milman's Hist. .Jews, iii. \\7 . ' "The reference" of Isa. 11. 1 ft •i See Leo, Epist. 30. " It is of no " to the Messiah is plainly affirmed in use to call our Lord, the Son of the the Tallinn of Jonathan." I've Blessed Virgin, 'Man,' if wo do not Smith, Script. Testim. to Messiah, believe llim to be Man of that race i. 2ol>. 188 Christ's Manhood must be real, uttered by him alone called forth Christ's approval. Bat Paul says Acta 13. the same in several passages. Tin- distinction taken, "according ?<» the flesh," Bhows thai Christ v/as not man only, but God before mi. IM.il. 4 If. 23 •j ■ h. the ages . *«■• '• E. Still, I hold by "The Word became flesh." < ). So do I, — in its right meaning. If the Word took nothing from our nature, God's promises are falsified, tin- prophecies have failed; tin- Nativity Ifl unreal'; our faith is vain: the Resurrection lias not M raised us up to heavenly plaC* -.'" The Evangelist interpret.-. himself. The context proves that the Word did take our nature, remaining immutably God's only Son. Compare Paul's word-, "Who being in the form of God," &c; it is a parallel pai Both of them teach that He W'lu> was God assumed human nature for our salvation. Not Jews only, but His own disciples spoke of Him as Man. E. I see all this. Hut explain how He was made " in the like- ness of men." (). What He took was not the likeness, hut the nature of man: " form," in either case, means nature ". " Likeness of men" means that while He was (Jod, He appeared to be man. E. How did the Fathers understand John's words? ( ). Scripture ought to suffice. But I will give quotations ; (quotes Athanasius to Epictetus, c. - s . &c. Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Flavian of Antioch, Gelasius of Csssarea, Chrysostom: — ) I would add Diodore and Theodore, hut that you are prejudiced against them \ But take Ignatius?, [renSSUS, HippolytUS, .Methodius, Kus- tathius of Antioch, Athanasius, (de Sent. Dionysii 10. 12: Serm. Major de Fide 3,36, 1 : Ep. to Epict. 2, 7 Basil, Gregory of Nj ssa, Amphilochius. E. The Eastern authors quoted agree with the Western. But I see that they make a hroad " division." O. Von should not insult men of whom some actually listened to, and knew, the Apostles. Hut I will giye you quotations from the author of your own heresy, Apollinaris 1 ; in his "Compendium" he distinctly says, Christ was not changed Into flesh, but became 1 Compart c. kpollln. i. 13, 80. ten, shhougli tor hi-* part be had 1 Literally, " The Virgin Is taper- written in their defence, fluous " (a phrate borrowed from Ath. ' Ht refers t.. Ignatiutat having Bp. Eplct. I.) in tii.it she offered to bten consecrated by the right hand of the Incarnate < ""I nothing of our na- Peter, Bp. 151. These quotations are tore." ( t. s. Basil, Bp. 261. Important In the [gnatian controrer. ■ On tlii> let above, p. 116. iv, Ep. Ignat. Smyrn. 1 : Bph. 18, 7. Bo in Eplst, 16, in 1 1!». ht <\- Trail. i». plains t«> bishop Irenseos whj be it ' Bee his Hist. r. 8, as to the** root" refraining from quoting Hi"-. trrl ofMonophj [tisra His " assumj)tion of flesh" admitted. 189 flesh in a " nobler " way, in that He took to Himself flesh, and became one with it " by composition." Elsewhere he denies any " alteration, translation, or inclusion of the holy Power of God :" he says, " We adore God, — who assumed flesh from the Virgin, and therefore is God according- to the Spirit, Man according to flesh ;" and in another work, " We confess that the Son of God was made Son of Man, not nominally but really, having assumed flesh from Mary." E. I did not know that Apollinaris said this. O. But now you see that even Apollinaris repeatedly disowned the notion that the Word was changed into flesh ; and " the disciple is not above his master." E. I admit that the Word is Immutable, and that He assumed flesh. Let us go on to the next subject to-morrow. O. Yes, — and think over the points on which we are now .agreed. DIALOGUE II. " INCONFUSUS." E. Here am I, according to promise ; and you must either answer my questions, or assent to what I say. O. I accept your challenge. But first let us recollect the point at which we left off, and what our discussion tends to. E. We agreed that the Word remained immutable, and took flesh, but was not changed into flesh. O. You state the case like a lover of truth. E. As I said before, it would be absurd to differ from such eminent teachers. But then I was much impressed by your quotations from Apollinaris, although in his work "on the Incarnation" he took a wholly different line. Therefore I agree with you that the Lord took flesh. O. Well, — w T hat flesh ? Body and soul, you will own. But what soul ? the rational, or the vital and animal ? For Apollinaris makes that distinction ; he says that man is composed of body, and vital soul, and mind. But Scripture recognises only one soul a . S. Luke E. You have proved that each man has but one soul. ( r; *PJ O. Apollinaris says, two : and that the Word assumed the irra- l><; . tional, but was Himself instead of the rational ; which soul then do Acta 20. 10. you think He assumed ? a See Theod. Epist. 145, that Apol- Compare Laddon, Some Elements of linaris took his distinction between Religion, i». 92. See <>n c. Apollin. i. tyvxv and i'uvs from Pagan philosophy. 11. VJO Chnst must be rut', J, not only " Cod," K. Following Scripture, I say, Be assumed a reasonable soul. (). ^ f a servant" in its completeness. Por Il«' had to repair the image which was wholly impaired . II. True. Bui I want to clear away an ambiguity. Tell me, are we to call Chris! M .Man ?" (). Both God and Man. "God the Word, having become .Man, was called Jesuj Christ'." Before the Incarnation He was spoken of simply a-> God, Sod of God, the Word, Life, Light. But after the Incarnation He was called Jesus and Christ E. Then, since He became .Man, without being changed, but re- maining what He was, we must call Him simply what He WSS, God. (). "God the Word was, and is, and will he, immutable : but He became .Man by taking human nature. We ought therefore to ac- knowledge both natures, that which took and that which was taken." E. M We ought t<» name Him from His higher element." O. Is man, as a living being, simple or compound? E. Compound, of body and soul. (). Which is the superior of these nature- ? E. Soul. (). .Man, then, should be called from his higher nature. Gen. 46. E. So he is; e. ir. " Israel went unto Egypt with 7"> souls." Here wL* a ' ' the men are called souls ll . Elsewhere we read, " My Spirit shall not ."{, LXX. always abide in these men. hecause they are flesh,"" meaning Bensual. (). Is man never called "flesh" except in an invidious sense? Gal. I. Think of raid, — '* I conferred not w ith flesh and blood," explained by, .,',.'' , "the apostles." And "to Thee shall all flesh come:" whereas some Esek.18. times man is called 'soul' when censured, as, " The soul that siu- *• neth. it shall die.*' This proves that where two elements arc com- bined by an union of two natures, the composite w hole may he named after the lower as well as after the higher element. B. M But what compels you to call our Saviour ' Man?' •" (). The opposite heresies, Ariau and Sahcllian. "The former di- vides the essence', the latter confounds the persons." Must not different diseases be cured by different treatment ? COBip. A'li. 6. Apnllin. i. 7. On interprets u heeaine flesh" as "I.e. thus retracing the effaced colours of came Man." the picture, see de Incarn. VeiM 1 i. Phe Eatychians feared thai to call Here i^ the easence of what B. Christ Man might be equivalent t < > ( \ril bad contended for. calling him '/ Man. a human person. Bee Bpipbanius, Ancoratus, 78 : Bee above p. 97, 159. Gregory Naaansen, Epist. 101. Cyril ' Literally, •' essences." Of course Alex, says, Bcbol. 97, that Bcripture this plural does not mean that there sometimes describe! man bj one part are two essences of the Patherand the nt hi> being;, sometimes bj another, Sun. as there are, in the next clause, as 8. Luke 3. and Dent. 10. 99. He distinct hypostases. but also "Man." 191 E. Yes. O. We have then to persuade the Arian, that there is one Essence in God, and the Sahellian, that there are three Persons, — hy different phrases. E. Yes : but are we not wandering- from our point ? O. No : you will soon see that we have been gathering- materials for its decision. Have all heresies owned both the Godhead and Manhood of Christ ? E. No : some, one only ; some the other. O. And some have acknowledg-ed a part of His humanity. E. Yes ; but tell me the names of the sects to which you allude. O. Simon and Menander, &c. have denied Christ's humanity : Ar- temon, Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, &c. His Divinity. Arius s and Eunomius denied Him an animal soul : Apollinaris, a mind. Now, must we let these men rush down a precipice, Avithout trying- to rescue them? E. No, it would be inhuman. O. And various diseases h must be dealt with variously ; and differ- ent plants need various training. So, different errors must be dif- ferently treated. What then must be prescribed for the Photinians or Marcellians ? E. Belief in Christ's Divinity. O. Then we need not speak to them of His Manhood ? E. No. O. And in treating of the Incarnation with Arians, or Eunomians, what must we add to their belief? E. That Christ assumed a soul. O. And what must be supplied to an Apollinarian ? E. That He assumed a rational soul, — that the rational soul is not separate from the animal. O. Gnostics too and Manicheans, — what do they believe and what deny ? E. They tell us they believe in Christ's Divinity, but not in His Humanity. O. So then, we shall have to persuade them to accept the doctrine of His Humanity, and not to call the Divine economy illusory '. E. That will be our duty. O. Then we shall tell them that they ought to call Christ not God only, but " Man." e A mistake as to Arius, see New- muscles, bile, &c. man, Tracts Theol. and Eccles. p. 258. ■ Kal firj (pauraa-iav t V Oeiav oIkovo- '' He enumerates as diseases, suf- ylav Kakelv. Cf. Atli. Ep. Bpict. 7.c. fusion of eyes, toothache, straining of Apollin. i. 3. L92 Scripture calls Chris/ ''Man." E. Just BO. < ). Indeed ! hut liow can we bid them rail Him " Man." it we onr- selvei decline to eall Him ho ? They will convict ns of inconsistency. E. We do DOt agree With them: tor we own that the Wurd a — Mimed flesh and a rational soul. <). M If we COnfeSS the tiling, why avoid the name*-"* E. "Christ ought to be named from what is "more honourable." O. Follow that out. and, yon will give op calling Him " crucified" ami " risen." E. No: tor those words refer to His Passion, to deny which would be to annul our salvation. <). The name " .Man"' is a name of nature : therefore to BOppreSfl it is to deny nature, — therefore, to deny the Passion, — therefore, to annul our salvation. EL " I deem it important to recognise the nature which He as- sumed. But to call the Saviour * .Man' is to impair the Lord's glory*." B.John (). Are you then wiser than the Saviour Himself, who called Him- ActsS self a man, or than Peter and Paul who so spoke of Him? E. Those BayingS were uttered to men who did not believe. Now the largest part of the world has believed. (). Still there are Jews, Pagans, and countless heretics, and they must all be approached with teaching which will suit their cases. Hut, waiving that, tell me what harm is done by calling Christ M God eowfMan?" Is not .Manhood, equally with Godhead, perfect in Him? E. It is. I have often said so. But " to call Him '.Man' i-. I think, superfluous, especially when Christians converse together.' 1 < ). Paul and Timothy were Christians, and Paul calls Christ 1 Tim. 2. " .Man" in a passage w here also the very name M .Mediator" implies that He is .Man as well as God '. Uv is .Mediator, because. SS God, He is conjoined to the Father as having the same essence.— and, U .Man, to ns, for He assumed from us the form of a servant. Gal :$. E. Was not .Moses called " a mediator ? *" ( ). He was a type of //"' .Mediator, hut no type comes np to the Bxod. 7. reality. He was not by nature God, but be was "appointed as a g I 1 to Pharaoh.' 1 u Bee lids minted in Newman's man nature." Newman, I. e. Athan. Treat, ii. 148. ed. 8. a sort ' s.. Tl d. in loc, The doctrine of will-worship or misdirected reve- of the Mediator b set forth in 8. Ire- renee is liere Indicated as the ninth r iia'iis, iii. is, .mil S. August i ne . D<»rs not Paul call man an "image of God?" On your show- "• '• ing, then, man ought to be uncreate, uocircumscribed, incomposite: to create, to make all things at a word, nut to Ik- ill or in pain, or angry, — nor to sin, &c. E. Man i> not God's image in all points. <>. Hut in whatever points be is. he will be found to eome short of the reality. E. I grant it. Col i. <). Paul calls the Son "the Image of the Invisible God." ] J*\ . K. What ? has not tin- Son all that the Father has ? s. John 16.14. <>. He is not Father, not uncaused, not unbegotteii *. E. If Hr were, He would not be. Son. (). So then it is true ; an image has not all that the archetype has. E. It is true. (). In this way, then, is Melchisedec said to have been M made like unto the Son of God." E. Granting other points, how shall we understand his "not having beginning of days," &c. ? (). Scripture does not tell us when he was begotten or born, or when he died. The Son of God, in very truth, neither began to be, nor will eease to be. So, in points which really belong to God, Melchisedec was a type of Christ. Hut in regard to lligh-priesthood, which belongs to man, be really was a priest of Gentiles; and Christ, made a Bigh-priest after his order. " offered for all men that most holy and saving Sacrifice." E. We have bad a long discussion about this. (). And there was room for yet more. You said the passage Was difficult to understand. E. Let us return to OUT point. (). Where were we ? 1 Tim. 2. E. Von had cited "The -Man Christ JeSUS," in proof that it was • r, « right to call Christ not " Cod M only, hut sko u Man. 91 O. 1 remember what led us off into this digression. You raised a point RS to the word ".Mediator." Well: do you own that we OUght to call Christ M .Man," as well as "Cod?" B. I call Mini "Cod." for He is Qod'l Son. < ). He called Himself Cod's Son, and He fclsO called Himself « Man." E, The name M Man " does not befit Him so will as M Cod," be- Bee Atli.-oi. de Synod. 19. " uh.it thcr," Compare Pearson on tin- Creed, i> predicated <•) the Father is predl- ii. 18, on thw use of the term "cause," cited als<» in Bcrlptnre <>t the Bon, Christ, being " Son of David," could be " Lord of David." E. This makes against you : He there called Himself not " Son of David," but " Lord of David." This shows which title He prefers ". r iris olnovofxias. Cf. Athan. Tome, * See Leo, Epist. 59. 4. "He who 7. does not admit that the Only-begot- s ftavTaaiuZi). ten Son took our nature in ntero 1 Long before, in the letter to the Davidicffi Virginia is alien from the Euphratesian Monks, (Ep. 151) while whole mystery of Christian religion:" fiercely attacking Cyril's Articles, and Ep. 72, "Be not ashamed of the Theodoret had cited texts in which Gospel of the generation of .Jesus Christ was called man, this among Christ, Son of David . . . according the rest. to the flesh." But Cvril had said the o2 [ ( jc, Scripture evidence of the Manhood, (). You do not tttend to the passage. He asked, " 1 1 » » w is He then His *<>u ? M He did nut say, " He m Lord, //"/ Son." II*- ask- ed, "Hon is He his Sen?" as it' to say, M In one respect He is Lord, in another He fa 8on. M This proves that He bad both the Godhead and the Manhood. E, u No need of arguments. The Lord distinctly taught that He docs not Will to be called Son Of David." ( ). Why then did He not BO teach flic ( 'anaanili>h woman, the blind men, the crouds who Bang Hosanna ? K. He tolerated these addresses before His resurrection, accom- modating Himself to the weakness of those who did not as y«t per- fectly believe. Hut now that He i> risen, these names are obsolete. O. Was Paul one of the perfect, or id' the imperfect ? ES. "We Ought not to joke about serious thin--."' (). " Nor ought we to despise the reading id' the Di?ine orach-."' K. M Who is so wretched as to neglect his own salvation x ? *" ( ). Answer my question as to Paul. ES. Clearly he is a most perfect teacher. (). When did he begin to preach? E. After the death of Stephen. (). And just before his own death he speaks of Christ as bi of the 2 Tim. 2. seed of David." I could cite other texts, hut I think it would he superfluous. E. You promised to show that our Lord spoke id* His flesh, a- you have said He did of His Godhead. ( ). 'Phi' mere existence of His llesh. seen, as eating, toiling, sleep- ing, was a proof sullicieut : hut rememher what lie said after His s. Lake Resurrection, " Behold my hands and my feet -V 8tc M Now I bare 84.39. fulfilled my promise, ('ease to dispute; acknowledge His two Na- tures." E. "There were two before the union: hut when they came to- gether, they constituted one nature 7 ." ( ). When did the union take plan ? E. At His conception. < ). Wa> the Word preexistent before the conception? like, Bp.ad Sure _\ tliat blessed Paul tain." Bp. Peat. : ; !'. had described the descendant ofAbnu • Quoted by Leo, in Ms Tome, r. 5, bam, of Jews, "f David, •■■> Lord of ami in bb second Tome or Epist. 16*5. r l"i_\ . <\' -. rhls was the proposition to which x Observe tin* spiritual importance Eutyches adhered at the Council of ascribed t.i tin- reading of Scripture. Constantinople in 148 Set M tnsl, ri. >■■. e.g. s. Athanasius, after enume- 744; Pleury, b. 97 t c 88, Hetl ght rating tin- canonical I lea, says, tlien, as Dioscorus thought at Chalce- ** These are fountains of salvation, so don, (Mansi, \i. 684,1 that be was 1 ti'it he vn1i<» thirsts maj \><- satiated liolilhi!;- last t.» 8. Cyril, v.i r . ad Slice. with the oradei which the) con- I. (Epist. p. 137.) But Cyril's con* The Incarnation involves it, 197 E. Yes, before all ages. O. Was the flesh also preexistent ? E. 13y no means a . O. It was formed by the Holy Spirit after the Annunciation ? E. So I say. O. Then there were not " two natures before the union," but only one b ; only the Godhead, that nature which is eternal, and existed before the ages. Do you distinguish the Incarnation, or the becom- ing Man, from the union ? E. No. (). Right: for He became Incarnate by assuming flesh. E. So it appears. (). And the assumption involved the union ? E. Yes. (). Well : if then the union was the becoming Man, and He be- came Man by taking human nature, and the form of God took the form of a servant, then before the union there was one nature, i. e. the Divine. E. But is the union the becoming Man ? O. You just now admitted it. E. " You misled me by your arguments." O. Well, let us begin the discussion over again. Does the Incar- nation differ from the union in the nature of the thing ? E. Very much. O. Explain more fully, wherein lies the difference. E. The very names prove it. " Incarnation" means, the assumption of flesh : " union," the conjunction of things that were separated. O. Is the Incarnation prior to the union ? E. No. text shows that what lie meant was, the human nature of Christ had ever " The one Son, or Christ, is indivi- existed apart from His Divine Person, sible after the union." See above, Ephraim of Antioch followed Leo and p. 175. Theodoret here, (Photius, no. 22S, a Eranistes disowns this Apollina- p. 247,) and urged that the flesh had rian theory, for which see above, no existence whatever before it was p. 80. united to the Word, and that to af- b " It is as impious," says Leo in his firm two natures before the union Tome, c. 6, "to say that the Son of was in effect to Nestorianize. To the God was of two natures before the objection of the Severians, " A cpvais Incarnation, as it is wicked to assert cannot exist auv-Koararos, therefore only one nature after the Word was to say two (pv(reis = ii to say two 1'er- made flesh." From his Epist. 35 we see sons," Ephraim replies, (1) that it like the i of silver gilt? or of the composition of electron? (from gold and di- rer) or Of glue made of lead and fin? K. No, — the union is ineffable and inconceivable. O. I also admit that the mode of the union cannot be compre- hended. But Scripture lias taught us that each nature remains in- violate even after the union '. K. Where does Scripture teach this? (). Scripture is full of this doctrine. K. Give me some proof. < ). Do you not then, admit the existence of the properties of t ,i< h nature ? E. Xot after the union. (). Let us then learn this from Scripture. E. To Scripture I will Bubmit. • Quoted by Hooker, v. 52. 3, note, afansi, vi. 748. d Theodoret,Demonstr.2.1, "Those ' This illustrates the substitution who believe that after the onion one at Chalcedon of "in two natures," nature of Godhead and Manhood was fur the inadequate "from two na- constitated, destroy by this theory the tares." Bee im'. Transl. of Henry, properties of the natures : and to des- vol. iii. y. 373, note. Dioscorus at troy them is to deny both natures. Fur Clialcedon said tersely, " 1 aooepl the the confusion of the united elements 'from two,' nol the 'two,' Maud, forbids iin to think of flesh as flesh, or vi. 692. It i> observable that in this of God as God. But if, even after the first session of Chalcedon the profea- nnion, tin- difference between these sion of the deceased Flavian, that the •■'.•iuciit> is dbtingulsbable, then no t Chris! was "from two natures' 1 confusion has taken place, bul the after ll»' became man, had been ap- union is without confusion. Bul if proved by Leo's deputies, and by other this is slanted, the Ijord Christ is bishops, Manal, vi. 680, Yet even at nol one nature, bul on.- Bon, ax- the Council of 448, at which Flavian hibiting each nature unimpaired." made this statement, Basil of Beleu- .\t tin- Council oi" Constantinople in da ami Beleucusof Amasla had »aiil ns, Plorentius, 1 1 » « * Patrician, with " in two natures," lb. 685. Plavian ami BaaU of Seleucia, urged ' Bo Plavian in his 2nd letter to Butychesin rain to admit "two na- I.- ■•; M I ren in the anion the pro- tares after the union." Bad! (by his pertlesofthe two natures remain en- own account al the " Robbers' meet- tin." Bo Leo in the Tome, c 8, ing,") told Butyches thai to assert " Eaeh nature retains its own proper- one nature after the union, without ty without defect," ami in Bp adding to nature the term " incur- " 8ie assumptam naturam beatificans, Date/' was to confound the Godh ad u( frlorificata in gtarificante persaa- i i.i with His e ib, n. ■ but existing in One Person. 199 O. John says, "In the beginning' was the Word," &c, Do yon S. John say this of the flesh, or of the Word, begotten of the Father before ' ' all ages ? E. These expressions refer to the Word. But I do not separate Him from the flesh which was united to Him. O. " Nor do I separate the flesh from the Word. But neither do I make the union a confusion." E. I know of one nature after the union B. O. When did the Evangelists write, — before or after the union ? E. Clearly after it, — after the descent of the Holy Spirit. . O. Well then, — compare John's words with the opening of Mat- S. Matt, thew's Gospel. Can you make these sayings fit one nature? Im- *• *" possible. E. " When you speak thus, you are dividing the Only-begotten Son into two Persons." O. " No, I adore one Son h , our Lord Jesus : but I have learned the difference between the Godhead and the Manhood. But do you, who say, ' one nature after the union,' try to harmonize this with the prologues of the Gospels. Now both these things, existence in the beginning, and descent as to flesh from Abraham and David, belong to Christ the Lord." E. Take care ! that sounds like " one nature after the union." O. Well, I need not mention flesh. I apply both these things to Christ. E. I too admit this. O. " But I say it as contemplating two natures in Him, and assign- ing to each what belongs to it '." But if Christ is " one nature," s Similarly, when Theophilus, sent yet we have to take account of the by the Council of Constantinople to qualities of the acts themselves, and confer with Eutyches, had elicited discern by the gaze of pure faith to from Him the admission that the In- what the humility of the flesh is pro- carnate was perfect Man as well as moted, to what the loftiness of Deity perfect God, and had then said to him, bends down : what that is which is " If these two perfects make up one done by the flesh not without the Son, what hinders us from saying ' one Word, and what that is which is ef- Son from two natures?'" Eutyches fected by the Word not without the answered, " Far be it from me to say flesh." (Compare the better known that Christ is from two natures, $ passage in Leo's Tome, c. 4, M Agit (pv(Tio\oye?u rbu Qeov /jlov" above, enim utraque forma.") He adds, c. p. 180. But Eutyches owned Christ 8, "As the Lord of majesty is said to to be perfect Man, both then and in have been crucified, so He who from his letter to S. Leo. (Leo, Ep. 21.) eternity is equal to God is said to h See above, p. 182. have been exalted : because the unity 1 Compare Leo, Epist. 165. 6 ;" AI- of Person remaining, one and tin- though therefore in the one Lord same, without separation, is both Jesus Christ, true Son of God and whole Son of Man because of the man, there is one Person of the Word flesh, and whole Son of God because and the flesh, which has actions com- of His one Godhead witli the; Father." mon without severance or division, This letter was written August 17, 200 Distinct ion between the Natures* how can tiling bo opposite is existence in the beginning and descent from creatures be appropriated to it? And consider this: it G the Word to be called the Maker of all things? E. Yrs bo Scripture teaches. (). On which day did He make Adam ? B. The sixth. (). How many generations are there from Adam to Abraham ? E. Twenty, I think. o. From Abraham to Christ how man} arc reckoned by Matthew ? I'.. Forty-two. ( >. How can Christ, if He is "one nature," have been the Crea- tor, and also have been, after ho many generations, formed in the Virgin's womb? how could He be both Adam's Creator and the son of Adam's descendants ? E. " I have said before that both the former and the latter pertain to Him as God Incarnate. For I know one nature of the Word, one that became incarnate k .'' O. "Well, my v;]'.,; ' the Incarnation was devoid of all change. For, otherwise, after He became incarnate, Divine titles would not suit Him. E. I have often confessed the Word to he unchangeable. O. " It was, then, hy taking flesh that He hecame incarnate." E. fes. (). Then the nature of the Word which hecame incarnate, is one, and that of the flesh hy assuming which the nature of the Word hecame incarnate, i^ another. B. Clearly. <>. Was He then turned info flesh ? 158, after Timothy "the Weasel" the Word's own nature, His Godhead, bad written to the Emperor Leo, ac- i>< <>n.-: Be has no< two Godheads, curing 8. Leo of Nestorisnising. On Urn what Cyril mean! by the phrase tin- meaning <>i M communlcatlo ir lii^ on n, u meai Analogy of Soul and Body in man. 201 E. By no means. O. Then, by your admission, the natures were not confounded, but continued entire. One Evangelist describes Divinity, another Humanity, as belonging to the one Christ. He Himself calls Him- self now " Son of God," now " Son of Man." Now He honours g. i^e His Mother as His parent; now, as Lord, He rebukes her 1 . Naza- 2 - 51. reth and Capernaum are His country; yet He is "before Abraham s.John was." This proves " two natures." |. ^ E. To say two natures is to say " two Sons." O. Then to say that Paul was composed of soul and body is to say " two Pauls m ." E. The case is not parallel. O. I know that. In the latter case the union is natural of things contemporaneous and created n ; in the former, it is a supernatural work of grace. " But though the union in the latter case is natural, the properties of the nature remain inviolate." E. If the properties remained unmixed, how does the soul require nourishment with the body ? O. The soul does not require it. But the body which receives vital force from it, feels physical wants until death. E. Surely hunger and thirst belong to the soul ? O. If they did, the soul would feel them after the death of the body. E. What are the properties of the soul ? O. To be rational, simple, immortal, invisible. E. And of the body? O. To be composite, visible, mortal. E. And from these two the man is constituted ? O. Yes. E. Then we define man, a rational mortal animal ? O. Confessedly. E. And we name him from this and from that set of qualities ? O. True. E. As then we do not divide the man, but call him both rational and mortal, so we must ascribe to the undivided Christ what is Divine and what is human. 1 'ns SecrTroTTjs ivirifui. Perhaps no one to this day lias called Paul two Theodoret was thinking of Athan. Pauls, because he has a soul and a Orat. c. Avian, iii. 41, as well as of body." Compare Epist. 130. Chrvsostom on S.John ii. 4. n So that Theodoret held " Creati- m This analogy (employed in the anism." See Liddon, Some Elements Quicunque) is used by Theodoret of Religion, p. 102. Theodoret doea with the same illustration from Paul, not mean to deny that the anion in in Epist. 143. " Every man has an im- the Christ is in a true sense (pvaiKrj. mortal soul and a mortal body; and "Properties of the Two Natures." O. This is ///// argument : but you have DOt worked it out BGCU- rately. When we think of the human soul, do we nol speak only of what belongs to its activity and nature? B. Yes. < ). Bo also u to tin- body ? E. Y( . 0. But when we speak of the irhole living being, we ascribe to it both sets of properties alike. E. Excellently said. ( ). Bo when we speak of Christ's "natures,* 1 we assign to eaeli what belongs to it; but when we speak of the "l'ei>oii," we must ascribe to Him alike what belongs respectively to the nature-. to attach both sets of properties to Christ", and call Him both God and Man, Son of God and Son of Man. E. I agree with you that Christ's Person is one, and that to it be- long what is Divine and what is human. Uut to say that 10 Speaking of the natures we must assign properties to each, seems to me to dissolve the union P. (). You did not think so in regard of properties of soul and body. Do you not admit the parallel between (1 ) soul and hody, (2) Christ's Godhead and Manhood? Is there, then, a union without confusion in ( 1 ) and a confusion in (2) ? E. Assuredly, Christ's Deity, and also His ilesh. are infinitely superior to soul and hody: yet, I say, "After the union, one nature." ( ). But to say this is grossly inconsistent with the admitted analogy. Be also Eplst. let, that both these two patriarchs the latter says, classes <>f expressions belong to the "All the fathers sscribe t a iurBpfrrum one Sen ; the one to Him as God, the t^ aiOpuny, t£ t^ey 5e to. 8t'ia," and other to Him as Man. So says Cyril, the former combines Leo*i "Agil Epint. p. 117, 184,150. Bee above, ntraqoe forma," fee. with the next p. 183. Compare the Formulary of 188 passage, " Unns Idemqueesl rere Dd with Leo, Eplst. 185, quoted above. Films, to the question of the the other, what belongs to It ; that is, "Theandric MpyiiaJ which is ex- tbe Word works whal bdongi to the plained by Damascene, iiL 19, to mean, Word, and the ftesfa performs whal n<>t the blending of two "enemies" belongs to the flesh," fcc B] waj of Into one, but s joint action , »f tin- Dl- reply, the archdeacon of Constantino- vine and the human. Hence he will pie "rend passages fn»m Cyril's Kpis- not allow the " Theandric energy " to ties to a similar purport, Mansi, \i. be called "one." Compare B.Tho. '.•71 ti". compare Eulogius'a defence of Aquin. Sum. 8. 9. 19, and Card. New- ill,. Tome in Pbotius, no. 285. p. 249, man In Athan. Treatises, ii. 1 1 2. ed. 9, and Epuraim's, lb. no. 889, p. 858. 1)1 and Robertson, Hist. Cfa ii. 183 The human asserted against Avians. 203 E. I too avoid the word "confusion." But to say two natures is to me like saying two Sons. O. 1 avoid the two precipices^, both fusion and division. "I think it equally irreligious to doubt the one Son and to deny the duality of natures." But, if an Arian was to tell you that the Son was inferior to the Father, quoting " Father, if it be possible, &c." how would you meet him ? E. I should say that was spoken " economically." O. But he would answer by referring to the " economic" anthro- ?jf" « pomorphisms of the 0. T. 8: 18.21. E. These " economies" are different. That of the O. T. re- lates to words, that of the N. T. to things. O. He would rejoin : " What things ?" E. " Tilings relating to the Incarnation r . The Son of God, being made Man, exhibits both by words and things, now His flesh, now His Godhead : " e.g. in the text before us, the infirmity of fear. (). Suppose he were to say, "He assumed a body only, His God- head supplied the place of a soul ?" E. I should quote, " My soul is troubled," &c. g. j () i in O. Very apposite and ingenuous. But if he quoted " Your feasts l ' 2 - 27 - My soul hateth ? " Isa.1.13. E. I should rejoin, The O. T. speaks of God as having a mouth, eyes, ears, or hands also. And if in the Incarnate Christ soul does not mean soul, neither does body mean body ; which is Docetism s . (). An Apollinarian might ask, " What sort of soul ?" E. I should say, — I know only of one soul. But if you think there are two, the rational and the irrational, Christ had a soul which " increased in wisdom ; " therefore a rational soul. S. Luke O. Bravely done ! you have " dissolved that union, and the much 2 ' 52 ' talked of ' fusion V not only in two ways but in three." You have not only distinguished Godhead from Manhood, but have distin- guished between two parts of Manhood. This makes not two, but three natures. E. I had to meet those who deny the assumption of flesh, or soul, or mind, and also those who debase His Divinity. (). Just so : you have been defending my position. E. How so ? I deny that there are " two Sons." 0. Did you ever hear me affirm it ? E. You do so by affirming " two natures." (). Then, as yon say three natures, you say three Sons. i-h< >]» of life into the elements, and changes of Constantinople, had once said in a them with a view to the energy >>\ sermon that Chrisfa body eras ab- His own flesh . . . that the body of SOrbed l»\ His Divinity, as a pint of Life might be found in a life-giving milk would lie lost when poured into seed." 1. e. as is oil to bread, or tire the ocean, PhOoetorg. be 1 J. to iron, so is the Word, as Life-giver, v An instance of the use of " inin- to His flesh, ami so ( without pressing gling" for "uniting without COnfu- the parallelism to extremity) is His Hon." Beep. 188. flesh to the elements. There is acer- Alludinir to the description <>f the tain interpenet ration of II hy A, which Personal Union u aVcpa, admitted by causes B to communicate A. As in the Easterns, see Cyr. adv. Orient, i. the two illustrative eases, so in regard ' Theodore! might almost seem to to the Inclination and the Encharist, he referring to a celebrated passage of a true relation established between A s. Cyril, translated at p. 626, and com* ami 15 produces an "operation* 1 of mented on at p. ];;>. of Dr. Posey*! A through B, hut without prejndce trii f the Real Presence." totl nature" of B. Bo that Cyril Cyril wishes to show how the life- would entirely acree with Theodoiet giving Word, by nniting "flesh" to as to the permanence of the "nature" Himself, could make that tlesh lite, of the flesh and of the Eucharistlc ele- giving. ll< takes two comparisons, ments. It may he sdded that in "Dip a flttle bread into win • oil, Bchol. l«> Cyril illustrate] the [near- or other liipiid, and you will And it nation from fire Which penetrates has become full of that liquid's qnallty. wood, does m>t make it eras,, to be When iron comes into contact with wood, hut "transfers It into the power hi--, then it is filled with the sctive of fire, and carries on its own work in force | i of Cue, and being it. ami is reckoned one with it:" bron in its own nature, teems with the so Theodore) m^ of red-hot gold, power "i in. " Then be carries on Bpbt. 145, thai it" has the colom and Christ, Risen, had a true Body. 205 O. But it is treated as iron still : its nature is not destroyed. If then " mixture " can take place in bodies without " fusion," it is senseless to think of a " fusion " in respect to the unchangeable nature, and the annihilation of that nature which has been assumed for the benefit of mankind." E. I do not say that it was annihilated, but that it was changed into the essence of Godhead a . O. Has not the Humanity b , then, its previous determinate being ? c E. By no means. O. When did it undergo this change ? E. After the " complete union," which took place in the con- ception. O. Be it so. But long after the Nativity, we read of Him as an infant, as circumcised, growing up, hungering, walking, &c. All these are human incidents. Therefore, the Manhood did not lose its own nature after the union. E. I was inaccurate : the change took place after the Resurrec- tion. O. But, did not the Risen Christ show His hands and feet ? S. Luke E. Yes — even as He entered when the doors were shut d . s**J 4 ?" O. But He did that as He issued from the Virginal womb 8 , or as 20. 19. He walked on the sea. O. He showed His hands only as He wrestled with Jacob. E. On the contrary, He did it to remove all suspicion of His be- ing incorporeal. " Handle Me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh S. Luke and bones, as ye see Me have" ... He did not say that He was flesh J! - 3y > and bones f ; He had them as distinct from Himself, although His Personal oneness was unimpaired ; and He " ate before them," neither in illusion, nor from physical need. activity of fire, but " remains gold." God alone had an awepiypa ap QpwTTivov yevos. rection,p.313; "Is there aught incon- c Uepiypaj)v. Where Eusebius, vi. sistent with His claim to possess such 33, speaks of Beryllus as daring to a union of the Divine and human say that our Saviour did not preexist natures, when we find in the Gospels in' any proper and determinate form that He bad a power over His human of being (irepiypacpTiu,) be apparently body which no ordinary man pos- means, "in no distinct personality." sesses?"&c. But Theodoret seems to have held e Dr. Pusey on Real Presence, p. 59. that iT(piypa. A body when made immortal COIlld not nerd food. Hut He did cat. for Scripture nySfOi and lie ate. to show that He was alive. What He then did by "economy" i- not a law of nature. A risen body is, as Bach, "incorruptible:' 1 to was His, — yet, by another '•economy.'* lie caused it to retain the wound-prints, which Thomas handle. i . E. Hut if it had become incorruptible and immortal, it was changed into another nature. (). If so, men's hodies, at their resurrection. Will he tliu- changed into another e-senee. Hut in fact, it is not their nature that will be changed, but their corruptibility and mortality. So a sickly body, when it hecomes healthy, remains the same es-euce. S.i our hodies, when they shall rise again, will not have lost their (tun nature. E. True. O. Therefore the Lord's body, though risen and incorruptible, and glorified, and adored by the heavenly Powers, is still a body, baring its previous circumscribed form' 1 . E. Hut after the Ascension, was it not changed into the Divine nature? (). "Well, / could not say so in obedience to human reasonings. For I am not so rash as to say what Scripture has not Bald." And Art. 1. Scripture does tell me that Hi' will return "as they had seen Him **• go into heaven." Now what they saw was B cireumscrihed nature. And an uncircumscrihed nature isinvisihlc: hut He will he \isihleon the throne of judgment. E. On that showing, even before His Incarnation He was *• eir- ba.6.1. CUmSCribed." For Isaiah saw Him enthroned. (). What He saw was not the Divine essence, hut an appearance Beck. IS. suitable to his capacity. At the Judgment, "all men will "look 10. _ upon" the Judge's nature as risible," even as Stephen saw Him. E. Well, hut I think you cannot prove that the inspired Writers speak "t His iscended body as "a body.' 1 ( ). yes, the Apostle calls it 'the bodj of His glory." It is not then changed into a different nature it remain- a body, although tilled with Divine glofT« And the hodies of tin' saints will he "conform- ed " to Hi-. E. Will they then he eipial to His ? ( ). The? will partake Of lU glory, hut in inferior measure : even Bfl ( nonpars Athan. l'|>. Bpict. •;. Comp. Wllberforce en Incarnation, h n < ? »7 pa then the symbols of the Lord's body and blood ire differ- ent things sfter the invocation from what they were before, M so His body, sfter if was taken up (into heaven), was changed into the Divine essence.* 1 ( ). *' Ymu arc caught in the nets which you wove'. Por the my- stical symbols «1< » not depart from their own nature after the conse- cration: they remain in their former essence, and figure, and form, and are Been and touched BS they were before ; but are thought of K8 what they have lieeome, and are helieved and worshipped, M being those things which are believed ''<. i lompare then the image with the archetype: for the type nnist be like the reality. That body DM its previous form and Circumscription, and, in short, hodily essence : but it became immortal alter the resurrection, and superior to cor- ruption, and was raised to a seat on God's right hand, and is adored by all creation, and called the body id" the Sovereign of Nature • E. Hut the symbol is no longer called what it was before, but "body." Therefore the reality ought to be no Longer called body, but "God." (). No: the symbol is also called "bread of life 5 , "the Lord's own phrase; and the Body itself is called Divine, the body of our Lord, who is God and Man 1 . v This is the famous Eucharistk passage, (translated in Pasey <»n Real Presence, p. 85. ) It shows that Theo- doret could assert, as unquestionable Church doctrine, that the consecrated elements retained their "nature" and "essence" as bread and wine, even ih S. Chrysostom had said be- fore him (Ep. to CsBsarios,! and Pope Oelasius ^ .- 1 i « l after him (De duabus Naturis.) Hut it also shows that the participation <>f Christ's Body and Blood, through those "symbols," was believed by him to be real. Its tes- timony is not negative only, i>ut positive. "Theodoret reasons thus: There is an allowed analogy between the Incarnation and the Eucharist. In each, there is s higher part united ».. i lower. The bread is to the Body as the Manhood to the Godhead The two unions so correspond as thai the reality and distinction <>f tin- parts in the one anion Imply the like reality a r i ' l distinction in the other. The argument vanishes, if there is not In both cases alike ■ real outward and ;i real inward part, and i real union of the two." Ms. by Mr. ReUe. Theodoret could not have argued, in effect : "The bread, which is admitted to i»e only t lms far related to Christ's body that t<» receive it in faith is to re- ceive the benefits of ( Ihrist's death, re- tains its nature after it has hern placed in this relation. Therefore Christ's Manhood, which is admitted to be taken into ■ relation of personal union with God the Word, retains its na- ture likewise." The cases would have been so different, that comparison, and argument from comparison, would have been out of Question. ( if course the analogy between the hypostatic and sacramenta] unions cannot be pressed beyond this point, thai they are both mysteriously reaL i Reverence is paid to the visible elements because they are regarded as having in some true sense M become that " which is an object of faith and is " received " through them. r The argument is. As the consecra- ted bread receives honour by virtue of its sacramental union with Christ's body, its " archetype," yet remains bread, s,, that "archetype" is ho- noured by virtue of its personal union With the Word, yet remains a hotly. • So in the Roman Oblation, " the holy bread of eternal life." 1 Cyril would have heartily echoed Authorities for "Two Natures." 209 E. Can you cite any Saints who have distinguished the natures after the union ? O. (replies by citing- twenty Fathers, Ignatius, Smyrn. 3 ; Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eustathius, Athanasius, Orat. c. Ari. ii. 70, Ep. Epict. 9 ; [another passage not found in it :] Serm. Major, 29, de Incarn. et c. Arian. 2, 3, 22 ; Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Amphilochius, Theophilus, Chrysostom, Flavian of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Antiochus, Hilary, Augustine, Severian, Atti- cns, Cyril of Alexandria, [Ep. ad Nest. 2, Pusey, p. 6, a sentence which suggested part of the Definitio of Chalcedon] Ep. ad Joan, [part of the Formulary of Reunion and another sentence] Coram. on Hebrews, Scholia 4, 13, 27.) E. I did not think that they distinguished the natures after the union, but I find that they carry the distinction to excess. O. It is rash to blame those noble champions of faith. (He quotes several passages from Apollinaris himself, as affirming a union which is not a fusion, and a distinction between Godhead and Manhood after the union. " Truth," O. adds, " compelled the first inventor of the fusion to own this.") E. Even musical chords require some rest, and so we rational beings may reasonably measure our exertions by our capacities. Let us put ofi° the discussion of Impassibility until to-morrow. O. David exhorts us to meditate on the Divine oracles day and Ps. 1, night : but let us do as you desire. DIALOGUE III. "IMPASSIBILIS." O. (1) I have proved "that God the Word is immutable, and that He became man, not by being converted into flesh, but by assuming in perfection the nature of man; and (2) that after this union He remained what He was, unmingled, impassible, unchanged, uncir- cumscribed, and also preserved in its entirety the nature which He had assumed : " this the Scriptures and the Church teachers have affirmed. It remains to speak of His Passion : a subject most pro- fitable, for from this source flows our salvation. E. I agree with you. But let us alter the order of our debate : let me ask questions, do you answer. 0. Be it so. tills, which is put in to show that majesty of Christ's Body. Cp. Epist. "Orthodox" recognises the unique 145. 2 10 Christ's D< xiy le. \\. Who was it that Buffered ? ( ). ( > 1 1 1- Lord Jesus I Ihrist. Bi WBB it then ;i man that Bared OS ? ( ). W'hv, < 1 1 « 1 \\v admit that OUT Lord was Man Only? B. Whal he? (). The Son of the living God, made .Man. K. Is God's Son God *" (). Ves, God, hating the name essence with the God «rho I Him » E. M It was God, then, who endured the Passion." ( ). "If He was crucified incorporeally, then ascribe the I\i-moii t<» the Godhead 1 ." But it it was by taking flesh that He became Man, why not say that what was passible suffered ? ■ Contrast Theodore, explaining tin- name <<( " God tin- Word." die Sonship ;is adoptive, Mansi, ix. Under the influence of thia sensitive- 911, ami as constituted by preeminent ness he did not see that, since tin' ln- rirtue, il>. 217. He also sai«i that the carnation, all sinless human conditions Man u.is Son by grace, tin- Word be- were equally predicabk <»f M God the ins; Sun by nature: that .Iimis was Word" with due explanation, equally " Si. n of God " iii a higher degree non-predicable without it. in this than others, l»nt was equally with context, however, Theodoret is evi- thein a Son by grace, ib. 219. dently bent on confuting those who e TiDemont, xv. 253, that while would inter the passibility of the God- " In- refuses to admit the expression, head in the Incarnate from the phrase 'Tin -Word Buffered in flesh,' on the which he attacks. All that he on- frround that it is obscure, open to a tends for is Contained in Cyril's own \ Catholic sense the Council of Ephesus, Ep. ail Nest. in a verv clear manner, and only 2. (Pusey, pp. 6, I Divinity is rejects wliat all the orthodox reject- impassible and incorporeal: but since e.i. Vet it is strange that be did not that body which had become proper approve of an expression which it is to Him (God the Word) Buffered, ll» easy to find in Scripture, which was Himself is said to have suffered this for commonly used in the Church, ami us, for the Impassible One was in the which was based on the maxim which Buffering body. Ami in tin- same way he himself establishes in hifl Dialogues, do we think of His dying, for God the that the union of the two natures Word is by nature . . . immortal . . . makes the names common." In fact, hut since His own body . . . tasted this contention of Theo.lorefs is in- death for all men, /// is ..:i,l to have consistent with bis previous admission Buffered this death, &c" In the Bpis- as to the One Personality. If the phrase tie to John, Cyril Bays, "We all ae- "God suffered in Been," is altogether knowledge the Word of God t,. be inadmissible, so i> the Pauline state- Impassible, although He Himself, ar- ment that "the I, or. I of rimy uas.ru- ranging i the mystery with dfied : " so is the statement that i lod all v isdom, is seen to sscribe to Him- wai horn iii flesh, or thai Mary was self the sufferings which befell Hisowu Theotocos. If these statements are flash; therefore Peter says, "Christ hav- orthodox, fh' 1 phrase censured has i log Buffered In flesh," an.l not In the L r i meaning. But 'his maj be nature of the ineffable Godhead ; for, nitre. l in Theodoret'fl behalf, thai the In order that He might be bellevi Apollinarian controversy bad made bethe8aviourofthewhole(rwi men specially sensitive as to snj as. He refen f" Himself, as i said, bj an Bodatlon of one particular human economic appropriation, the Buffer- condition, thai of passibility, with Ings of His own flesh.'* Cp. Cyril, Com- Christ's Deity impassible. 211 E. But He took flesh, just to enable the impassible to suffer through the passible. O. If He suffered apart from flesh, why did He take flesh ? It would be a superfluity. E. The Divine nature is immortal, but was united to the mortal in order to taste of death through it. O. But by no such conjunction could what is naturally immortal undergo death. monitory to Posidonius, and Schol. 4, 13, 36, &c. See too Theodoret, in the last section of the " Demonstratio per Syllogismos," "The Divine nature . . . not feeling pain from the Passion, hut having appropriated the Passion as belonging to its own temple and the flesh united to it, on which account also helievers are called memhers of Christ." It is probable enough that Theodoret was thinking in part of 5. Athanasius, c. Apollin. ii. 11 ; but see note there. Epiphanius, while insisting "that the Godhead was in it- self impassible," and that " God re- mained impassible," says that " He suffered with His flesh," Haer. 69. 24. Indeed Theodoret himself says, " It is plain that some things belong to Him as God, others as Man : so too both passibility and impassibility attach to the Lord Christ, for He suffered as to His manhood, but He remained im- passible as God," Epist. 130. Comp. Athan. e. Apollin. i. 11. " It is He Himself who suffered, and who did not suffer." This is quite in accord- ance with Cyril's teaching. On the substantial agreement between Cyril ami Theodoret on this point (an agree- ment not incompatible with their habitually approaching the subject from different points of view) see Hooker, v. 53. 4, to the effect that Theodoret meant that Christ's Divine nature could not suffer, but Cyril re- ferred to " the Person of Christ, who being verily God, suffered death, but in the flesh, and not in that sub- stance for which the name of God is given Him." Theodoret in this Dia- logue avoids the Nestorianizing lan- guage of his criticisms on Cyril's 12th article; audit is plain from Epist. 130 that what he meant to guard was " the assumption, by the Word, of human nature in completeness," and the " unconfused " character of " the union." "If," he says, "these points P are admitted, all the rest will go straight." If Cyril did not verbally admit the first proposition, he admit- ted it in effect : the second he admit- ted in so many words ; and while we observe that Cyril, in 436, treated the proposition, " The Word, remaining impassible, suffered in His own flesh for us," as one of three main points to be set forth against Nestorianism (Synod. 208) we must also appreciate the motive for such urgency, as ex- pressed in his letter to Valerian. Doubtless, he there says (Epist. p. 163), the Deity is impassible. "But who was it who said to His Father, ' A body hast Thou prepared Me ? ' How could one man die as equivalent for all (jdvTwp avTa^os) if the Pas- sion is considered to be simply that of a man? But if He suffered humanly, in appropriating the sufferings of His own flesh, then indeed, then we may say, and with good reason, that the death of One in flesh is considered an equivalent for the life of all : not as the death of one like to ourselves, although He became one of us, but that, being God by nature, He was incarnate and made man." (He had used twj/ o\cou aurd^ios in Ad Pulche- riam &c. (Pusey, p. 261).) At the very opening of the controversy Pro- clus had said that "(rod must die for sinners," but explained himself fur- ther on by saying, " What He was, saved ; what He became, suffered" (Homily, 5, 9.) ; and had spoken of Him, (iod and Man, as more than equivalent in satisfaction for the mul- titude of offenders (ib. 6.) It is ob- servable that Cyril's 12th article was a reproduction of one of the auathe- matisms in Damascus 1 letter to Pauli- nus, Theod. v. 11; after condemning any who attributed the Passion to the Divine nature, Damasus adds, " If any one does not confess that the Word of (iod suffered in flesh . . and tasted 212 The Soul cannot die, nor can God. E. Prove that, and resolve mj doubts. O. You grant thai sool is immortal, body mortal, and that from these natures the man subsists. E. Yes. (). "Then, the immortal is joined to the mortal. But, when the conjunction or union' is dissolved, the mortal submits to the law of death, but tin- s«»ul remains immortal, although death was brought in by sin." Is not death a penalty? Geo. 9. E. Yes, Scripture teaches BO. ( ). " Then, since hoth BOul and body sinned, why dees body al(»iie bear this penalty ? M E, Because the tasting of the forbidden fruit was ■ bodily act, and diffused that fruit throughout the bodily frame. Justly then did the body alone Buffer the penalty. ( ). Physiology does not cover the whole ground: those bodily acts depended on the act of the soul. Therefore the body could not sin alone. E. Hut it makes the soul possess sin. (). How? E. Through its members. (). But those members can equally work for good. K. ITes. ( ). Body and soul, then, can obey or can break the law. K. Y.- (). But in both eases, soul acts first: the mind conceives the good Or had idea, then the body serves as an organ for expressing it. Why then does the body Buffer alone ? B. Because the immortal cannot die. <). Vet what shared in sin should share in penalty. The BOul, however, did not share the penalty: although in the lite to come it s. Matt win go i,,t,, Hell with the body. 1 ' w E. res. (). We Bee then that death is impossible for an immortal nature. How, then, could the Uncreated One die? E. He died '"in flesh." ( ). Bui what is immortal * cannot die at all. Again let us look at the question in snother aspect. B. Y.s, let us trj every means of reaching the truth. death in flesh, .... let bun i.«- ana- bead,— ai Cyril repeatedly aflrmed, thema. M could not touching His man. ( \ i Mine ■ beod." The Immortal nature, - the God* What things are " impossible " to Him. 213 O. Are not those who teacli vice or virtue worthy of greater punishment or reward than those who learn of them ? And is not the Devil a teacher of evil ? E. Yes, a teacher ol teachers, — father and teacher of all wicked- ness. O. And Adam and Eve were his first scholars ; and sentence of death came on Adam and his posterity. How is it, then, that the scholars are punished more severely than the teacher, and hy the righteous Judge ? E. The teacher is doomed to the unquenchable fire of Hell : being of immortal nature, he could not be punished by death. O. Nor could the worst of sinners, were they immortal. Why then do you not shrink from saying that "the Fountain of immortality and righteousness suffered death ? " E. Your argument would hold, were it not that He suffered volun- tarily. O. But God does not will to do what is abhorrent to His na- ture. " All things are possible to God " must be taken with this limitation a . To sin, for instance, is impossible to Him. He is very and intellectual Light; He could not will to become, — could not become, — darkness ; His nature could not become visible, nor com- prehensible, for it is incomprehensible b , and invisible. Nor could He become non-existent : nor could the Father become Son nor the Son Father, nor either of Them the Holy Spirit. Other things could be mentioned, which are impossible to the Almighty ; the im- possibility being indeed a proof of boundless power, not of weakness. E. How so ? O. Because each of these impossibilities exhibits the Divine im- mutability, — the utmost extent of goodness, — of truth, — of justice, — e. g. "it is impossible for God to lie," " He cannot deny Himself." Heb. fi. This shows His supernatural power, for it shows that He is God. E. This is true, and accordant with Scripture. 13 # O. Then His immortality is as inseparable from Him as are His other perfections. See Epist. 144, that those who power. For when we say of onr own found fault with the expression, "some soul that it is impossible for it to die, things are altogether impossible to we do not impute to it weakness, hut God," must he either imperfectly in- assert that it has the power of being formed in points of doctrine, or of no immortal." Compare Origen c. (Vis. fixed opinions. " Ask them whether iii. 70. that " God can do everything it is possible for God . . to lie . . . or that it is possible for Him to do with- again, to he unjust . . . unwise, &c. out ceasing to he God and good and Then say to them, There are many wise," and "the power to do evil is things impossible to God, hut these contrary to His omnipotence." impossibilities do not indicate incapa- b 'A/mTaATjTTTos— nal Trd/xnau avt. "Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is also truly our God. I'm, of the>e nature-,, the one He had always, the other He truly assumed." E. Undeniably. < ). Therefore, as Alan, He suffered: as God He could not suffer e . E, M Why then does Scripture say that the Son of God Buffered ?'* <>. "Because the body that Buffered was His body. Look at it- Gen. 27. thus: " Isaac could not Bee:" does that refer to his soul ?" E. No, only to his body. Aiin.s 7. 0. And when Amos or Samuel is called "the seer," docs that !-• refer to hifl body ? 1 Sain. [). „ « , 1 , • , ls E. .No, only to his soul. Heb. l:?. ( ). M The hands that hang down, the feeble knees" — docs this re- fer to bodily limbs, or is it an expression for spiritual languor? E. The latter, of course. < ). Yet these distinctions are not expressed in Scripture : fheyaie assumed. We are supposed to distinguish between what is bodily and what is spiritual. I']. Naturally: for we are endowed with reason. <). Then let us think reasonably as to our Creator and Saviour, and distinguish between what belongs to His Godhead and what to His Manhood. E. Hut if we do, we dissolve that perfect* union. < >. No more than you dissolve the union of soul and body by dis- tinguishing their properties. I'.. Scripture says, the Son of God suffered. <>. Nor do I say that any other Buffered : hut, the Godhead being impassible, we attribute Buffering to the body. E. Then it was a In Him- of God suffers tin Hb earthly nature, self the suffering of that body,* 1 snd ..r humanly, because the M flesh tint quotes Leo, ** the Sou of God suffered raftered iras His." Bpbt. ]>. ill. ss He could suffer, scoordlng t.» the And in tii" text Theodore! really nature which He assumed." Com- grants .ill thai Cyril demanded: For pare p. 131. he admits that it was •• ii," win. raf- i e p. S04. fered ss Man. that ■« Ibami " He" Jesus felt human infirmities as Man. 213 O. Not the body of a mere man, but of the only Son of God e . If the figure of that body f is worshipped and venerated, how can the archetype itself be insignificant ? E. " I do not so regard it : but I will not dissever it from the Godhead." O. " Nor do we divide the union : we do but take account of the properties of the natures." You will soon join with us in doing so. E. Are you prophesying ? O. No : but I know the power of truth. But when you read, S. John " I and My Father are one," and, " He that hath seen Me, hath seen J the uncircumscribed nature, weari- ness to that which pa— i - from place to place*. A- you yourself have admitted these to he bodily affections, you distinguish the pro- perties of Godhead and Manhood. My prediction, therefore, comes tnii'. B. Hut I have not divided tin- one Son into two. ( ). Nor do I, my friend: I only recognise what belongs to the several natures. E. "Scripture does not teach us such distinctions." It spakeof "the Son" as having died,— of "the Lord" as raised again. ( ). It say> t »o. that Stephen and the patriarchs w ere buried. W\ 1 1 their souls buried ? E. No. (). So in other Scripture narratives of burial and death. Scripture "uses names which signify both soul and body:" but we distinguish between the immortal souls and the buried or slain bodies. If you do the like as to names of men. why not as to the Son of God ': E. Scripture teaches that the Son of God suffered. < >. Bui Paul interprets the Passion, and shows what nature it was that Buffered. E. Prove this, as soon as you can. <). " He i> not ashamed to call them brethren." K. What of that ? < ). " Brethren" points to kinship: kinship belongs to .Manhood. Head on in that context. E. ( reads) " Forasmuch as the children partook of flesh," 8cc. 0. This passage, I think, explains itself. E. I do imt see in it the proof you promised. 1 npofTuiirw. The word wp6f Reunion ; ami with Theod. Epist. lot ; " kppl] Ing ( in Him ) as man whit is Mid respecting humiliation and in accordance with the nature assumed : ami again (to Him) m < mil w hat befit! < ««'il in >t i i i \ i • i i 1 1 ; r Him into t wo i" ' rttwa ) but teaching that both 1 1 pres- siona belong to the Only-begotten, the one, tu Him as <>"d and Maker, and tlic other tn Him a-> baring become .Man for our sakes." And Epist. 130, " It is plain to those who think aright that some things befit 411m as God, others ;i> .Man. Thus both passibility and impassibility belong to the Lord ! or He suffered as to His Manhood, but remained impassible as I i.n!." \r. He had said just h. " Although " •' recognise the diversity of the natures, i S< <■ ah >ve, p. 1 7-. ami com- pair pp. 178, I--' The effect of the Death of Christ. 217 O. It shows that, to destroy the power of death by a just method, He took on Him the firstfruits of what was liable to death, kept it spotless, and then allowed death to seize and devour it : but because of death's injustice towards the firstfruits, He put a stop to its unjust tyranny over all the others. For since He has restored to life the firstfruits, then unjustly devoured, He will cause the rest of mankind to rise too '. The Deity therefore is impassible. E. The passage does not, to my mind, prove this. O. Surely the text shows that He took flesh and blood, in order to have a nature that could suffer, and thus destroy the power or Satan ? E. " How did He destroy that power through the flesh ? " O. " By what weapons did Satan enslave the nature of men ?" E. By sin. O. What penalty did God assign to disobedience ? E. Death. O. Sin, then, is death's mother, Satan is sin's father m . E. Yes. O. Sin, then, it was which attacked men's nature, and brought it into relations with her father and her offspring. E. Clearly. O. Therefore the Maker, willing to crush the power of both n , assumed the nature thus attacked, kept it free from sin, and rescued it from Satan's power. For, death being the penalty of sinners, after death had unjustly seized on a sinless body, He first of all raised again that body, and then promised release to those that had justly been death's bondmen. E. " But do you think it just, that the bodies justly given over to death should share in resurrection with that which had been un- justly detained ?" O. And do you think it just, that when Adam broke the command- ment, the race should follow the ancestor ? E. Even if they had not shared in that disobedience, yet they had committed other sins, deserving of death. O. But among the race were not sinners only, but just men, as prophets and apostles: yet they all died °. E. How could they help dying, being of mortal parentage ? When Adam became a father, he had already sinned, and become subject to death. 1 See his 10th oration "de Provi- m See the same imagery in Para- dentia," (Op. iv. 671) for a rhetorical dise Lost, ii. 7'27 tF. expansion of this idea in application " I.e. Sin and Satan, to Satan. Cp. Oxenhafti, Cath. Doe- ° The idea of original sin does not trine of the Atonement, p. 128. appear in this passage. 218 Christ. :<» when our Saviour took away the corse, our nature acquired its freedom." As ire died in Adam, so W€ rise in CInM. E. "Church doctrines must be stated with proofs, not hy mere affirmation P." l>oe> Bcriptare teach this? (). (reads Rom. 5, 15 ff. I Cor. 15. 20 ff.) Observe here the com- parison of Adam with Christ 1, — the disease k with the erne, the -in with the abundance of righteousness, the curse with the blessing, , (hath with life, the man with the Man. Although Christ 18 DOt -Man only, but God before the ages', yet Paul names Him from the nature lie assumed. To it belong the justification, the combat, the victory, the Passion, the Death, the Resurrection: in it we * partake,' with it those will reign who practise truth and the mode of life belong- ing to the Kingdom. With it, I mean, not as if I were separating from it the Deity, hut as referring to its properties." Rom. 8. E. But, " He spared not His own Son." What Son? < >. There i> ( me Sou of God, the Only-begotten, " His own Sou." E. He, then, was M given up." <). lie was: hut not without a body, as we have often admitted. E« We ha?e often admitted that He took body and BOUl: hut it was * k the Sou" that was not spared. Gen. -'-'■ () - Isaac was M not spared ;" but was he slain ? 1 ''• Ei No, God forbade it, though Abraham was willing. O. Then you do not take that passage according tO the hare letter. So here, you should understand that it was not the Godhead, hut the Sesh that was not spared. Was Abraham's sacrifice "a type of that which was offered for the world?" E. No. I cannot take what is read us " panegyric •" in churches to he a rule of doctrines. O. "YOU OUght to have followed Church doctors." But, how- s. John ever, remember, Abraham saw Christ's day. ,S; *' : - E. " I helieve that type." ( ). u ( lompare it, then, with the reality. In hoth there i> a lather, .mil a beloved son carrying the material of the sacrifice. . . It i^ Baid P 'AvofoiftTifriS . - 1 1"). Tli.it i^, Scripture i> tin- verifying ■ I.e.bj way of setting forth the authority for oral Chnrch teaching, obedience or faitb of an individual. On the Two Adams sec Cyril See Theodoret, Epist. 151,on "pane. sdv. Nest. iii. 6 (Pusey, p. 173.) sod gyrical" langusge extolling tli«> Augustine de Pecc. Original!, c. 24. « l i nlty <>f the Virgin. Theodorel Be hi Epist. somewhat evades Qen. 89. 16. Argument from O. T. symbolism. 219 that the two events took place on the same hill-top t : and the num- ber of the days and nights agree, and the subsequent resurrection. For Isaac was offered up, in his father's purpose, as soon as the order came ; and was saved from death three days after. And the ram presented the figure of a cross." An image cannot have all the points of the archetype. Isaac and the ram, as symbolizing the difference of natures, suit the conditions of a type: not so as to suggest a hypostatic separation, for none such exists in the anti- type : the union of Godhead and Manhood which we assert involves one undivided personality 11 ; we think of the Self-same as both God and Man, and all the properties of Godhead and of Manhood we predicate of His One Person. As then the ram cannot represent the resurrection, there is a partition of the type : the ram repre- sents the death, Isaac himself the resurrection. Consider also other types, embodied in the Mosaic sacrifices : e. g. the Paschal lamb, the red heifer burned outside the camp, and the two goats, on the day of atonement, one slain, one let go, — typical of the Manhood Cp. Heb. and of the Godhead. J 3 - l2 ' I^ev. 16. E. Is it not blasphemous to compare the Lord to goats? s, 9. O. No, unless it be so to compare Him to a serpent, a worse creature than a goat. E. But our Lord is called a lamb, a sheep. O. As to that, Paul calls Him "sin" and a "curse;" in which 2 Cor. 5. aspect, He is the antitype of the serpent and the goat. And He (j,.^, 3, died for sheep and goats, the just and the unjust. 13 « E. But if two goats are a type, they suggest two Persons. O. One goat could not be a type at once of Godhead and of Man- hood. See also the sacrifice in which one bird was slain, the other \'? y ' **• dipt in the blood of the slain bird and set free. E. I cannot enter into obscure arguments. O. Will you then blame Paul for his reference to Sarah and Hagar ? £■*'• *• E. Ten thousand more arguments will not " persuade me to divide the Passion !" The Angel said, " See the place where the Lord lay." s - M att « O. So, on entering a church, we ask, " Who is it that lies in the shrine ? " The answer is perhaps, Thomas x , or John Baptist - v , or Stephen z , or some other Saint : even though there are but a very few relics of the saint there preserved. No one supposes that the soul is there! By "the Lord," the Angel meant His body, — not 1 Cf. " Speaker's Commentary." z See Soz. ix. 16. Compare for this u "Ev irpdacjirov aSiaiperov. This illustration Theod. Ep. lo<>, where entirely satisfies the requirements of he gives as instances the names of Cyril's doctrine. the martyr Julian, or Roman as, or * E. g. at Edessa. Soc. iv. 18. Timothy; and Ep. 144, as to the y See Soz. vii. 21. churches of Dionysius and Cosmas. I. 220 The Resurrection woe of Christ's Body, s. Matt His soul, nor His uncircumscribed Godhead. The Evangelists speak £ of Jesus 1 body ai buried. We ourselves often say, M 8o and so i- buried here." Scripture speaks of Aaron and Samuel as buried. Cor. IS. Paul speaks id the same Bense when lie says, "Christ died and iras buried.' 1 E. " You have bit yourself irith your own darts :" he says u ( Ihrist." o. You have forgotten 111 \ long argument about bodies being called by the name of persona*. Wry did Paul write thus to the ( lorinthians ? E. Because some had told them that there could be do resurrec- tion i»t" hoilics. (). Why then, to prove that there would he, did he adduce the Lord's Resurrection ? E. Because it was sufficient t" prove that we should all rise again. (). What then made His death like to ours, so that His Kesurree- tton should be an evidence of ours? E. The Son of <«<»d died to destroy death b , and rose again to pro- claim that men should rise. ( ). But between God and men, how vast the difference! E. Hut God the Word was like men in having a body. (). It was His body, then, to which belonged death and Resurrec- tion. And this is the point of Paul's argument. " From what took place, he establishes what is future: by what is disbelieved, he ex- cludes what is believed. If, he say-. A seems impossible, then B i- false. Hut if B is credible, then A is credible." He represents Christ a- " the arstfruitS " of the resurrection, as the Second Adam, and therefore He say-. " By man came also the resurrection." B. Is Christ, then, merely a man ? <). Away with the thought! hut it was as .Man, not as God, that He died and rose, and we shall rise " with Him." E. No doubt, it was the body that died and rOSC again. The Apostle implies an " affinity »» essence" between the Risen One and Ourselves. Yet 1 cannot hear to hear the Passion ascribed to the human nature alone. I must think it right to say that God the Word suffered in flesh. <) - | hare often proved that what was immortal hy nature could bv no means die. If then He died. He was not immortal. How perilous are blasphemOUfl words ! " E, M By nature He iras immortal: hut, having become man. He suffered.' 1 ( ). Then He underwent a change. But the essence of the Tri- nity is admitted to he immutaUe. , j» i; M i. i Ath.in. <-. ApoUin. ii. 1 7. Avoid un-Scriptural language. 221 E. Peter says, " Christ suffered in flesh." Why do you not say that 1 S. Pet. God the Word suffered in flesh ? 4 * K O. Scripture does not say so. Peter says, " Christ." E. Is not " Christ," think you, God the Word ? O. "Christ " denotes the Word Incarnate. The phrase, " God the Word," in itself, denotes the Word as yet unincarnate c ." E. But if God the Word, on becoming- incarnate, was called Christ, there is nothing- absurd, that I see, in the phrase, " God the Word suffered in flesh." O. A very audacious attempt ! Consider : Scripture says God the Word is from God the Father. E. True. O. Yet it also says the Holy Spirit is likewise from God. E. Granted. O. And it calls God the Word "Only-begotten Son." E. It does. O. It never calls the Spirit so. E. Never. O. Yet the Spirit also has His existence from God the Father E. Yes. O. Would you then venture to call Him a " Son ? " E. By no means. O. Why not ? E. Because I do not find this phrase in Scripture d . O. Would you call Him " begotten ?" E. No. O. Why not ? E. I do not find this in Scripture. O. What then should we call that which is not begotten nor made ? E. Uncreated and unbegotten. O. The Spirit was neither begotten nor made ; is it not so ? E. He was neither begotten nor made. O. Will you then call Him " ztubegotten ? " E. No. O. Why not? E. Because I fear to say what Scripture does not say. (). " Observe this reverential caution, my good friend, in regard to the Passion also." Scripture never says, " God " suffered. c This is captious! the phrase, as the Father is the "only" Father so used by Cyril, and indeed by " Eranis- the Son is the " only" Son and there tes;" presumes the Incarnation. fore the Holy Spirit cannot be another 11 Atnanasius meets an Anan ques- Son, or "brother" of the Son Ed tion on this point by saying; that as ad Serap. i. 16. ' -'-"-' Christ 9 * Deity impassible. K. I do imt say tliat God the Word Buffered apart from ■ body 6 . (). "Yon state the mode of Buffering, not the impassibility." Bui who would say that Paul's soul died in uVsh ' ? Kven the souls of the wicked arc impassible. How much more was the spotless Of Our Saviour inmmrtal ? E. All this long argument is needless: I nun that His soul was immortal. ( ). HOW then can ynu call the Word's Divine essence mortal, Or say that the Word Buffered ? E. He Buffered impassibly. n - <>. These are absurd paradoxes '-. It is said by Paul. God "only hath immortality." E. Why then call souls immortal? <). God is properly, essentially, immortal: other he'niL r s are so by His grant Could the Immortal One Buffer? • "• E. After the Incarnation, I say. He " tasted death." (). IJut we before agreed that lie was immutable. It is perilous for those who contend against impiety even to utter such words BS that He was changed from living into dead. E. Cease to tax me with impiety. I say that the human, not the Divine nature suffered ; or rather that the Divine Buffered with the human h . ( ). Do you mean that it felt the pain of crucifixion ? E. Ye/ O. Hut even a human soul does not feel corporeal pains. Or if we grant that it does thus sympathise with the body, this does not prove that the Godhead i> other than impassible ; lor it is not joined to a hody in place of a soul '. Do you admit that if assumed a soul ? E. I have often admitted it. < ). A rational soul, too ? E. Certainly k . O. If was then this soul which "sympathised" with the bodj of Christ. It was the hody which was offered up, the soul that wa< •tin M troubled." L'/. Compare Ath. <•. Apollin. ii. 1 1. '■ An ApoOinarian notion; see Greg. Observe that Branistes Is not made to Nyss. Antirrbet. «•. ."•. on the ten- appeal to lcts20.S& denci -.1 Apollinarb' treatise "on ' The eaaei air not parallel; for the Divine Incarnation " to represent whereas a human soul, when separated the Divinltj «.t' the Only-begotten as front the h Into Hades, tin- mortal, and the Impassible nature as Divine Person "i ili«' Redeemer was changed so as to partake in suffering. I"- -Mi alike uiih His soul ami body \~ tome Ariana held, s,-.- <•. Vpol during the brief severance of iiii- tin. i. ];,. "vital anion," as Th lore! admits l Here the Eutychlan is falrij re- farther on : an. I see i-. I::.".. presented as disowning the character- l.it. •• ridiculona riddles." tatlc doctrine of Apollinaris. The Passion belonged to His Body. 223 E. Where does the Lord show that His body was offered ! Are you going to adduce the oft quoted " Destroy this temple, &c. ? " S. John O. If you dislike the Divine words, why not erase them after the 2 * lJ * example of Marcion ] ? But if this seems to you too audacious, do not mock at them, but follow the Apostles who believed them in the sense stated. E. Can you prove your point ? O. Manna is compared to the true Food. lb. G. 32. E. I remember the text. O. Tt is added, " The bread is My flesh." lb. 6. 51. E. One instance is not enough. O. You are unreasonable : the Ethiopian was content with one Acts 8. text. But, when He ate the Paschal supper, Christ showed what 3G ' that was to which the typical lamb pointed ; what was the " body " of which it was the " shadow." E. I know that narrative. O. Remember, then, what He took, — and what he called it. E. " On account of the uninitiated, I will speak with some re- serve." (repeats the words of Institution, in substance.) O. Here, in " exhibiting the type of His Passion," He did not mention His Divinity, but His Body and Blood m . E. True. O. " Body, therefore, it was that was crucified." E. So it seems. O. When, after His Resurrection He entered where the doors were shut, how did He remove their fear ? E. He said, " Behold My hands and My feet." S. Luke O. It was the body then, which He showed, and therefore which 2L M ' had risen. E. Clearly. O. That which had risen was that which had died on the cross ? E. Certainly. O. It was, then, the body that suffered. E. " The chain of argument compels one to say so." O. Look at it in another way also. What did the " first of apos- tles " say in his sermon, after the descent of the Holy Spirit? E. He adduced the promises made to David, and his predictive Acts 2 words,- " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades," &c. -'•' '*• O. Resurrection, then, belongs to flesh and soul. 1 Marcion did not recognise any into. the nature of a body, it would be Gospel save an abbreviated form of reasonable to answer thai Chrisl did S. Luke's. not say, " This is My Godhead :" adv. m Cyril owns that if any one was to Nest. iv. 7. say that the Word had been changed 224 Christ suffered in His Manic. ml. E. How ooald ■ sane person talk of resurrection of ■ bod] that never COUid die ? < >. Lately you sscribed death to God: now you are suddenly become so w sane, w thai you will not ascribe res o r r ect i on to souL I'.. Because thai which can rise must be that which has fallen". (). I>ut body does not rise without soul: see the case of La/arus. E. That is clear. Bsek. ;;7- O. 80 too Bzekiel saw the souls return to their own bodies. 7 tL E. True. (). The Lord's body then, was not corrupted, hut on the third day regained its own soul. E. Granted. < ). Does Passion belong to the things to which death belongs ? E. Certainly. O. Did not Peter and David speak both of soul and body? E. Yes. <). M It was not, then, the Godhead which died, hut the body, by being severed from the soul.'' E. " For my part I cannot endure this absurd language." (). "You are attacking your own words." E. "You wrong me altogether: not one of those words is mine.' 1 (). If you ask a man what is that animal which is both rational and mortal, and he answers. " .Man," which of them is it that inter- prets the word ? E. He who answi ( ). I was right then ; these sayings are yours, by your assent. 1 Cor. 2. E. Well, now / will ask, what of the text ahout "crucifying the Lord of glory ? " It says nothing of body or soul. O. On that BDOWing, you ought not to add "in flesh " when explaining it. E. No, it wa< "in flesh M that He suffered i the incorporeal nature of itself could not suffer. (). But one must not add to Paul's words. E. Hut one may explain what his purport involves. <). Provided, then, that we do not add to Scripture, there is no- thing wrong in unfolding its purport. E. Nothing. OaL 1. ( ). Then let us inquire together: — as to "James the Lord's bro- ther;" — was he brother of the Godhead or the Manhood? E. I will not have the united natures divided. " s.> Pearson, so tin- Creed, i. sdr.Theod. 19. Bee 00 Athan. Bp. 845. Theodore! beraslre. to Max. 1. < Ited tgalntl Theodore! bj Cj ril, How "the Lord of glory was crucified" 225 O. You have often enough divided them P. Do you call God the Word " Only-begotten Son ?" E. I do. O. And Only-begotten means " only ? " E. Yes. O. And who is Only-begotten cannot have a brother. E. He cannot. O. Then the Only Son cannot have a brother; therefore James is not the Lord's brother. E. But the Lord had a body, — so that Scripture speaks of other properties in Him than those which belong to Godhead. James was His kinsman according to flesh. O. Again you introduce the " division," which you censure. E. It was necessary, in order to establish the relationship. O. Then do not blame me for doing the like. E. You are trying to evade the point. O. Not at all : I am coming to it. Consider : James, you say, was brother according to flesh only. Apply to the Passion the rule which you follow as to relationships ; distinguish in the one case, as in the other. " I too believe that the Crucified One is Lord of glory. For the body crucified was not that of a common man, but of the Lord of glory V But " the union makes the names com- mon." You own that His flesh was not from heaven, but from Mary r ? E. I do. O. Why, then, did He say, " the Son of Man ascending up S. John where He was before," or " the Son of Man who is in heaven ? " ' X' 10 ' lb. o. U. E. That is spoken, not of the flesh, but of the Godhead. O. But the Godhead is from God the Father : why then is He here called Son of Man ? E. " The properties of the natures belong alike to the Person s . On account of the union, the Self-same is Son of Man and Son of God Son of David and Lord of David." O. Quite right. But it is also true, that the community of names involves no confusion of natures. We have therefore to consider how He is Son of God and also Son of Man. The Godhead it was, you say, that descended from heaven : and it is called Son of Man be- cause of the union. So too, the flesh was crucified : but the God- head was never separated from flesh, either on the Cross or in the p I. e. " divided enough for my pur- r As against the opinion of some pose, by distinguishing between their followers of Apollinaria ; see above, properties." p. 80 ; comp. p. 47. *> Exactly what Cyril would have s Kuiva tov npocrdoirov yeyovc. See said. p. \r2. Q 226 Various authorities cited sepulchre*, while it never fell Buffering, being impassible. - s o "the Lord of glory was crucified:' 1 the name <»t" the impassible nature is ascribed to the passible, because it was called the body of the latter. The rery text Bhows it. The M princes' 1 crucified the nature which they knew, not that of which they knew nothing 11 . E. This Beems probable. Hut the Nicene Fathers my that "Very God" Buffered. ( >. You have forgotten what you have often admitted, that after the union, Scripture ascribes both the lofty ami the lowly (attributes) to one Person. And the Nieeiie Creed had prefixed " WSJ incarnate, and made man n to " Buffered." E. Hut they said that "the Son" who WBfl "from the Father's essence" Buffered and was crucified. < ). I ha?e often said that what is Divine and what is human be- long alike to the one Person. Accordingly, the Fathers, intending to tribute both Divinity and Humanity 1 to the one Person, used the word w Christ," which takes in both: yet we still distinguish what belongs to one nature from what belongs to the other: e.g. tie- ex- pressions, "from the Father's essence," "very God from wry God," and M coessential," refer to the Godhead, do they not ? E. Clearly so. O. Similarly then, the Passion must he attributed to the humanity, not to the Divinity. And the anathemas at the end of the Creed in- volve the Divine impassibility >'. K. They were then Bpeaking of change. (). Is not Passion "change?" If after the Incarnation He Suf- fered, He was certainly "changed." Such an idea the Fathers cast out and cut off. I will show you other Fathers who thought so. E. I shall he very glad to hear their doctrines. <). (cite- sixteen writers, Ignatius, Irenssus, Hippolytus, Eusta- thius, Athanasius [Ep. Fpiet. 2, <>, 10. Scrm. Major, 'J. 3, 4, and another passage; Ar Incarn. et c. All. 2 j de Incarn. Verhi, !», 2()J, Damasus, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen,Am- philochius, Flavian, Tbeophilu8, Grelasiufl of Ccesarea, Chrysostom, Severianus: then observes that) Easterns and Westerns, Northerns and Boutherns, Greeks and Latins, agree in affirming the impassi- bility of the I >ivine nature. F. I admire their agreement, hut I Bee what a hroad distinction they draw. & •• "ii s. Atli. c. Apol). ii. l t. * II** Ignores tin' •• Constantinopo- Bui "ii this showing, )!:'■ phrase, lltan" recension of the i reed, even as i. • w m1 suffered in flesh," hb party had done in 131, Is quite as justifiable. 1376. Bo Cyril, adv. l.tmiU Hist. ( 77 for the Impassibility of Godhead. 227 O. Do not be surprised at that : reaction against one extreme tends to another. Husbandmen pull a plant into an opposite direction, after they see it growing crooked 2 . But I will quote Apollinaris himself, as maintaining the impassibility of the Divine nature, and restricting the Passion to the body. (Reads several passages from the " Compendium," to the effect that the Lord is not " circum- scribed " by His union with the body, — that what rose again was the body, that in the sufferings of His body His power retained its own impassibility, &c.) E. I am surprised, and ashamed to think that my opinions are more objectionable than his heresy. O. I will produce another witness from a different band of here- tics, Eusebius of Emesa near Lebanon. E. I have met with some of his writings, and found him to be an Arian a . O. He was; but while denying the coequality, he asserts the Divinity of the Son (whom he regards as inferior), to be impassible : and for this opinion he went through many contests. (He reads from Eusebius of Emesa.) E. I admire the man's thoughts and conceptions. O. Do you then imitate the bees, and suck honey of true doctrine amid the meadows of Scripture, and the flowers of the Fathers. When you find something good for making honey in such bad herbage as that of Apollinaris or Eusebius, make use of it, and pass over what is noxious. Take my friendly advice : — but if you will not, I shall say with Paul, " I am clean." Acts 6. * Lit. " they not only raise it up to until his death, which is dated before the right standard (KavSva) but even the end of .'359. Jerome says he was bend it in the opposite direction, be- a " person of graceful and oratorical yond what is straight." ability, who wrote numberless books a Soc. ii. 9. Soz. iii. 6. Jerome de of a sort to win popular applause, Vir. Illustr. 91. He refused to be which are eagerly read by would- the Arian bishop of Alexandria, and be declaimers — such as his treatises Gregory of Cappadocia was eleeted in against Jews, Heathens, Novatians, his place. But he accepted the see of &c, and to the Galatians, and many Emesa, and after overcoming the sus- short homilies on the Gospels." Cf. picion of magical practices, held it Diet. Chr. Biogr. ii. 358. [NDEX I. OF SUBJECTS. Abraham and Isaac, 218. Aeaeians, I Aeacix . 17 (I - i ius of Melitene, 1 7-. ./#/«/;«, fall of. 86, 92. ■ Adam, "I - ,"93, 129,218. '■ Advance in virtue," Christ not Smi of ' ! Adelphius, bishop of Onuphis, 61. / tion, Christ not Son of God b Aethu, 30, 36. "dan/mi, bishop, 1 1. tus, deacon, l I. A gat hut, bishop, 1 1. tnder of nierapolis, ultra- Ni-sto- rian, 1 7". L76. nlri'1, Council of, 1. Ambrose, S., quoted, V : . .'. 90, . 97. 'lunmniius, bishop, 1 1. Anatolims, bishop, 13. A math* matisms <>r Articles of Cyril, the, L67. Andn w, bishop of .11. Andrew, bishop of Samosata, oppo Cyril, L68, L/0. A ' • ■ I I . 1 - I : i. •".''>. 'in'j of Christ, 1 1 v . .1 13. ■."inn," the, 22. Antiochene school, tendency of, 160, Antioek, oouncila of, 6, 10, I Apollinarianism, 14, 16, 18,78: jiropo- srtiona of, 84 : injurioua to vital Chris- tiai LIS. taris. l>is' origin of his errors, 7'.»; admiaaiona by, 188, 209, 227 ; oth< • ted, 11, 47, ropriation" <>f human conditions . inioni of, 19, 81 : tlnir wor- ship of the Son idolatrous in principle, r»», i.'i.', ; because tin y (l. .in Hia Godhead merely titular, 83, L19: (1. iiv an animal aoul to i xisi in ( 108, LOO, 119, l'.'l ttmi. Count Artemon, di . < 1 1 ■ initj . l'.'l, m of Christ, 91. torian idea of an, I vtion of flesh, by the W u 181, 197. \ rian, •".! . . L8. Athanashu, S. brave fidelity of, 17: theological greatness and comprehen- siveness of, L48: conaideratenei 10. 7": Cyril professes to follon ab- solutely, L78 : other writings of, quoted, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, - 36, 36,87, 11, 12, 52, 71. 77,91, L02, 106, L12, L18, L18, 121, l'.'l. L96, 221. Attempt* ot heretics to go beyond what is revealed, ill. ./ ustine, S., quoted, 1 18. tins, Arian bishop, ill. 23, l", 15. B Basil, S. quoted, L0, L8, 19, 22, 37, 89. 50,64,78,81,84, Basil of Si U ucia, L98. Basilides. 6, L0. Birth 1 : Apollinarians dislike to acknowledge, 97 : bo Butychians, 186: indescribable glory of, 115; shown as real after resurrection, 52, British Church, orthodox, 90. ' . Arian bishop, 16, Calem* .11. Captions questions put by Apollinarians, as bv Ari.uis, 1 HI. 1 . I ' .'ion, . Council of, quo:, 171 • Cha* beings mi!' impossible for the Word to una INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 229 16, 52, 132, 181 : old Arian error on this point, 75. Christ, the One, both God and Man, 98, 108, 122, 141, 1G7, 171 : title of, im- plies both Godhead and Manhood, 102. Chrysostom, S., quoted, 181. " Circumscription," characteristic of a created being, 205. " Communicatio idiomatum," 59, 200. Communion with Christ, real, 88. Condescension, the, of the Son, 1G9. " Confusion," the "union" without, 9G. Constantinople, Arian Council of, 40. Constantius, 29. Conversion of Godhead into flesh, a heretical idea, 16, 46, 49. 54, 86, 122. Council, Fifth (Ecumenical, 153, 164, 167, 175: Sixth, 123, 128. Councils, various, of the Arians, 26, 40. Creature, Arians call the Son a, 18, 31. Creature-worship, disowned, 63. Curse, how Christ " became a," 55. Cymatius, bishop, 3. Cyril, S., of Alexandria, described, 149 : third letter of to Nestorius, 108, 156, 181: " twelve articles " of, 157: ex- planatory writings of, 74, 75, 108, 158, 174 : letter of to John of Antioch, 12, 173 : death of, 176 : other writings of, quoted, 9, 11, 12, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 58, 63, 64, 73, 87, 88, 92, 99, 100, 126, 137, 149, 150, 153, 155, 159, 162, 174, 1/5, 176, 190, 196, 204, 210, 211, 223. Cyril, S., of Jerusalem, 207. 1) Damasus, bishop of Rome, 5, 6, 23, 40, 81, 211. Death, how inherited by Adam's pos- terity, and how defeated by Christ's resurrection, 217: Christ's alone aton- ing, 59. Demophilus, Arian bishop, 28, 204. Dialogues of Theodoret, when and why composed, 177. Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, 151, 176, 188. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 14, 31. Dionysius, bishop of Rome, 33, 34. Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, sup- ports Eutyches, 176, 198: denounces Theodoret, 178. " Disciplina arcani" the, iai, 207, 223. Division, Apollinarians professedly dread, 120: involved in Nestorianism, 153. Docetism, 54, 63, 76, 87. Domnus, bishop of Antioch, 178. Doxology, forms of the, 42. Dracon tins, bishop, 3. E " East, the," sense of, 20. Ebionites, 108. Egypt, Christ's visit to, 76. "Emmanuel," sense of the word, 59, 67 » 159. Ephesus, Council of, seventh canon of, 7. Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, 45 : letter referred to in Nestorian controversy, 170, 172. Epiphanius, S., quoted, 9, 11, 15, 20, 36, 61, 7S, 80, 81, 108, 109, 113, 118. Equivocation, employed by heretics, 11, 81. " Essence," sense of, 30, 179. Eucharist, the Holy, argument from to the Divinity of Christ's Person, 74, 168: to the distinctness of His Man- hood, 208. Eudexius, Arian bishop, 28. Eudocia, 155. Eusebians, trickery of, atNicaea, 32. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, quoted, 10, 31, 41, 205. Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, 227. Eusebius, bishop of Vercella?, 2: state- ment by, 14. Eustathians, the, 5. Eutherius, 163. Eutyches, 176, 180, 196, 199. "Exhibition," Apollinarian idea of, 81, 101. F FaHh, operation of, 130. Faithful, the, to be taught how to de- fend the truth, 195. Father, the, cause of the Son, 194: foun- tain of the Godhead, 56. " Fire and iron," relation between, compared to that of Godhead and Manhood in Christ, 204. Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, council held by, 198. Flesh, Christ's, not uncreated, 86 : nor coeternal, 89 : nor heavenly in origin, 92 : nor coessential, 96 : essential to our redemption, 67 : Christ to be adored in, 64: "suffering in," as- cribed by Cyril to God the Word, 169: how the Word "became," 180: man sometimes called, 55, 141, 190. "Form of God" and "of a servant," 89, 116. Free-will in man, 123. " From two natures," 198. Genealogy of Christ, in the Gospels, 26, 94,' 132, 200. Glorification, in what sense possible for the Son, 136. God, as such, could not suffer, 138 name of, Arians misuse, 131. Godhead, one, in the Trinity, 22: of Christ, inseparable from His body md His soul. <»7. Ill, 135, 230 [NDEX OF Bl BJE( TS. G ■ ./.iaiizus, quoted, LO, J li. 55, 57, 68, G ■: lu;,. in.;. [88. ' ,S. q quoted, 02, 99, /ate, bishop of Antioch, 157, 178. 1"-. Ill, L36, 188, 222. ' ", letter Of, to Athanasius, 17. II Hades, souls detained in. 104, 128: ro- il from, 1 •'>'.»: Christ went into by ll - tool, 111, 188. " //■ ■;.; „!,/ Man," how Christ is, L87« '• // m "iji Mind" true sense ol LOS. I bed too. Paul, 80, 61, 88. 184. ims, deacon, 18. /, downward course of, 62, '/ . presbj ter, 71 . // Pnest, God the Word became our, as Man, 125, 166: Christ a, after the order oi Mtelchisedec, 19 1. Hilary, S. quoted, LO, l >. -J". 22, 26, 68, 72, 75, 98, L08, u l, L40. Huh/ Spirit, the. uncreated, '», 16: Di- vinity of, implied in the original Ni- cene Creed, LI: not operating on Christ ab extra, L65: Cyril and Theo- dorit on 01, 1 <'*'< i not a .. nor begotten] 221. " // ." • use or the, 22, 35. " Homoioiuion," the, 19. " HomaonsUm? sense of the, 19, 22 89: why adopted at Nicsea, 88, 96. Humanity, in entireness, fallen and re- Rtored, 90, i (| ">: why A>pollinaris de- nied that Christ took the whole of, 86. " // ' . ' :: ! the word, 7 — 1^, 16, 21, 80, LOO, 176, 17'.'. Hypostatic Union t doctrine of the, 160. Ihas, bishop of E storianiser, L76. / ■ . v / the Father, the Son called, / fthe 1 . l 98. Imitation, Apollinarian theory of, SG, LIS. / to God, some thin II perfect, 218. " /;/ two natun -." L98. Incarnation, doctrine of the, LIS, LIS, L62. rirtually denied by Nestorius, " Indian " Christiai . human, felt by our {j M . 216. ■■ / • •.,'2, 126. Lazarus, raised up hy Christ tin. ' Man, 1 1, ":,. Leo 'A, Great, s. quoted, 2, 12, 7 17-. L80, 1-7, 196, l'.>7, 199,202,216. Leonth . 79, 90, 97, 99, 108, 171. L86. Likeness of the Son to the Father, not merely moral, 86. / , human, relied on by herestics, bl. /' icte, to be avoided, 21, 73. Lucifer, bishop of Caliaris, 2, 3, 13, 16. M Mact tUndan heresy, the, 5. Macrostich creed, the. 23, 10S, 126. Christ adored by, 76. .1/'//;, Apollinarians loth to own Christ to be. i»7 : and Kutyehians, 190: He will be for ever, 1 L8. Man-worshipping, imputed by Apollin- arians to Catholics, i'.-'i. L20. Manhoo d , of Christ, distinct from His 1 [head, and - d by Cvril, 160: not absorbed, 204. Manieheism, 1<». ". 101, l<>f>. 116, 119, l:2.->, 111. L91. MarceUianism, i», 80. s, 62, 101, 112, 119, 121, 126, L82, 111. Marina, L66. Marias Mereator, 1<»7, 164, 159, 100. Mark, bishop, 1 1. Murk, another, bishop, 1 I. Mar:/, the 15. \ ., office of, as to the Ill- ation, 17, 60, 75: called " I M : ! >. )■." -7. 101, 171. 17 s : Brer-Vir- gin, 88. iatising phrases, applied by Arians • ( athohc doctrine. 1 1 l. ■nis. Christian philosopher, 7-. us, deacon, 1 i. tnr, how Christ the, 193, Meiehisedee, 198. kmple of ■ quotation from, 91. Of all classes united in Christ, 1-7. der, L91. bishop, 1 I. ■ P dins, L86. Milan, church of, H>. U '. the human, primarily involved in INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 231 the Fall, 105 : really assumed by the Word, 11, 10, 107: without involving any sinfulness, 123 : Apollinarian ob- jections to this truth, 79 : in men in- capable of renewal through mere ' imi- tation,' 113. " Monarchia," principle of the, 57. Monks, 14. Motfothelite controversy, the, 128. Moral union with God, 35. N Nativity, the, real, 51 : supernatural, 74. "Natural," how applied to Christ's birth and death, 92. " Necessity," used for the " law of sin," 127. Nestorianism, 11, 43, 153. Nestor ms, anathematisms of, 159 ; ser- mons of, 08, 153. Nice~, in Thrace, Arian creed of, 40. 113. Nicene Council, occasion of the, 27. Nicene Creed, the text of, 20 : inviola- ble and sufficient, 7, 13, 77 ': repre- sents the faith of primitive saints, 18, 38 : generally accepted, 20 : explained away by some, 19 : value of, 41 : Con- stantinopolitan recension of, 5, 20, 220. Noetians, the, 118. N on- Scriptural terms, Acacian Arians reject, 22, 33. O " Old City" in Antioch, Meletius's ad- herents assembled in, 5. " One adoration," 09, 104. ' One incarnate nature, of God the Word,' explained, 174. " One nature after the Union," Euty- chian phrase, 198. Oneness of Christ, admitted by the " Easterns," 104, and by Theodoret, 178, 199. " Operation, Theandric," 200. Origen, quoted, 05, 213. Over-defining deprecated, 102. Paphnutius, bishop, 14. "Paradoxes of the Incarnation," 53. Paris, Council of, 24. Paschal question, the, 27. Passion of Christ, efficacious through His Divinity, 75. Patriarchs, the Jewish, 187. Paul, bishop of Emesa, 171. Paul of Samosata, heresy of, G, 9, 7G, 119, 141. Paulinas of Antioch, 5: profession of faith by, 15. Pelagianism, \'2J. Perfect, Godhead and Manhood in Christ " Perfects, two," objections as to, 79, 85, 103. Personality of Christ, single, 11, 43: Divine, 09, 85, 97, 109, 152. Polemon, Apollinarian, 82, 174. Photinus, heresy of, 10, 10, 00, 142. " Pope," title of, 14. " Potentate" Manichean myth about the, 125. Procession of the Holy Spirit, 106. Proclus, quoted, 11G, 131, 140, 181, 183, 211. " Principle," one, of the Godhead, 9. Prophets, relation of the Word to, 11, 47, 58, 74. Properties, Divine and human in Christ, distinct, yet attached to His one Per- son, 59, 172, 226. Pulcheria, 155. Qualities, not existing in God, 37. Quaternity, notion of a, falsely imputed to Catholics, 47, 50, 90, 101: dis- claimed by Cyril, 172. " Quicunque vult," the, language re- sembling, 22, 40, 85, 108, 129, 171. R Reconciliation, the, of God to man, 104. Redemption, effected by Christ, 112 : implies a Divine Redeemer, 170, 211. Resurrection of Christ, how a warrant of ours, 110, 220. Reunion, formulary of the, 171. Reverence, misguided, in heretics, 75, 95, 135, 192. Rhetorius, 90. SabelUanism, 6, 9, 114, 120, 191. Sacrifice, of Christ, 53, 75, 112. Saints, relation of the Word to, 10, 11, 74 : buried in churches, 219. Sardica, Council of, framed no creed, 7- Satan, author of sin, 106, 123. Saviour, a, must be Divine, 70. Scripture, clearly supports Catholic faith, 18: cited as verifying it, 218: reading of, necessary, 196. Semi- Arians, 22, 32. " Shepherd," the, quoted, 32. Simon Magus, 191. Simplicity of Divine nature, 38. Sin, not part of man's original nature, 105 : how introduced, 123 ; wholly ab- sent from Christ, 92, 109, 129. Sirmium, creeds of, 10, 20, 40, 119. Socrates, quoted, 10. Son of God, Christ the genuine, 22, 39 ; and inseparable from the Father as to Godhead, 71, 118; in becoming Man, continued to be God, 118. Sonship, reality of the Divine, the ques- tion ;st issue, 22, •'!'.'. ENDEX OF BUBJEI Soul, described oi double, L06, 189, 208: and flesh, in man, mparison drawn from, L61, 901: man sometimes called, 190: I rational, ribed to Christ in Scripture, i"7. 140: but u"! si preexistent, 56. Sozomen. quoted. 79, I v b "Spirit, used Cur Godhead, 91. tus, Cyril's letters to, 161 ,174 Suffering, predicable of God the Word Man, 169, -l": impossible for llim as God, 68, 99, 210,214: ascribed by Arians to 1 1 i ^ " Godhead," L82. Suipiciut Severus, 29. Symbolism, in the Old Testament. 219. Sympathy, human, of our Lord, L82, 1 11. I '/,-, Alt by Christ 107- • • i not equivalent to • I G sis," 201. ,'' disclaimed l»v Theodsret, L82. " Types," relation of to archetypes or u " Union,™ the personal, identified with the Incarnation, 197 s indissoluble, 111,117,122, 1 86. Unity, to be promoted smong those who arc really Sgreed in faith, 12, Ursaeius, Arian bishop, 2 - Temptation of Christ, the, 127. Theodore, of Mopsuestia, 160, 168, 164, L76, L78, L86, 188. I ■ i of, 1 1'.': attacks Cyril's Articles. 168: peculiar position of, after the Reunion, 17"): attacked by Kutychian party, 177: professes his belief in the oneness of Cli list. 60, 178: Dialogues of, 177: other writings of, quoted, 17. 60, 7'.'. 165, L80, 182, L86, L98, 206, 211, 218, 21 l, 216. Theodosiui II.. 172, 176. / lotus, denied Christ's Divinity, l'.'I. Theophanies, in the Old Testament, not manifestations of the Divine essence, 184 Theophihu, quoted, 92. " Theophoros," m rise of, 168. '* Theotoeat, the title, true m nse of) B7, 160: sssailed by Nestorians, 101. Thomas, S. confession of, 68, 71. Tradition, 62, 67, LIS, 115. Timothy, Apollinarian, 81, 89. Trinity, the Holy, one Godhead in, 22, 57 : om < '" ahead. r> : coessential, perfect and undivided, Valens, Arian bishop of Mursa, 28 28, 10. Valentinus, Gnostic, 0, 62, 99, 182,1 11. Valentinus, Apollinariai . Valerian, Cyril's letter to. 161, 171. /'. il, Christ's flesh a, for His Godhead, L84. Vina nt of Lerius, 171. Vitaiis, 11. 6*1,82, W Water and blood, from Christ's side. 111. Will of Christ, His Bufferings depen- dent on, 92, 109: in what sense restricted by Aihanasius to His God- head, L28. Word, the, identical with the Sot . Maker of the uni\ci>c 81, 98: became Man. 118. Worship, due to the Son as Incarnate, 64: Offered to Christ as to One Divine Person, 69, 91, L64. ZoiluS, bishop. 1-1. INDEX II. OF GKEEK WORDS. N. "AKpa fvaxris, 117, 204, 214. &p6 P wttos, 135, 146. &V0pWTTOS Kvpicucos, 145. avTiTvwos, 207. avvTrSo-Taros, 9, 138, 197. apxervwos, 88, 122, 207. yxv, 9. a 37. A. SnrAovs, 98. 8<*Kr;ia$6Aov, 215. n 51 10 121 viii. 1 184 xi. 1 187 xxxii. 68 xl. 28 131 1.6 68 liii. 3 131 12 187 lv. i 187 lxiii. 1 120 JEREMIAH. ii. 13 27 ix. 10 80 xvii. 5 7~> xxiii. 18, 22 30 LAMENTATIONS. xviii. I ww ii. 7 EZEKIEL. HOSEA. 112,190 224 INDEX OF TEXTS. 235 JOEL. ii. 25 28 33 AMOS. vii. 12 214 MICAH. 183 HABAKKUK. ii. 15 12, 46, 121 ZECHARIAH. vii. 10 ...... 20G MALACHI. iii. 6 .......... 52, 180 BARUCH. iii. 35,37 183 WISDOM. ii. 23, 24 . . . . 93, 105, 128 S. MATTHEW. 1 97 23 58,67 25 113 17 60 3 128 48 36 2 64 15 69 26 64 6 , 93 20 64 28 .... 103,126,139 32 95 25 100 5 60 10 184 27 200 42 195 2 68 31 97 19,39,40 .... 73,110 50 Ill 51 65 54 71 6 219 m. iv. v. viii. xm. xvii. xviii. xxi. xxii. xxiv. XXV. xxvii. xxv iii. 9 viii. 31 xv. 5 S. MARK. 91 132 72 S. LUKE. i. 27 51 ii. 7 51 23 51 25 88,203 iii. 38 116 x. 22 131 xi/27 51 xxiii. 45 68 46 138 xxiv. 39, 40 . . 54, 19, 196, 205 S.JOHN. i. 1 . . 70, 97, 113, 116, 199 3 ^1 14 '. '. ' 15, 55, 63, 75, 180 ii. 19 .... 137, 164, 223 iii. 13 225 31 34 iv. 6 215 24 91,94 v. 19 36 27 93 vi. 32 223 51 223 62 225 viii. 31, 36 .... 91,114 40 74, 102 44 115,121 56 218 58 11,201 ix. 6 12,64 x. 15 Ill, 139 18 135 30 ... . 33, 134, 215 32 ff 195 33 64 35 36 xi. 34 11 xii. 24 185 27 . . 107,109,203,222 28 136 xiii. 21 107, 139 xiv. 6 Ill, 130 9 35,215 20 106 30 129 xv. 1 184 xvi. 14 194 15 30 33 108,128 xvii. 4 130 24 07 xviii. 22 53 xix. 30 111.13* 236 ENDEX OF TEXTS. JUL 17 88 91 A CTS. i. 11 07 ii. 82 192 99 J^:i 81 110 86 127 vii. 58 87 viii. 86 228 xxvi. 23 117 ROMANS. I 121 3 .... 60, 184, 188 21 66 80 62 II 106 12 110,121 11 Ill 17 l^r, 26 124 6 188 28 127 3 66,92,128 20 113,130 \ i. vii. viii. 218 87 58,98 31 125 1 CORINTHIANS. i. 18 ii. 8 16 iii. 14 r.7 viii. G xi. 7 26 XV. 8, 20 21 21 88, 73 15 78 186,224 113 M 117 32 66, 180 196 220 23 16 94 18 187 110 r>7 108 S CORINTH1 IN8, ii. n CI 17 118 iv. 1 1 88 r.17,18 181 GALATIANS. i. 7 19 224 iii. 13 219 15 66 20 99 iv. i 65, 126 21 210 BPHESIANS. ii. 2 69 lo 112 19 loo iii. 6 122 iv. 22 109 2 1 90, 109 \. 2 166 80 102 23 180 PHILIPPIANS. ii.GfT. .... iii. 21 . . . 116, 162, 188 . 97 COLOSSI AN s. i. 15 186, 194 10 81,186 18 S7, ISO, 187 iii. 9 00 1 TIMOTHY. i. 7 72,83 17 188 ii. 5, G . . . . Os, in. 117. 182, 184, 192 vi. 1G 222 2 TIMOTHY. Ii. 8 9S, 117, 10G 12 96 13 218 ll 16 19 115 iii. 8 62 T1TI 3, ii. 13. 11 67 iii. 10. 11 68, 73 HEBRBWa i.3 80 1,6 100, U.9 INDEX OF TEXTS. 237 ii. 11 . . . . 88,21G 14 . G7, 12G, 1G3, 21G 15 . ... 75 16,17 . . . 51 iii. 1 . . . 166 iv. 15 . . . 122, 142 v. l,ff . . . 167, 186 vi. 18 . . . 213 vii. 1 19 ff. . . 193 viii. 3 75, 100, 125 ix. 19 . . . Ill 26 . . 59, 74, 113 x. 5 . . . . 186 9 . . . 125 20 . . . 66,130,184 xii. 12 . . . 214 12 . . . . 219 xiii. 8 . . . . 52 S.JAMES. i. 17 :58 1 S. PETER. ii. 9 66 22 130 iii. 19 52 20 126 iv. 1 .... 12,67,98,142 v. 8 63 2 S. PETER. i. 4 66 ii. 19 125 IS. JOHN. i. 1 90 iii. 8 106,123 16 116,137 v. 20 32 ERRATUM. p. 64, note i, for 'Epiphanius, in 374, imitated this,' read ' Epiphanius, in 373, imitated this.' SERMONS, WORKS, &c, By the REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. PAROCHIAL SERMONS, Vol. I. With Preface. 8th Thousand. PAROCHIAL SERMONS, Vol. II. 6th Thousand. PAROCHIAL SERMONS, Vol. III. Revised Edition. PAROCHIAL SERMONS, Preached on Various Occasions. NEW VOLUME, In Preparation. UNIVERSITY SERMONS, Vol. I. 1843—1855. With Preface. UNIVERSITY SERMONS, Vol. II. 1859—1872. With Preface. UNIVERSITY SERMONS, Vol. III. 1864—1879. With a Sermon at the opening of Keble College Chapel, 1876. LENTEN SERMONS. 1858—1874. SERMONS on Repentance and Amendment of Life. Preached at S. Saviour's, Leeds. 1845. With Preface. 3rd Edition. The above, 65. each. ADDRESSES on the Love of God and of Jesus for Souls and the Blessedness of Intercession for Them. 5th Thousand. 3s. Gd. COMMENTARY on the MINOR PROPHETS, with Introduc- tions to the Several Books. 1 Volume. 4to. £1 lis. Gd. LECTURES on DANIEL THE PROPHET. 5th Ed. 10s. Gd. The DOCTRINE of HOLY BAPTISM. 5s. The DOCTRINE of the REAL PRESENCE. 1855. 7s. Gd. The REAL PRESENCE the DOCTRINE of the English Church. 2nd Edition. 1857- Gs. WHAT IS OF FAITH AS TO EVERLASTING PUNISH- MENT ? 3s. Gd. UNLAW in Judgements of the Judicial Committee and its Remedies. 2nd Edition. With an Appendix. Gd. A LETTER on the Clause "AND THE SON," in the Nicene Creed. 1876. 3s. Gd. HABITUAL CONFESSION not DISCOURAGED by the Resolution accepted by the Lambeth Conference. 1878. Gd. CORRECTION of some CRITICISMS on the 'MANUAL for CONFESSORS.' 1879. Gd. ADVICE ON HEARING CONFESSION. Revised Edition. With Preface. Gs. PREFACE separately, (in wrapper,) 2s. Gd. TRACT XC. On certain Pusses in the XXXIX Articles. Is. Gd Dr. PUSEY'S "DEVOTIONAL SERIES. AVlULLON's GUIDE f«.r PASSING ADVENT HO LILY. AVRILLON'S GUIDE for PASSING LENT HO LILY. AVRILLON'S YEAB of AFKCTION& NOIKTS LIFE of JESUS CHRI8T in GLORY. 8. ANSELM'S MEDITATIONS and Belect PRAYERS. The ubove t 5#. each, SURIVS FOUNDATIONS of the- SPIRITUAL I. Ill Th.- SUFFERINGS of JESUS. In Two Tarts, 3#, 6Vf. each. The SPIRITUAL COMBAT. 2s. U . ,, „ Cheap Edition, in wrapper, 6d. „ „ „ „ limp cloth. |«. PARADISE for the CHRISTIAN SOUL. By HORST. to. 64 DEVOUT COMMUNION. Is. From "the ParadUe.» LITANIES in the words of Holy Scripture. 6Vf. ADVENT READINGS from the FATHERS. Sri LENT READINGS from the FATHERS. 3t.6d. MEDITATIONS on THE GOSPELS. 4 role. In Preparation. m:\v and chkapkh issri: 01 THE LIBRARY OF THE FATHERS OF I in HOLY ( \Tiini.ic CHURCH, ANTERIOB TO THE DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST. DATE DUE Mfai in m ■ i 1 r ,,w " nrrn nyi ,30^^976 n85 W&&M W^HW GAYLORO PBlST to IN V t A.