67.

Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church; but be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has the Father spoken, ‘My heart uttered a good Word;’ and the Son conformably, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me ¹.’ But if the Word be in the heart, where is will? and if the Son in the Father, where is good pleasure? and if He be Will Himself, how is counsel in Will? it is unseemly; lest the Word come into being in a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been repeatedly ² said. For the Son is the Father’s All; and nothing was in the Father before the Word; but in the Word is will also, and through Him the objects of will are carried into effect, as holy Scriptures have shewn. And I could wish that the irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason ³ as to be considering about will, would now ask their childbearing women no more, whom they used to ask, ‘Hadst thou a son before conceiving him ⁴?’ but the father, ‘Do ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your will?’ or ‘Are your children like your nature and essence ⁵?’ that, even from fathers they may learn shame, from whom they assumed this proposition ⁶ about birth, and from whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For they will reply to them, ‘What we beget, is like, not our good pleasure ⁷, but like ourselves; nor become we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature; since we too are images of our fathers.’ Either P. 431 then let them condemn themselves ⁸, and cease asking women about the Son of God, or let them learn from them, that the Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. Becoming and suitable to them is a refutation from human instances ⁹, since the perverse-minded men dispute in a human way concerning the Godhead. Why then are Christ’s enemies still mad? for this, as well as their other pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere fantasy and fable; and on this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of folly down which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee the snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving unto men and cries continually, ‘If because of My clothing of the body ye believe Me not, yet believe the works, that ye may know that “I am in the Father and the Father in Me,” and “I and the Father are one,” and “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ¹⁰.”’ But the Lord according to His wont is loving to man, and would fain ‘help them that are fallen,’ as the praise of David ¹¹ says; but the irreligious men, not desirous to hear the Lord’s voice, nor bearing to see Him acknowledged by all as God and God’s Son, go about, miserable men, as beetles, seeking with their father the devil pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence will they be able next to find? unless they borrow blasphemies of Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism from Gentiles? for the divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are refuted as insensate and Christ’s enemies.

Excursus C.

Introductory ¹² to the Fourth Discourse against the Arians.

The fourth Discourse, as has been already observed (p. 304), stands on a footing of its own. To begin with, it is not quoted in antiquity, as the first three are, as part of the work of Ath. against the Arians (details in Newman, p. 499). Again, the fact that not only theEp. Æg.,but even the dubiousde Incar. c. Arian.,are in some mss. included in theOrationes,while our present oration appears sometimes as the ‘fifth’ sometimes as the ‘sixth,’ cast a shade of doubt upon its claim to be included in the ‘Pentabiblus against the Arians’ referred to by Photius. In addition to these external considerations, Newman lays stress on the apparent want of continuity in its argument; on its non-conformity to the structural plan ofOrat.i.–iii., on the use of the term ὁμοούσιον (§§10, 22, contrastOrat.i. §9, p. 311, note 12); on certain peculiarities of style which seem characteristic of disjointed notes rather than of a systematic treatise; on the reference to ‘Eusebius’ (of Cæsarea) as apparently still living (§8); and on the general absence of personal reference to opponents, while yet a definite and extant system seems to be combated.

Now a comparison with the works of Eusebius against Marcellus leaves little doubt that the system combated by Athan. is that of the latter (described brieflyProlegg.ch. ii. §3 (2) c).

After laying down as a thesis (§1) the substantive existence of the divine Word or Wisdom, Athan. proceeds to combat the idea that the Word has no personality distinct from that of the Father. Setting aside the alternative errors of Sabellius (§2) and Arius (§3), he taxes with the consequence of involving two ᾽Αρχαί a view that the Word had a substantive existence and was then united to the Father (cf. Euseb.c. Marcell.32 A, 108 A, 106 C, D). This consequence can only be avoided by falling into the Sabellian alternative of a θεὸς διφυής (cf. P. 432 Tertullian’s ‘Deum versipellem’), unless the true solution, that of the eternal divine γέννησις , be accepted (§3 worked out in 4, 5). The argument, apparently interrupted by an anti-Arian digression §§6, 7, is resumed §8, whence it proceeds without break to §24. Eusebius, insisting against Marcellus on the eternity of Christ’s Kingdom, inconsistently defends those who deny the eternity of His Person. But if so, how inconsistent are those who deny the Son any pre-existence, while yet repelling the Arian formulæ with indignation! In §§9–12, taking Joh. x. 30 as his text, Athan. asks his opponentsin what senseChrist and the Father ‘are one,’ distinguishing from his own answer that of Sabellius (9, 10), and that of Marcellus (11, 12), whom he presses with the paradoxical character of his explanation of the divine γέννησις . In §§13, 14, he examines the (Marcellian,not Sabellian) doctrine of πλατυσμὸς and συστολή , charging it with Sabellianismas its consequence. Next (§§15–24) Ath. turns upon the radically weak point of the system of Marcellus(Prolegg. ubi supra),and asks What do his followers mean by ‘the Son?’ Do they mean merely(a)the man, Christ (§20, Photinus), or(b)the union of Word and Man, or(c)the Word regarded as Incarnate? The latter was the answer (§22) of Marcellus himself. This last point leads to a discussion (§24) of those O.T. passages on which Marcellus notoriously relied. §25, which Zahn understands as a direct polemic against Sabellius, is far more probably, as Newman maintains in his note, a supplemental argument against Marcellianism, for the view combated is said toleadinevitably to Sabellianism. The concluding portion, §§26–36, turns the argument of §24, that Scripture declares the identity of Son and Word, against those who (adopting alternative(a) supra) drift from Marcellianism toward the Samosatene rather than toward the Sabellian position (on the connection of the two seeProlegg.ch. ii. §3 (2) a and c) . Even here, the name of Photinus, to whose position the section specially applies, is significantly withheld.

Such is the course of the argument in the Fourth Oration; and with the exception of §§6, 7, and again possibly §25, it forms a homogeneous, if not a finished and elaborated piece of argument. Its date and composition may be left an open question; but its purpose as an appendix toOrat.i.–iii., is we think open to little doubt (supr.p. 304). Of Sabellius, who left no writings ¹³, the age of Athanasius knew little, except that he identified Father and Son ( υἱοπατώρ ), and denied the Trinity of Persons. Most that is told us of Sabellius from the fourth century onwards requires careful sifting, in order to eliminate what really belongs to Marcellus, Photinus, or others who were taxed with Sabellianism, and combated as ‘Sabellians.’ But with the simple patri-passianism which is the one undoubted element in the teaching of Sabellius, Marcellus had little or nothing in common. The criticism of Marcellus that Sabellius ‘knew not the Word’ reveals the true difference between them. To Sabellius, creation and redemption were the work of the one God under successive changes of manifestation; to Marcellus, they were the realisation of a process eternally latent in God; but both Marcellus and apparently Sabellius referred to the divine Nature what the theology of the Church has consistently referred to the divine Will.

The following table will make the foregoing scheme clear.

§1. Introductory. Thesis: the co-eternal personality of the Son or Word.

§§2–5. Those who, while rejecting Arianism, would avoid Sabellianism, must accept the eternal divine Generation of the Son.

§§6, 7. [Digression: the humiliation of the Word explained against the Arians.]

§8. The eternity of Christ’s Kingdom and of His Person implied each in the other.

§§9–12. In what sense Christ and the Father are, and are not, one. The divine γέννησις .

§§13, 14. The doctrine of divine dilatation and contraction denies true personal distinctions in the Godhead.

§§15–24. The Son and the Word identical. Refutation of the three alternative suppositions, and of the argument alleged from the O.T. in support of them.

§25. Final refutation of the doctrine of dilatation.

§§26–36. The Scriptural identification of Son and Word refutes the restriction of the former title to the man Jesus.