5), 6 Ps, cxix. go. Ps. xxxiii. 6.
9 Ps. cxlviii. 5.
He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created;” as the illustrious Moses also at the beginning of his account of Creation confirms what we say by his narrative’, saying: and God said, “let us make man in our image and after our likeness:” for also when He was carrying out the creation of the heaven and earth and all things, the Father said to Him 2, ‘‘ Let the heaven be made,” and “let the waters be gathered together and let the dry land appear,” and “let the earth bring forth herb” and “ every green thing: ” so that one must convict Jews also of not genuinely attending to the Scriptures. one might ask them to whom was God speaking, to use the imperative mood? If He were commanding and addressing the things He was creating, the utterance would be redundant, for they were not yet in being, but were about to be made; but no one speaks to what does not exist, nor addresses to what is not yet made a command to be made. For if God were giving a command to the things that were to be, He must have said, “‘ Be made, heaven, and be made, earth, and come forth, green herb, and be created, O man.” But in fact He did not do so; but He gives the command thus: Let us make man,” and “let the green herb come forth.” By which God is proved to be speaking about them to some one at hand: it follows then that some one was with Him to Whom He spoke when He made all things. 6. Who then could it be, save His Word? For to whom could God be said to speak, except His Word? Or who was with Him when He made all created Existence, except His Wisdom, which says3: “When He was making the heaven and the earth I was present with Him?” But in the mention of heaven and earth, all created things in heaven and earth are included as well. 7. But being present with Him as His Wisdom and His Word, looking at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and organised it and gave it order; and, as He is the power of the Father, He gave all things strength to be, as the Saviour says +: “ What things soever I see the Father doing, I also do in like manner.” And His holy disciples teach that all things were made “through Him and unto Him;” 8. and, being the good Offspring of Him that is good, and true Son, He is the Father’s Power and Wisdom and Word, not being so by participation 5, nor as if these qualities were imparted to Him from without, as they are to those who partake of 5 petoxy, cf. de Syn. 48, 51, 53- This was held by Arians, but in common with Paul Samos. and many of the Monarchian heretics. ‘The same principle in Orig. on Ps. 135 (Lomm. xiii. 134) ov Kara eTOVGaY GAG KaT ovalay Beds.
Him and are made wise by Him, and receive power and reason in Him; but He is the very Wisdom, very Word, and very own Power of the Father, very Light, very Truth, very Righteousness, very Virtue, and in truth His express Image, and Brightness, and Resemblance. And to sum all up, He is the wholly perfect Fruit of the Father, and is alone the Son, and unchanging Image of the Father.
$47. Necessity of a return to the Word if our corrupt nature ts to be restored.
Who then, who can declare the Father by number, so as to discover the powers of His Word? For like as He is the Father’s Word and Wisdom, so too condescending to created things, He becomes, to impart the knowledge and apprehension of Him that begat Him, His very Brightness and very Life, and the Door, and the Shepherd, and the Way, and King and Governor, and Saviour over all, and Light, and Giver of Life, and Providence over all. Having then such aSon begotten of Himself, good, and Creator, the Father did not hide Him out of the sight of His creatures, but even day by day reveals Him to all by means of the organisation and life of all things, which is His work. 2. But in and through Him He reveals Himself also, as the Saviour says ®: “TI in the Father and the Father in Me:” so that it follows that the Word is in Him that begat Him, and that He that is begotten lives eternally with the Father. But this being so, and nothing being outside Him, but both heaven and earth and all that in them is being dependent on Him, yet men in their folly have set aside the knowledge and service of Him, and honoured things that are not instead of things that are: and instead of the real and true God deified things that were not, “serving the creature rather than the Creator 7,” thus involving themselves in foolishness and impiety. 3. For it is just as if one were to admire the works more than the workman, and being awestruck at the public works in the city, were to make light of their builder, or as if one were to praise a musical instrument but to despise the man who made and tuned it. Foolish and sadly disabled in eyesight! For how else had they known the building, or ship, or lyre, had not the ship-builder made it, the architect built it, or the musician fashioned it? 4. As then he that reasons in such a way is mad, and beyond all madness, even so affected in mind, I think, are those who do not recognise God or worship His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour of all, through Whom the Father orders, and holds together all things, and exercises provi-| For just as for them who walk after His dence over the Universe; having faith and|example, the prize is life everlasting, so for piety towards Whom, my Christ-loving friend, | those who walk the opposite way, and not that be of good cheer and of good hope, because | of virtue, there is great shame, and peril withimmortality and the kingdom of heaven is the| out pardon in the day of judgment, because fruit of faith and devotion towards Him, if only | although they knew the way of truth their acts the soul be adorned according to His laws. | were contrary to their knowledge.
INR OOUCTION TO) THES TREATISE ON THE THE tract ‘against the Gentiles’ leaves the reader face to face with the necessity of restoration by the Divine Word as the remedy for corrupt human nature. How this necessity is met in the Incarnation is shewn in the pages which follow. The general design of the second tract is to illustrate and confirm the doctrine of the Incarnation by shewing (1) its necessity and end, (2) the congruity of its details, (3) its truth, as against the objections of Jews and Gentiles, (4) its result. He begins by a review (recapitulating « Gent. 2—7) of the doctrine of creation and of man’s place therein. The abuse by man of his special Privilege had resulted in its loss. By foregoing the Divine Life, man had entered upon a course of endless undoing, of progressive decay, from which none could rescue him but the original bestower of his life (2—7). Then follows a description in glowing words of the Incarnation of the Divine Word and of its efficacy against the plague of corruption (8—10).
With the Dzvine Life, man had also received, in the knowledge of God, the conscious reflex of the Divine Likeness, the faculty of reason in its highest exercise. This knowledge their moral fall dimmed and perverted. Heeding not even the means by which God sought to remind them of Himself, they fell deeper and deeper into materialism and superstition. To restore the effaced likeness the presence of the Original was requisite. Accordingly, condescending to man’s sense-bound intelligence—lest men should have been created in vain in the Image of God—the Word took Flesh and became an object of Sense, that through the Seen He might reveal the Invisible (11—16).
Having dwelt (17—19) upon the meaning and purpose of the Incarnation, he proceeds to speak of the Death and Resurrection of the Incarnate Word. He, Who alone could renew the handiwork and restore the likeness and give afresh the knowledge of God, must needs, in order to pay the debt which all had incurred (16 mapa mdvrov dpeddpevor), die in our stead, offering the sacrifice on behalf of all, so as to rise again, as our first-fruits, from the grave (20—32, note especially § 20). After speaking of the especial fitness of the Cross, once* the instrument of shame, now the trophy of victory, and after meeting some difficulties connected with the manner of the Lord’s Death, he passes to the Resurrection. He shews how Christ by His triumph over the grave changed (27) the relative ascendancy of Death and Life: and how the Resurrection with its momentous train of consequences, follows of necessity (31) from the Incarnation of Him in Whom was Life.
The two main divisions of contemporary unbelief are next combated. In either case the root of the difficulty is moral; with the Greeks it is a frivolous cynicism, with the Jews, inveterate obstinacy. The latter (33—40) are confuted, firstly, by their own Scriptures, which predict both in general and in detail the coming of Jesus Christ. Also, the old Jewish polity, both civil and religious, has passed away, giving place to the Church of Christ.
Turning to the Greeks (41—45), and assuming that they allow the existence of a per- 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE vading Spirit, whose presence is the sustaining principle of all things, he challenges them to reject, without inconsistency, the Union of that Spirit, the Logos (compare St. Augustine Conf. VII. ix.), with one in particular of the many constituents of that Universe wherein he already dwells. And since man alone (43. 3) of the creatures had departed from the order of his creation, it was man’s nature that the Word united to Himself, thus repairing the breach between the creature and the Creator at the very point where it had occurred.
God did not restore man by a mere fiat (44) because, just as repentance on man’s part (7) could not eradicate his disease, so such a fiat on God’s part would have amounted to the annihilation of human nature as it was, and the creation of a fresh race. Man’s definite disorder God met with a specific remedy, overcoming death with life. Thus man has been enabled once: more to shew forth, in common with the rest of Creation, the handiwork and glory of his Maker..
Athanasius then confronts the Greeks, as he had the Jews, with facts. Since the coming of Christ, paganism, popular and philosophic, had been falling into discredit and decay. The impotence and rivalries of the philosophic teachers, the local and heterogeneous character, the low moral ideals of the old worships, are contrasted with the oneness and inspiring power of the religion of the Crucified. Such are the two, the dying and the living systems; it remains for him who will to taste and see what that life is which is the gift of Christ to them that follow Him (46—end).
The purpose of the tract, in common with the contra Gentes, being to commend the religion of Christ to acceptance, the argument is concerned more with the Incarnation as a living fact, and with its place in the scheme of God’s dealing with man, than with its analysis as a theological doctrine. He does not enter upon the question, fruitful of controversy in the previous century at Alexandria, but soon to burst forth into furious debate, of the Sonship of the Word and of His relation to God the Father. Still less does he touch the Christological questions which arose with the decline of the Arian tempest, questions associated with the names of Apollinarius, Theodore, Cyril, Nestorius, Eutyches, Theodoret, and Dioscorus. But we feel already that firm grasp of soteriological principles which mark him out as the destined conqueror of Arianism, and which enabled him by a sure instinct to anticipate unconsciously the theological difficulties which troubled the Church for the century after his death. It is the broad comprehensive treatment of the subject in its relation to God, human nature, and sin, that gives the work its interest to readers of the present day. In strong reaction from modern or medieval theories of Redemption, which to the thoughtful Christian of to-day seem arbitrary, or worse, it is with relief that men find that from the beginning it was not so; that the theology of the early Church interpreted the great Mystery of godliness in terms which, if short of the fulness of the Pauline conception, are yet so free from arbitrary assumptions, so true to human nature as the wisest of men know it, so true to the worthiest and grandest ideas of God (see below, p. 33 ad fin.). The de Incarnatione, then, is perhaps more appreciated in our day than at any date since the days of its writer.
It may therefore be worth while to devote a word or two to some peculiarities incidental to its aim and method. We observe first of all how completely the power of the writer is absorbed in the subject under discussion. It is therefore highly precarious to infer anything from his silence even on points which might seem to require explanation in the course of his argument. Not a word is said of the doctrine of the Trinity, nor of the Holy Spirit; this directly follows from the purpose of the work, in accordance with the general truth that while the Church preaches Christ to the World, the Office and Personality of the Spirit belongs to her inner life. The teaching of the tract with regard to the constitution of man is another case in point. It might appear (§ 3, cf. rz. 2, 13. 2) that Athanasius ascribed the reasonable soul of man, and his immortality after death, not to the constitution of human nature as such, but to the grace superadded to it by the Creator (4 rod kar’ elxéva ydpis), a grace which constituted men Aoyicoi (3. 4) by virtue of the power of the Logos, and which, if os Jorfeited by sin, involved the privilege of immortality. We have, then, to carefully consider whether Athanasius held, or meant to suggest, that man is by nature, and apart from union with God, (1) rational, or (2) immortal. If we confine our view to the treatise before us, there would be some show of reason in answering both questions in the negative; and with regard to immortality this has been recently done by an able correspondent of Z%e Times (April 9, 1890).
But that Athanasius held the essential rationality and immortality of the soul is absolutely clear, if only from ¢. Gent. 32 and 33. We have, then, to find an explanation of his language in the present treatise. With regard to immortality, it should be observed (x) that the language employed (in 4. 5, where xevaOjvat rod eivar dei is explained by 76 8:adv-Oévras pévery ev tS Bavaro kai th Odpa) suggests a continued condition, and therefore something short of annihilation, although not worthy of the name of existence or life,—(2) that even in the worst of men the image of God is defaced, but not effaced (14. 1, &c.), and that even when grace is lost (7. 4), man cannot be as though the contact with the divine had never taken place;—(3) that in this work, as by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv., the final destiny of the wicked is passed over (but for the general reference 56. 3) in silence. It may be added (4) that Athanasius puts together a// that separates man from irrational creatures without clearly drawing the line between what belongs to the natural man and what to the kar’ exdva ydpis. The subject of eschatology is nowhere dealt with in full by Athanasius; while it is quite certain (c. Gent. 33) that he did not share the inclination of some earlier writers (see D.C.B. ii. p. 192) toward the idea of conditional immortality, there is also no reason to think that he held with the Universalism of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and others (see Migne, Patr. Gr. xxvii. p. 1404 A, also 1384 C, where ‘the unfortunate Origen’s’ opinions seem to be rejected, but with an implied deprecation of harsh judgment). As to his view of the essential rationality of man (see ¢. Gent. 32) the consideration (4) urged above once more applies (compare the discussion in Harnack, Dg. ii. 146 sqq.). Yet he says that man left to himself can have no idea of God at all (11. 1), and that this would deprive him of any claim to be considered a rational being (ib. 2). The apparent inconsistency is removed if we understand that man may be rational potentially (as all men are) and yet not rational in the sense of exercising reason (which is the case with very many). In other words, grace gives not the faculty itself, but its integrity, the latter being the result not of the mere psychological existence of the faculty, but of the reaction upon it of its highest and adequate object. (The same is true to a great extent of the doctrine of zvedpa in the New Testament.)
A somewhat similar caution is necessary with regard to the analogy drawn out (41, &c.) between the Incarnation and the Union of the Word with the Universe. ‘The treatise itself (17. I, éerés kar’ odciav, and see notes on 41) supplies the necessary corrective in this case. It may be pointed out here that the real difference between Athanasius and the neo-Platonists was not so much upon the Union of the Word with any created Substance, which they were prepared to allow, as upon the exclusive Union of the Word with Man, in Contrast to His essential distinctness from the Universe. This difference goes back to the doctrine of Creation, which was fixed as a great gulf between the Christian and the Platonist view of the Universe. The relation of the latter to the Word is fully discussed in the third part of the contra Gentes, the teaching of which must be borne in mind while reading the forty-first and following chapters of the present treatise.
Lastly, the close relation between the doctrine of Creation and that of Redemption marks off the Soteriology of this treatise from that of the middle ages and of the Reformation. Athanasius does not leave out of sight the idea of satisfaction for a debt. To him also the Cross was the central purpose (20. 2, cf, 9. 1, 2, &c.) of His Coming. But the idea of Restoration is most prominent in his determination of the necessity of the Incarnation.
VOIalV. D 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE God could have wiped out our guilt, had He so pleased, by a word (44): but human nature required to be healed, restored; recreated. This (dvaxrioat) is the foremost of the three ideas (7. 5) which sum up his account of the ‘dignus tanto Vindice nodus*.
The ¢vanslation which follows is that printed in 1885 (D. Nutt, second edition, 1891) by the editor of this volume, with a very few changes (chiefly 2. 2, 8. 4, 34. 2, 44. 7; 8): it was originally made for the purpose of lectures at Oxford (1879—1882), and the analytical headings now prefixed to each chapter are extracted verbatim from notes made for the same course of lectures. The zofes have mostly appeared either in the former edition of the translation, or appended.to the Greek text published (D. Nutt, 1882) by the translator. A few, however, have now been added, including some references to the Sermo Major, which borrows wholesale from the present treatise (Prolegg. ch. III. § 1. 37). Two other English translations have appeared, the one (Parker, 1880) previous, the other (Religious Tract Society, n.d.) subsequent to that of the present translator. The ¢ext followed is that of the Benedictine editors, with a few exceptions. Of those that at all affect the sense, 43. 6 (kai rd oépa) and 51. 2 (kara ras eid’) are due to Mr. Marriott (Axalecta Christiana, Oxf. 1844). For the others (13. 2, omission of pn, 28. 3, xara rod wipos rejecting conjectures of Montf. and Marriott, 42. 6, omission of memouxévat 57. 3, kui ra for ra kai) the present editor is alone responsible.
SYNOPSIS OF THE TREATISE.
§ 1.—lntroduction. The Redemptive work of the Word based on His initial relation to the Creature tig6 FIRST PART.—THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD. §§ 2, 3.—Dactrine of Creatior: (1) Three erroneous views (2) rejected: The Epicurean (materialistic) as failing to recognize a differentiating Principle. ces Ah chee EE BS IIR IE OE OR Re 36 The Platonic (matter pre-existent) as not satisfying the idea of God...37 The Gnostic (dualistic) as contradictory to Scripture...s0ee00- 37 (2) The true doctrine (3) and its application to the Creation of Man...37 This directly brings us to a 8$ 4--10.—Fiurst Reason for the Incarnation: By departing from the Word, men lost the Principle of Life, and were WASHING A WAS! (40'S) ue acrtmoct ese ce tencn ts Mame ae teeter ten aoe ae EEE ee 38 God\couldmeitheravert nonsutter this\(6)\ save ete eee eee 39 The latter would argue weakness, the former changeableness (7) on Gods. partie Sc ccevaniteasteonpanes tree tent vc de caa choco Ghia ace ee Ee Reem a ee 39 The Word alone could solve this dilemma (7. 4). This done by His becoming man (8) and dying for us all (9). Reasonableness, and results OW UISE(TO) Sranreccebenactent ns sdeceecasentcea arama seeencoc eee etme cette eee 40 §§ 11—16. —Second Reason for the Incarnation: In departing from the Word, men had also lost the Principle of Reason, by which they knew God. In spite of God’s witness to Himself, they were sunk into superstition and mental degradation (11, 12)...ccceceeeeccceceeee 42 How none but the Word could remedy this (13, 14)...c00ceeccceecceseeeeee 43 Tlow He actually did so (15, 16). The Incarnation, a revelation of the Invisible Godhead = Beir ehe eel aaah “lls cies osiecei ccicsce stata aaan eae eR EER eee ee eee eee 44 (§§ 17, 18 explain this in further detail) 45 * The Soteriology of Athanasius is well drawn out, and usefully compared with that of Anselm and of more modern theologians in Norris’ Rudiments of Theology, Appendix, ch. iii. (Rivington’s, 1876), See also the discussion above, Prolegomena, ch. iv. § 2.
§ 19.—Transition to Second Part: The Incarnation an irresistible revelation of God. This is especially true of the: Deathsom@hristmmnnar ere cme eee eee ere. fete IR. 46 SECOND PART.—THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. fits Death ¢ § 20. Ne VW DYE CESSATY MMe eaee to seu cere ar act ne Tern eee meee Ee En eRe Neen oy te 47 §§ 21—25. 2.—Why death by Groce a.—Why public, and not natural, but at the hands of others (21—23)...47 SANIT WEE OF 130 OVA GAOOSING (COA) ococopconsooaonacondaneacao neuron onscdoacebso 49 Toile Ne Crroes, Oral Geos (AEN sacusoos onancoooonsnesoooonmecsesancadenaae 49 fis rising again: § 26. Cee NV MYON the thind Ga yendscese dco ttre: tinttenc core eee 50 § 27. 2. Changed relation of Death toymamkind sss-s0ccsssseeeyeseeeteee nee tee 50 §§ 28—32. 3-—Keality of His Resurrection— This a lolbe tested bypl xpenience (25) eereanecnrarcsncancenaesceeseekemeeeearetns 51 8.—Implied by its visible effects (29—31. 3)...-.ccee cc csece vues Sea chepiinsesier 51 y-—Involved in the Nature of the Incarnate Word (31. 4)...c00eecee ee 53 6.—Confirmed by what we see; as is the case with all truth about the munseen! Godt tel == 5) ik. wetnecn, crete ee cn ene NM me EN, Sp UA aia 53 Summary of what is thus proved to be true (32. 6)...2.c0ecserssescnseesrene 53 THIRD PART.—REFUTATION OF CONTEMPORARY UNBELIEF. §§ 33-40. A.—Refutation of Fews: §§ 33—39- 1.—From principles admitted by them—i.e., from prophecies relating to the MieSsialhteer atte. cedunctoa neni teia tele Ss opens otor acinee adees ni astequigtnennoecks 54 ($0 forms theistep to the mext section) Micron. qscs--peceste sensed 57 § 40. 2.—From facts: cessation of the Jewish dispensation, as foretold by Daniel 57 §§ 41—55.- B.—Refutation of Gentiles: 8§ 41—45. 8.—From principles admitted by them— §§ 41, 42. a.—The Word, whose existence contemporary philosophy allowed, might reasonably be supposed to unite Himself to some particular nature: COUSeGIIENt ly wtON MIM Anen ative Mean erect anette ee neeeeenst cere 58 § 43. f8.—Reasons for His Union with Man in particular...:scecoseseseaee 59 § 44. +y.—Reasons why man should not be restored by a mere flat...5 60 ° § 45. a hesults of therschemeractually adoptedis aa.ulnuarteaneheri cee er ste sieti 61 §§ 46—55.- 2.—Refutation of Gentiles from facts— §§ 46—50 a,—Discredit and decay, since the coming of Christ, of philosophic and jaroj opel aban OeVedn UIST a & ochonrenadebabsngodors sdhgagjacnacsoocosducancsecadaanencoce 61 88 51, 52. f:— Influence ot(Christian! morals Onl SOCIELY 1.ta.sr etree sseaecue sh asseetaacier. 64.
§ 53. 7 —Imninence of Christrom the imadividual rere.csthscatestsceceere sccter eeeee aa 65 8§ 54, 55. 5.—Nature and glory of Christ’s Work: summary of His victory over PACAMISMgnue targa atncaaeemr rt suas. ceeemeceechaentetirsn pataeeann es cameeneas 65 §§ 56, 57- CONCLUSION: the enquirer referred to the Scriptures. Indispensable moral conditions of the investigation of Spiritual Truth...66 D2 ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
$1. Lntroductory.—The subject of this treatise: the humiliation and incarnation of the Word. Presupposes the doctrine of Creation, and that by the Word. The Father has saved the world by Him through Whom He first made tt.