3 Kar’ érivovav, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above, and de Syn. 15. Ov. i. 9, also Orat. iv. 2, 3. de Sent. D. 2, Ep. A@g. 12, 13, 14. It denotes our idea or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus, the sun is to a savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a ‘rational animal,’ according to a certain process of abstraction; a herb may be medicine upon one division, food in another; virtue may be calleda mean; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion, to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manner, the Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded, without parts, passions, attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is infinite and incomprehensible. That is, He is kar’ émivovay holy or merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as one indivisible perfection; which is too great for us to conceive DISCOURSE Ii, ee es ee eee from us. Rather this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God’s Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom coexists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us say that the Word coexists with the Father, forthwith murmur out, ‘ Are you not speaking of two Unoriginates?’ yet in speaking themselves of § His Unoriginate Wis« dom,’ do not see that they have already incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against uss? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is God Himself! for what coexists does not coexist with itself, but with some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples;— unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Essence, unoriginate as well as Himself®, which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.
39. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, ‘Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in piecest?’ and in the Proverbs, ‘I will make known My words unto you?;’ but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the saints through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist 5 The Anomeean in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic that, ifthe Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. next note. iii 6 On this subject vid. Ovat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and [Marcellus] in Ovaz. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature as compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open to sucha charge. Nor are they; though in avoiding it, they are led to enunciate the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. § 33, n- 1. The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son; They do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is 6Aos @cos. This is not ditheism or tritheism, for they are the same God; nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and substantive Persons; but Jt is a depth and height beyond our intellect, how what is Two in so full a sense can also in so full a sense be One, or how the Divine Nature does not come under number. vid. notes on Orat, iii. 27 and 36. Thus, ‘being uncompounded in nature,’ says Athan. ‘He is Father of One Only Son.’ de Decry. 11. In truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, ‘avails especially towards the uzity and simplicity of God.’ vid. de Deo, il. 4, 8. i Jer. xxiii. 29. 2 Prov. i. 23.
said, ‘I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Thy words3.’ Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, ‘The words which I have spoken unto yous.’ For certainly such words are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God was He preached by John, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ and ‘all things were made by Hims.’ Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and ‘without Him was made not one thing®.’ But concerning another or any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise, and they make the most7 of the name of the Word and the Wisdom; and framing to themselves others, they deny the true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves another, whom they can shew neither by work, nor in any testimony drawn from the divine oracles.
40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fatherst have we heard of any such, yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father unoriginately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them is eternally coexistent with the Father, For He is) Framer of all; as it is written, ‘In Wisdom hast Thou made them all7.2 Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas’s3 fashion, involuntarily, when urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words;— ‘God the Word is one, but many are the 2 Ps. civ. 24. 3 Vid. John xi. 50.
Bb things rational; and one is the essence and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful.’ And soon afterwards he says again:—‘ Who are they whom they honour with the title of God’s children? for they will not say that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Essence of the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom.’ It is not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is unoriginate, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also. And they battle with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom coexists with God unoriginately4. So dizzieds are they in all these matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which is not, as the Manichees who make to themselves another God, after denying Him that is.
41. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ariomaniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One, being the only Son proper and genuine from His Essence, and having with His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible, as we said many times, being taught it by the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and illuminate them? or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious °, but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy 4 Asterius held, x. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute Se x. that Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms, words, powers many, of which the Son was one.
5 okoTodwmor, Orat. iii. a2. init.
© He says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to His creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in saying that the Son was created for creation, illumination, &c.: whereas in the Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person who in the Economy of grace is creator, enlichtener, &c. God is represented all-perfect but acting according to a certain divine order. This is explained just below. Here the remark is in point about the right and wrong sense of the words ‘commanding,’ ‘obeying,’ &c. stf7. § 31, note 7.
laver? For what fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us?
for if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature? but if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature7, since all® need grace from God. We said a few words just now on the fitness that all things should be made by Him; but since the course of the discussion has led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God’s Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms-the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father worketh, He worketh through the Son 9, and the Lord Himself says, ‘What I see the Father do, that do I also;’ so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost*°.
And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him?*, 9 Vid. notes on Ora?. iii. r—15. e g. and rr and rg, 10 Oret. ili. 15. note.
11 Vid. sufr. 33, note x. and notes on iii. 3—6. ‘When the Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who isin the Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.’ ad Serag. i. 14. and vid. Hil. Zy7. vii. 3x. Passages like these are distinct from such as the one quoted from Athan. swdv. p. 76, note 3, Where it is said that in ‘Father’ is izflied ‘Son,’ i.e. argumentatively as a correlative. vid. Sext. D. 17. de Decr. ig, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to admit zz Saée//. i. ap. Sirm. t.i. p. 8, a. ‘ Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, veguzrit ista vox fillum, &c,;’ for here no TEPLXOpHTLs is implied, which zs the doctrine of the text, and is zo¢ the doctrine of an Arian who considered the Son an instrument. Yet Petavius observes as to the very word wepvy. that one of its first senses in ecclesiastical writers was this which Arians would not disclaim: its use to express the Catholic doctrine here spoken of was later. vid. de 7y/i. iv. 16, DISCOURSE: 42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke; ‘I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;’ and again, ‘ that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one in Us.’ And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, ‘Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ *.’ For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the Father either; for, as having left the ‘Fountain of Wisdom?,’ as Baruch re* proaches them, they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for ‘ Christ,’ says the Apostle, is ‘God’s power and God’s wisdom 3),’ when they said, ‘ We have no king but Cesar4.’ The Jews then have the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work 5, And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, ‘O Lord,’ gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith® On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, ‘Teach;’ then thus: ‘ Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;’ that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.
43. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith’, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in i Vid. John xiv. 23, and John xvii. 21; Rom.i 7, &c.
6 The Jrima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism; vid. Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. p. 227. Voss. de Bafpt. Disp. 19 and 20. Forbes Lustruct. Theol. x. 2, 3, and 12. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. v. 62. §5—11. On Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski’s Diss. Ofuse. t. iv. p. 113. [And, in violent contrast to Athan., Siricius (bishop of Rome) letter to Himerius, a.D 385. (Coust. 623-)] I gv mr. vyrawovoav. Dep. Ar. 5, note 6.
piety, so that he who is sprinkled? by them is rather polluted 3 by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism‘, because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians5, and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord’s Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about® with them the phrase, ‘He was not,’ as mud in a wallet 7, and spit it forth as serpents ® their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human? patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help, and believing in one unlike *° and foreign to the Father in essence, to the 2 pavrigomevov, Bingh. Antigu. xi. x1. § 5. 3 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 76 fin. (ed. Ben.) and Z/.71 cir. init. Optatus ad Parmen. i. 12.
4 aQedtntos. vid. supr. de Decr. 1, note 1, Or. i. 4, note x. ‘ Atheist’ or rather ‘godless’ was the title given by pagans to those who denied, and by the Fathers to those who professed, polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred ‘atheism to godliness.’ vid. Suicer Tes. 17 voc. 5 Montanists.
8 Cf. Ep. Ag. 19. Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs (with allusion to 2 Pet. il. 22.), de Decr. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions, //ist. Ar. 11. wolves, Af. c. Arian. 49. hares, de Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. hydras, Ova?. iii. 58 fin. eels, EZ. Atg. 7 fin. cuttleflsh, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14. init. Orat. ili. 59. init. beetles, Oraz. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4. {swine, Or.ii. 1.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum bestialitatis heretics ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompzus of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applications ifr. Orat, iii. 18. 9 Orat. i. a. 10 Oyat. iil. 4. note.
Bb2 Bb2 Father they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father 1s, as He Himself has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His Father’s throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion.
CHAPTER XIX.
TExTs EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vill.n2 25 Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. ‘He created me’ not equivalent to ‘I am a creature.’
Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body.
Again, if He is a creature, it is as ‘a beginning of ways,’ an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is ‘ for the works,’ which implied the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was created.
Also ‘the Lord’ not the Father ‘created’ Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant.
44. We have gone through thus much before the passage in the Proverbs, resisting the insensate fables which their hearts have invented, that they may know that the Son of God ought not to be called a creature, and may learn lightly to read what admits in truth of a right? explanation. For it is written, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works?; since, however, these are proverbs, and it is expressed in the way of proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly in their first sense, but we must inquire into the person, and thus religiously put the sense on it. For what is said in proverbs, is not said plainly, but is put forth latently3, as the Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel according to John, saying, ‘ These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but openly+.’ Therefore it is necessary to unfold the senses of what is X KahOs avayiwocxey...OpOnv Exov Thy Sudvoray, i.e. the text admits of an interpretation consistent with the analogy of faith and so wer’ evaeBelas just below. vid. § x. n. 13. Such phrases are frequent in Athan.
2 Prov. viii. 22. Athanasius follows the Sept. rendering of the Hebrew Qana by ékriae. The Hebrew sense is appealed to by Eusebius, Zecles. Theol. iii. 2, 3. S. Epiphanius, Her, 60. 25. and S. Jerome 7z# Jsai. 26. 13. Cf. Bas. c. Hum. ii. 20, and Greg. Nyss. c. Hun. 1. p. 34. i 3 This passage of Athan. has been used by many later fathers.
4 John xvi. 25.
5 Here, as in so many other places, he is explaining what is obscure or latent in Scripture by means of the Regula Fidei. Cf. Vincentius, Commonit. 2. Vid. especially the first sentence of the following paragraph, ré Set voely «.7.A. vid. spr. note 1, said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not nakedly to expound as if the meaning were spoken ‘plainly,’ lest by a false interpretation we wander from the truth. If then what is written be about Angel, or any other of things originate, as concerning one of us who are works, let it be said, ‘created me;’ but if it be the Wisdom of God, in whom all things originate have been framed, that speaks concerning Itself, what ought we to understand but that ‘He created’ means nothing contrary to ‘He begat?’ Nor, as forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It number Itself among the creatures; but It signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not ‘plainly,’ but latent; which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy, while soon after It doth Itself give the meaning of ‘He created’ in other but parallel expressions, saying, ‘Wisdom made herself a house®.’ Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom’s house’, which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently does John say, ‘The Word was made flesh*; and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness 9, not ‘I am a creature,’ but only ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works™,’ yet not ‘created me that I might have being,’ nor ‘because I have a creature’s beginning and origin.’
45. For in this passage, not as signifying the Essence of His Godhead, nor His own everlasting and genuine generation from the Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but on the other hand His manhood and Economy towards us. And, as I said before, He has not, said ©I am a creature,’ or | “1 became a creature,’ but only ‘He created?’ For the creatures, having a created essence, are 6 Prov. ix. 1.
7 Ut intra intemerata viscera edificante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum caro fieret. Leon. Z%. 31, 2. Didym. de Trin. iii. 3. p- 337. (ed. 1769.) August. Czv. D. xvii 20. Cyril 7 Joann. p. 384, 5. Max, Diad. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. ed. Schutz.) vid. szsr. Or. i. 11, note 8. Hence S. Clement. Alex. 0 Adyos éaurav yevra.
10 The passage is in like manner interpreted of our Lord’s human nature by Epiph. Her. 69, 20—25. Basil. ZZ. viii. 8. Naz. Ovat. 30, 2. Nyss. contr. Hunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cyril. Thesaur. p.154. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 36—49. Ambros. de Pid. i. 15- August. de Pid. et Symb. 6.
1 He seems here to say that it is both true that ‘The Lord created,’ and yet that the Son was not created. Creatures alone are created, and He was not acreature. Rather something belonging or relating to Him, something short of His substance or nature, was created. However, it is a question in controversy whether even His Manhood can be called a creature, though many of the Fathers (including Athan. in several places) seem so to call it. On the whole it would appear, (z.) that if ‘creature,’ like ‘Son,’ be a Zersonal term, He is not a creature; but if it be a word of nature, He is a creature; (2.) that our Lord is a creature in respect to the flesh (vid. 72/. 47); (3.) that since the flesh is infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural nor safe to call Him a creature (cf. Thom. Ag. Sum. Th. ili. xvi. 8, ‘non dicimus, quod A’thiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentes’) and (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is worshipped as in the Person of the Son, not by a separate act of worship. Cf. infr. Letter 60. ad Adelph. 3, Epiph. has imitated this passage, Axcor. 51. introducing the illustration of a king and his robe, &c.
DISCOURSES II So originate, and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created: but this mere term ‘ He created’ does not necessarily signify the essence or the generation, but indicates something else as coming to pass in Him of whom it speaks, and not simply that He who is said to be created, is at once in His Nature and Essence a creature?. And this difference divine Scripture recognises, saying concerning the creatures, ‘The earth is full of Thy creation,’ and ‘the creation itself groaneth together and travaileth together3;’ and in the Apocalypse it says, ‘And the third part of the creatures in the sea died which had life? as also Paul says, ‘Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving +; and in the book of Wisdom it is written, ‘Having ordained man through Thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which Thou hast mades.’ And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from the Lord, who says, ‘He who created them, made them male and female®; and from Moses in the Song, who writes, ‘ Ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other7.2 And Paul in Colossians, ‘Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him, and He is before all 8,’ 2 7d Acyomevov KtilecOar TH PioeL Kat TH OVTiq KTicpua, also infr. 60. ithout meaning that the respective terms are synonymous, is it not plain that in a later phraseology this would have been, ‘not simply that He is in His Person a creature,’ or ‘ that His Person is created?’ Athan.’s use of the phrase ovata rov Adyov has already been noticed, sur. i. 45, and passages from this Oration are given in another connexion, s#g7. p. 70, note 15. The term is synonymous with the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the Word. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b.] In the passage in the text the ovgia of the Word is contrasted to the ovata of creatures; and it is observable that it is implied that our Lord has not taken on Him a created ovoia. ‘He said not, Athan. remarks, ‘I became a creature, for the creatures have a created essence;’ he adds that ‘He created’ signifies, zof essence, but something taking place in Him mepi Zxewvov, i.e. some adjunct or accident (e.g. notes on de Decr. 22), or as he says svf~. § 8, envelopment or dress. And injr. § 51, he contrasts the ovoia and the avOpémvov of the Word; as in Orat. i. 41. ovola and 7 avOpwndTys; and pvaus and odpé, ili. 34.
init. and Aéyos and odpé, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son ‘taking on Him the economy,’ infr. 76, and of the uréacracts Tov Adyou being one with 0 dy8pwros, iv. 25, C. It is observed, § 8, note, how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apollinarian and Eutychian heresies; and, considering Athan.’s most emphatic protests against their errors 1n his later works, as well as his strong statements in Oraz. iii. there is ho hazard in this admission. His ordinary use of év@pwos for the manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, pret. p. xlili. who uses zatura absolutely for our Lord’s Divinity, as contrasted to the aisfensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta. 3 Ps. civ. 24. LXX.; Rom, vil. 22.