24. We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will shew from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, ‘Thou art a man and not God,’ and ‘Stretch not thyself, being poor, beside a rich man?’ John then thus writes; ‘ Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit 2.’ Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. ‘Not then as the Son in the Father, so Z Ez. xxviii. 23 9 obwWweouLy TAS Byars, 2t. circ. fin.
2 x John iv. 13.
DISCOURSE? IIT: also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father 4, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit’s which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God5.’ What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? and especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct ° came to be Himself also inthe Father. But here again 1s an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from7 the Word.
25. The Saviour, then, saying of us, ‘ As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they too may be one in Us,’ does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shewn from the instance of Jonah; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from‘ the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, ‘as we,’ this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be without failure or revocation?. For what the Word has by nature3, as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through the 4 [i.e. not by grace] Vid. the end of this section and 25 init. supr. Or. i. 15. also Cyril Hier. Cat. xvi. 24. Epiph. Ancor. 67 init. Cyril 7 Joan. pp. 929, 930. 51 John iv. 15.
6 Bedtidce. mpdéews, and so ad A/ros. tpoTwv Bedtiwars. 8, Supr. Or. i. 37, 43. it is rather some external advance, 3 xara pia, supr. de Decr. 31, De 5.
Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’ for ‘the gifts of God’ and ‘grace of His calling are without repentance4.’ It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods5 because of the Word in us ®, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is im us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing7; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul’s instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him®. God’s enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither understand (for ‘the irreligious,’ he saith, ‘does not understand knowledge’ 9) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.
CHAPTER XXVI.
INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE INCARNATION.
Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to 1 Pet. iv. I.
26, For behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, but hardened with Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Saviour’s human attributes in the Gospels', they have utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son’s paternal Godhead’, and with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, ‘ How can the Son be from the Father by nature, and be like Him in essence, who says, ‘ All power is given unto Me;’ and ‘The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son;’ and ‘The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life;’ and again, ‘ All things were delivered unto Me of My Father, 9 Prov. xxix. 7. voet, Ath. cuvycer.
I This Oration alone, and this entirely, treats of texts from the Gospels; hitherto from the Gospel according to St. John, and now chiefly from the first three. Hence they lead Athan. to treat istinctly of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to anticipate more di! _ a refutation of both Nestorius and Eutyches. 2 §1, n. 13.
and no one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him; and again, ‘All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come to Me3.’ On this they observe, ‘If He was, as ye say, Son by nature, He had no need to receive, but He had by nature as a Son.” “Or how can He be the natural and true Power of the Father, who near upon the season of the passion says, ‘Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again 4.’ And He said the same another time; ‘ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;’ and ‘When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me5.’” Then these perverse men argue; “If He were Power, He had not feared, but rather He had supplied power to others.’ Further they say; ‘If He were by nature the true and own Wisdom of the Father, how is it written, ‘And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man®?’ In like manner, when He had come into the parts of Ceesarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom men said that He was; and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, ‘How many loaves have ye7? How then,’ say they, ‘is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom, and was ignorant of what He asked of others?’ This too they urge; “ How can He be the own Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom He makes all things, as ye think, who said upon the Cross, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and before that had prayed, ‘ Glorify Thy Name, and, ‘O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.’ And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into temptation; and, ‘The spirit indeed is willing,’ He said, ‘ but the flesh is weak.’ And, ‘Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son ®.’” Upon this again say the miserable men, “If the Son were, according to your interpretation 9, eternally existent with God, He had not been ignorant of the Day, but had known as Word; nor had been forsaken as being co-existent; nor had asked to receive glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at all; for, being the Word, He had needed nothing; but since He is a creature and one of things originate, therefore He thus spoke, and needed what He had not; for it is proper to creatures to require and to need what they have not.”
27. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their discourses; and if they thus argue, they might consistently speak yet more daringly; ‘Why did the Word become flesh at all?’ and they might add; ‘For how could He, being God, become man?’ or, ‘How could the Immaterial bear a body?’ or they might speak with Caiaphas_ still more Judaically, ‘Wherefore at all did Christ, being a man, make Himself God??’ for this and the like the Jews then muttered when they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs disbelieve when they read, and have fallen away into blasphemies. If then a man should carefully parallel the words of these and those, he will of a certainty find them both arriving at the same unbelief, and the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us a common one. For the Jews said; ‘ How, being a man, can He be God?’ And the Arians, ‘If He were very God from God, how could He become man?’ And the Jews were offended then and mocked, saying, ‘Had He been Son of God, He had not endured the Cross; and the Arians standing over against them, urge upon us, ‘How dare ye say that He is the Word proper to the Father’s Essence, who had a body, so as to endure all this?’ Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord, because He said that God was His own Father and made Himself equal to Him, as working what the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to deny, both that He is equal to God and that God is the own and natural Father of the Word, but those who hold this they seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said, ‘Is not this the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how then is 1t that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven??’ the Arians on the other hand make response3 and say conformably, ‘ How can He be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?’ Thus both parties deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore.
28. Such error then being Judaic, and Judaic after the mind of Judas the traitor, i De Decr. 13; O7.i. 4. 2 John vi. 423 viil. 58. 3 éwaxovovew. Montfaucon (Onomasticon in t. 2 fin.) so interprets this word. vid. A fol. contr, Ar. 88. note 7.
DISCOURSE@IIh let them openly confess themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny outright, as we have said before, the Saviour’s appearance in the flesh, for this doctrine is akin to their heresy; or if they fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised‘, from servility towards Constantius and for their sake whom they have beguiled, then let them not say what the Jews say; for if they disown the name, let them in fairness renounce the doctrine. For we are Christians, O Arians, Christians we; our privilege is it well to know the Gospels concerning the Saviour, and neither? with Jews to stone Him, if we hear of His Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble at such lowly sayings as He may speak for our sakes as man. If then you would become Christians 5, put off Arius’s madness, and cleanse © with the words of religion those ears of yours which blaspheming has defiled; knowing that, by ceasing to be Arians, you will cease also from the malevolence of the present Jews. Then at once will truth shine on you out of darkness, and ye will no longer reproach us with holding two Eternals7, but ye will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God’s true Son by nature, and not as merely eternal 8, but revealed as co-existing in the Father’s eternity. For there are things called eternal of which He is Framer; for in the twenty-third Psalm it is written, ‘Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates?;’ and it is plain that through Him these things were made; but if even of . Sab. Greg. 6 fin. f rs 7 Co. TE Dewy: 25,n.4. The peculiarity of the Catholic doctrine, as contrasted with the heresies on the subject of the Trinity, is that it professes a mystery. It involves, not merely a contradiction in the terms used, which would be little, for we might solve it by assigning different senses to the same word, or by adding some limitation (e.g. if it were said that Satan was an Angel and not an Angel, or man was mortal and immortal), but an incongruity in the ideas which it introduces. To say that the Father is wholly and absolutely the one infinitely-simple God, and then that the Son is also, and yet that the Father is eternally distinct from the Son, is to propose ideas which we cannot harmonize together; and our reason is reconciled to this state of the case only by the consideration (though fully by means of it) that no idea of ours can embrace the simple truth, so that we are obliged to separate it into portions, and view it in aspects, and adumbrate it under many ideas, if we are to make any approximation towards it at all; as in mathematics we approximate to a circle by means of a polygon, great as is the dissimilarity between the two figures. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii 5 3{2) 1, Abs aiStos, i.e. atdvos is not one of our Lord’s highest titles, for things have it which the Son Himself has created, and whom of course He precedes. Instead of two aidva then, as the Arians say, there are many aidva; and our Lord s high title is not this, but that He is ‘the Son,’ and thereby ‘eternal in the Father's; or there was not ever when He was not, and ‘Image and ‘ Radiance.’ The same line of thought is implied throughout his proof of our Lord’s eternity in Orat. i. ch, 4—6, This is worth remarking, as constituting a special distinction between ancient and modern Scripture proofs of the doctrine, and as coinciding with what was said spr. Or. ii. 1, N. 13, 44, 0. I. His mode of proof is still more brought out by what he proceeds to say about the oxords, or general bearing or drift of the Christian faith, and its availableness as a xavwy or rule of interpretation. 9 Ps. xxiv. 7 eternity,’ things everlasting He is the Framer, who of us shall be able henceforth to dispute that He is anterior to those things eternal, and in consequence is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, as in that He is God’s Son; for being the Son, He is inseparable from the Father, and never was there when He was not, but He was always; and being the Father’s Image and Radiance, He has the Father’s eternity. Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation *°, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope * of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled * on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.
29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,—it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom?; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God?, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me3.’ But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ‘The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing‘;’ next, ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Onlybegotten from the Father5;’ and next Paul writing, ‘Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross ®.’ Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the 2 MeoroKov. vid. supr. 14, n. 3. Vid. S. Cyril's quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c.; and Cyril himself, Adv. Nest. i. p. 18. Procl. Hom. i. p. 60. Theodor. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.) Cassian. Zucarn. iv. 2. Hil. Trin, ii. 25. Ambros, Virgin. i. n. 47. Chrysost. ap. Cassian. /zcarn. vii. 30. Jerom, in Ezek. 44 init. Capreolus of Carthage, ap. Sirm, Off. t. 1. p. 216. August. Sem. 293, 6. Hippolytus, ap. Theod. Hran. 1. p. 55, &c. Ignatius, ZZ, ad Eph. 7. 3 John v. 39. 4 Ib. i. 1—3. 5 Ue I4.
whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation 7 which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, ‘ Let there be light,’ and ‘ Let there be a firmament,’ and ‘Let us make man; but in fulness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written, ‘Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and'!
shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us 9.’
30. The reader then of divine Scripture may acquaint himself with these passages from the ancient books; and from the Gospels on the other hand he will perceive that the Lord became man; for ‘the Word,’ he says, ‘became flesh, and dwelt among us%.’ And He became man, and did not come into man; for this it is necessary to know, lest perchance these irreligious men fall into this notion also, and beguile any into thinking, that, as in former times the Word was used to come into each of the Saints, so now He sojourned in a man, hallowing him also, and manifesting*° Himself as in the others. For if it were so, and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, nor had those who saw Him been startled, saying, Whence is He? and wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? for they were familiar with the idea, from the words, ‘And the Word of the Lord came’ to this or that of the Prophets 2. But now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came to be, endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking a servant’s form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is ‘God’s power’ and ‘God’s wisdom3;’ for ‘the Word,’ as John says, ‘became flesh’ (it being the custom 4 of Scripture to call man by the name of ‘flesh,’ as it says by Joel the Prophet, ‘I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh;? and as Daniel said to Astyages, ‘I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh 5;’ for both he and Joel call mankind flesh).
31. Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly ° received Him; but neither, when they were begotten was it said that He had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of the ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was pleasing to the Father, to send His own Son ‘made of a woman, made under the Law’), then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as Peter says, ‘Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh7’), that it might be shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father’s will®, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and ‘ bodily9,’ as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, ‘ Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument*®, He became man for our sakes.’ And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the lke, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body?% And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God’s*#, And well has 7 Gal. iv. 4; x Pet. iv. x.
8 cara 7d BovAnua. vid. Orat. i. 63. infr. § 63, notes. Cf. supr. ii. 31, n. 7, for passages in which Ps. xxxiii. 9. is taken to shew the unity of Father and Son from the instantaneousness of the accomplishment upon the willing, as well as the Son’s existence before creation. Hence the Son not only works cara 7d BovAnua, but is the BovAy of the Father. ibid. note 8. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is highest, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted ii. 64, n. 5. In that passage the Father’s vevyara are spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75, a. de Laud. Const. p. 528, Eunom. Agol. 20 fin. The word is used of the Son’s command given to the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. e.g. 42, 44, 46. S. Cyril. Hier. frequently as the Arians, uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5, xi. assim, xv. 25, &c. The difference between the orthodox and Arian views on this point is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr. Hunozm. i. 21.
10 rovTw xpdpevos dpydvw infr. 42. and Opyavov mpos Thy évépyelav Kal THY ExAaypiy THS OedTHTOS. 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord’s manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. oxjHa dpyavxoy in AZoll. i. 2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb, Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it \is used freely by Athan. e.g. ifr. 35, 53. (ncarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of opyavov must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basil de SJ. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that davépwars is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund. Tr. Caf. ix. 2,3. and the Syrian use of Aavsofa'Asseman. B. O.t. 4. p. 210. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid. supr. Or. 1.
1 Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. p. 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange [of language] is called theologically the avriSoous or communicatio tSimparev. Nyssen. iz Afoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon. Ep. 28, 51. Ambros. de féd. ii. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. p. 767. Cassian. Incarn, vi, 22, Aug. contr. Serm. Ar.c. 8init. Plain and easy as such statements seem, they are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.
12 Jeovd jv cOua. also ad Adelph. 3. ad Max. 2. and so Ty TTaxXeVoacav pia Geod dAnv yevouevynv. c. Afoll. ii. 11. TO TAOS Tov Adyov. ibid. 16, c. cap TOV Adyou. ifr. 34. cosa copias infr. .53: also O7. ii, 10, n, 7. 7400s Xputrov Tob Geod pov. Ignat. Rowe. 6. 0 Oeds mérovOev, Melit. af. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones, Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 5. Dei interemptores. ibid. caro Deitatis, Leon. Sevm. 65 fin, Deus mortuus et sepultus. Vigil. c. Eut. ii. p. 502. vid. sup7. Or. i. 45, n.3. Yet Athan. objects to the phrase, “God suffered in the flesh,’ i.e. as used by the Apollinarians. vid, DISCOURSETHE Alt the Prophet said ‘carried'3;’ and has not said, ‘He remedied our infirmities,’ lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He has become man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His own body; and, while He received no hurt** Himself by ‘bearing our sins in His body on the tree,’ as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections *5, and were filled with the righteous; ness *© of the Word.
32. Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father’s works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said?, ‘If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know that the Father is in He and I in Him.’ And thus when there was need to raise Peter’s wife’s mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead?. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth3; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to contr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin. [Cf. Harnack, Dogmg. ed. 1. vol. i. pp.