ST.

ATHANASIUS

TWO BOOKS AGAINST THE HEATHEN

[The Oxford translation of J. H. Newman, revised by Rev. Archibald Robertson,

Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, late fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.]

FIRST BOOK: AGAINST THE HEATHEN

# 46. Doctrine of Scripture on the subject of Part 3.

Has then the divine teaching, which abolished the godlessness of the heathen or the idols,
passed over in silence, and left the race of mankind to go entirely unprovided with the
knowledge of God? Not so: rather it anticipates their understanding when it says [5]:
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God;" and again, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart and with all thy strength ;" and again, "Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, and shalt cleave to Him." [2]. But that the
providence and ordering power of the Word also, over all and toward all, is attested by all
inspired Scripture, this passage suffices to confirm our argument, where men who speak
of God say [6]: "Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth and it abideth. The day
continueth according to Thine ordinance." And again [7]: "Sing to our God upon the
harp, that covereth the heaven with clouds, that prepareth rain for the earth, that bringeth
forth grass upon the mountains, and green herb for the service of man, and giveth food to
the cattle." 3. But by whom does He give it, save by Him through Whom all things were
made? For the providence over all things belongs naturally to Him by Whom they were
made; and who is this save the Word of God, concerning Whom in another psalm [8] he
says: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
Breath of His mouth." For He tells us that all things were made in Him and through Him.
4. Wherefore He also persuades us and says [9], He spoke 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 [1], 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. 5. For 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 modal, 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 says [3]: "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 [4]: "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 qualifies were imparted to Him
from without, as they are to those who partake of 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.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (Arian)

DEMONSTRATIO EVANGELICA
[Translated by W.J. Ferrar (1920)]
THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL
BOOK IV
CHAPTER 3

That we rightly teach that there are not many sons of the Supreme God, but One only,
God of God.

(147) AND as the Father is One, it follows that there must be (b) one Son and not many
sons, and that there can be only one perfect God begotten of God, and not several. For in
multiplicity will arise otherness and difference and the introduction of the worse. And so
it must be that the One God is the Father of one perfect and only-begotten Son, and not of
more Gods or sons. Even so, light being of one essence, we are absolutely obliged to
regard the perfect thing that is begotten of light to be one also. For what other thing
would it be possible to conceive of as begotten of light, but the ray only, which proceeds
from it, and fills and enlightens all things? Everything surely (c) that is foreign to this
would be darkness and not light. And analogously to this there can be nothing like
unto, nor a true copy of, the Supreme Father, Who is unspeakable light, except as
regards this one thing only, Whom we are able to call the Son. For He is the
radiance of the eternal light, and the unblurred mirror of the activity of God, and
the image of His goodness. Wherefore it was said: "Who being the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person." [[Heb. i. 3.]] Except that the radiance is
inseparable from the light of sense, while the Son exists in Himself in His own
essence apart from the Father. And the ray has its range of activity solely from the
light, whereas (d) the Son is something different from a channel of energy, having
His Being in Himself. And, moreover, the ray is coexistent with the light, being a
kind of complement thereof; (for there could be no light without a ray:) they exist
together and simultaneously. But the Father precedes |167 the Son, and has
preceded Him in existence, inasmuch as He alone is unbegotten. The One, perfect in
Himself and first in order as Father, and the cause of the Son's existence, receives
nothing towards the completeness of His Godhead from the Son: the Other, as a Son
begotten of Him that caused His being, came second to Him, Whose Son He is,
receiving from the Father both His Being, and the character of His Being. And,
moreover, the ray does (148) not shine forth from the light by its deliberate choice,
but because of something which is an inseparable accident of its essence: but the Son
is the image of the Father by intention and deliberate choice. For God willed to
beget a Son, and established a second light, in all things made like unto Himself.
Since, then, the unbegotten and eternal light is one, how could there be any other
image of it, except the ray, which itself is light, preserving in all respects its likeness
to its prototype? And how could (b) there be an image of the One itself, unless it
were the same as it in being one? So that a likeness is implied not only of the essence of
the first, but also one of numerical quantity, for one perfect Being comes of the one
eternal light, and the first and only-begotten Issue was not different or many, and it is this
very Being to Which, after that Being which had no origin or beginning, we give the
names of God, the Perfect, the Good: for the Son of a Father who is One must be also
One. For we should (c) have to agree that from the one fragrance of any particular object
that breathes it forth, the sweet odour shed forth on all is one and the same, not diverse
and many. So it is right to suppose that from the first and only Good, Which is Almighty
God, is supplied an odour divine and life-giving, perceptible by mind and understanding,
which is one and not many. For what variation could there be from this complete likeness
to the Father, except one that was a declension and an inferiority; a supposition that we
must not admit into our theology of the Son: for He is (d) a breath of the power of God,
and a pure effluence of the glory of the Creator. For a fragrant breath is poured forth from
any sweet-scented substance, say from myrrh or any of the flowers and odorous plants
that spring from the earth, beyond the original substance into the surrounding
atmosphere, and fills the air far and wide as it is shed |168 forth, without any deprivation,
or lessening, or scission, or division of the said substance. For it still remains in its own
place, and preserves its own identity, and though begetting this fragrant force it is no
worse than it was before, while the sweet odour that is begotten, possessing its own
character, imitates in the highest degree possible the nature (149) of that which produced
it by its own [fragrance]. But these are all earthly images and touched with mortality,
parts of this lower corrupt and earthly constitution, whereas the scope of the theology we
are considering far transcends all illustrations, and is not connected with anything
physical, but imagines with the acutest thought a Son Begotten, not at one time non-
existent, and existent at another afterwards, but existent before eternal time, and pre-
existent, and ever with the Father as His Son, and yet not Unbegotten, but (b) begotten
from the Father Unbegotten, being the Only-begotten, the Word, and God of God, Who
teaches that He was not cast forth from the being of the Father by separation, or scission,
or division, but unspeakably and unthinkably to us brought into being from all time, nay
rather before all times, by the Father's transcendent and inconceivable Will and Power.
"For who shall describe his generation?" he says, and "As no one knoweth the Father
save the Son, so no one knoweth the Son save the Father that begat Him."

ST. AMBROSE
EXPOSITION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Books I-III
[Translated by the Rev. H. de Romestin, M.A., of St. John's College, Oxford, and Rector
of Tiptree, Essex, with the assistance of the Rev. E. de Romestin, M.A., of New College,
Oxford, and the Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth, M.A., of Merton College, Oxford.]
BOOK I.
CHAPTER VII.

The likeness of Christ to the Father is asserted on the authority of St. Paul, the prophets,
and the Gospel, and especially in reliance upon the creation of man in God's image.

48. The Apostle saith that Christ is the image of the Father--for he calls Him the
image of the invisible God, the first-begotten of all creation. First-begotten, mark you,
not first-created, in order that He may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of His
nature,(1) and first in virtue of His eternity. In another place also the Apostle has declared
that God made the Son "heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds, Who is
the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His substance."(2) The Apostle
calls Christ the image of the Father, and Arius says that He is unlike the Father.
Why, then, is He called an image, if He hath no likeness? Men will not have their
portraits unlike them, and Arius contends that the Father is unlike the Son, and would
have it that the Father has begotten one unlike Himself, as though unable to generate His
like.

BOOK V.

CHAPTER XVI.

197. But thou sayest that He knows the present and does not know the future. Though this
is a foolish suggestion, yet that I may satisfy thee on Scriptural grounds, learn that He
made not only what is past, but also what is future, as it is written: "Who made things to
come."(1) Elsewhere too Scripture says: "By whom also He made the ages, who is the
brightness of His glory and the express Image of His Person."(2) Now the ages are
past and present and future How then were those made which are future, unless it is that
His active power and knowledge contains within itself the number of all the ages? For
just as He calls the things that are not as though they were, s so has He made things future
as though they were. It cannot come to pass that they should not be. Those things which
He has directed to be, necessarily will be. Therefore He who has made the things that are
to be, knows them in the way in which they will be.
LETTERS OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT, 1-46.

[Translated by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A., Vicar of Saint Bartholomew's, Moor
Lane, and Fellow of King's college, London.]

LETTER XXXVIII.(1): To his Brother Gregory, concerning the difference between

ousi'a and upo'stasis. (Probably spurious.)

6. It may however be thought that the account here given of the hypostasis does not tally
with the sense of the Apostle's words, where he says concerning the Lord that He is
"the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person,"(2) for if we have
taught hypostasis to be the conflux of the several properties; and if it is confessed that, as
in the case of the Father something is contemplated as proper and peculiar, whereby He
alone is known, so in the same way is it believed about the Only-begotten; how then does
Scripture in this place ascribe the name of the hypostasis to the Father alone, and
describes the Son as form of the hypostasis, and designated not by His own proper notes,
but by those of the Father? For if the hypostasis is the sign of several existence, and the
property of the Father is confined to the unbegotten being, and the Son is fashioned
according to His Father's properties, then the term unbegotten can no longer be
predicated exclusively of the Father, the existence of the Only-begotten being denoted by
the distinctive note of the Father.

7. My opinion is, however, that in this passage the Apostle's argument is directed to a
different end; and it is looking to this that he uses the terms "brightness of glory,"
and "express image of person." Whoever keeps this carefully in view will find nothing
that clashes with what I have said, but that the argument is conducted in a special and
peculiar sense. For the object of the apostolic argument is not the distinction of the
hypostases from one another by means of the apparent notes; it is rather the
apprehension of the natural, inseparable, and close relationship of the Son to the
Father. He does not say "Who being the glory of the Father" (although in truth He is); he
omits this as admitted, and then in the endeavour to teach that we must not think of one
form of glory in the case of the Father and of another in that of the Son, He defines the
glory of the Only-begotten as the brightness of the glory of the Father, and, by the use of
the example of the light, causes the Son to be thought of in indissoluble association with
the Father. For just as the brightness is emitted by the flame, and the brightness is not
after the flame, but at one and the same moment the flame shines and the light beams
brightly, so does the Apostle mean the Son to be thought of as deriving existence from
the Father, and yet the Only-begotten not to be divided from the existence of the Father
by any intervening extension in space, but the caused to be always conceived of together
with the cause. Precisely in the same manner, as though by way of interpretation of
the meaning of the preceding cause, and with the object of guiding us to the
conception of the invisible by means of material examples, he speaks also of
"express image of person." For as the body is wholly in form, and yet the definition of
the body and the definition of the form are distinct, and no one wishing to give the
definition of the one would be found in agreement with that of the other; and yet, even if
in theory you separate the form from the body, nature does not admit of the distinction,
and both are inseparably apprehended; just so the Apostle thinks that even if the doctrine
of the faith represents the difference of the hypostases as unconfounded and distinct, he is
bound by his language to set forth also the continuous and as it were concrete relation of
the Only-begotten to the Father. And this he states, not as though the Only-begotten had
not also a hypostatic being, but in that the union does not admit of anything intervening
between the Son and the Father, with the result that he, who with his soul's eyes fixes his
gaze earnestly on the express image of the Only-begotten, is made perceptive also of
the hypostasis of the Father. Yet the proper quality contemplated in them is not subject
to change, nor yet to commixture, in such wise as that we should attribute either an origin
of generation to the Father or an origin without generation to the Son, but so that if we
could compass the impossibility of detaching one from the other, that one might be
apprehended severally and alone, for, since the mere name implies the Father, it is not
possible that any one should even name the Son without apprehending the Father.(1)

8. Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels,(2) he that hath seen the Son sees the Father
also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His
Father's person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of
the apostle in which he calls the Son "the image of the invisible God,"(1) and again
"image of His goodness;"(2) not because the image differs from the Archetype according
to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shewn that it is the
same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost
were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has
perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who
has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image
of the Father's hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the
reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity
and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in
a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented
face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son
receives in his heart the express image of the Father's Person. For all things that are
the Father's are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son's are the Father's;
because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself.(3) Thus the
hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the
Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the
proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the
hypostases.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT

TREATISE DE SPIRITU SANCTO
[Translated by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A., Vicar of Saint Bartholomew's, Moor
Lane, and Fellow of King's college, London.]

CHAPTER VIII: In how many ways "THROUGH whom "is used; and in what sense
"with whom" is more suitable. Explanation of how the Son receives a commandment, and
how late is sent.

21. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;(1) not the express image, nor yet the
form, for the divine nature does not admit of combination; but the goodness of the
will, which, being concurrent with the essence, is beheld as like and equal, or rather the
same, in the Father as in the Son.(2)

64. Another sense may however be given to the phrase, that just as the Father is seen in
the Son, so is the Son in the Spirit. The "worship in the Spirit" suggests the idea of the
operation of our intelligence being carried on in the light, as may be learned from the
words spoken to the woman of Samaria. Deceived as she was by the customs of her
country into the belief that worship was local, our Lord, with the object of giving her
better instruction, said that worship ought to be offered "in Spirit and in Truth,"(6) plainly
meaning by the Truth, Himself. As then we speak of the worship offered in the Image
of God the Father as worship in the Son, so too do we speak of worship in the Spirit
as shewing in Himself the Godhead of the Lord. Wherefore even in our worship the
Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father and the Son. If you remain outside the Spirit
you will not be able even to worship at all; and on your becoming in Him you will in no
wise be able to dissever Him from God;--any more than you will divorce light from
visible objects. For it is impossible to behold the Image of the invisible God except by
the enlightenment of the Spirit, and impracticable for him to fix his gaze on the Image
to dissever the light from the Image, because the cause of vision is of necessity seen at
the same time as the visible objects. Thus fitly and consistently do we behold the
"Brightness of the glory" of God by means of the illumination of the Spirit, and by
means of the "Express Image" we are led up to Him of whom He is the Express
Image and Seal, graven to the like.(1)

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

HOMILIES 1-16 ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN
[The Oxford Translation Edited by Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.]

HOMILY VII: JOHN i. 9.

[2.] "Then," says one, "He is not Father, but brother." What need, pray? If we had
asserted that the Father and the Son were from a different root, you might have then
spoken this well. But, if we flee this impiety, and say the Father, besides being
without beginning, is Unbegotten also, while the Son, though without beginning, is
Begotten of the Father, what kind of need that as a consequence of this idea, that unholy
assertion should be introduced? None at all. For He is an Effulgence: but an effulgence is
included in the idea of the nature whose effulgence it is. For this reason Paul has called
Him so, that you may imagine no interval between the Father and the Son. (Heb. i. 3.)
This expression(3) therefore is declaratory of the point; but the following part of the
proof quoted, corrects an erroneous opinion which might beset simple men. For, says the
Apostle, do not, because you have heard that he is an Effulgence, suppose that He is
deprived of His proper person; this is impious, and belongs to the madness of the
Sabellians, and of Marcellus' followers. We say not so, but that He is also in His proper
Person. And for this reason, after having called Him "Effulgence," Paul has added
that He is "the express image of His Person" (Heb. i. 3), in order to make evident
His proper Personality, and that He belongs to the same Essence of which He is also
the express image. For, as I before(4) said, it is not sufficient by a single expression to
set before men the doctrines concerning God, but it is desirable that we bring many
together, and choose from each what is suitable. So shall we be able to attain to a worthy
telling of His glory, worthy, I mean, as regards our power; for if any should deem himself
able to speak words suitable to His essential worthiness, and be ambitious to do so,
saying, that he knows God as God knows Himself, he it is who is most ignorant of God.

BLESSED THEODORET

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, Books I-II

[Translated by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A., Vicar of St. Bartholomew's, Moor
Lane, and Fellow of King's College, London.]

BOOK I

CHAPTER III: The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of

Constantinople. "To his most revered and likeminded brother Alexander, Alexander
sendeth greeting in the Lord.

"Is it not then impious to say that there was a time when the wisdom of God was not?
Who saith,' I was by Him as one brought up with Him: I was daily His delight (26)?' Or
that once the power of God was not, or His Word, or anything else by which the Son is
known, or the Father designated, defective? To assert that the brightness of the
Father's glory' once did not exist,' destroys also the original light of which it is the
brightness (27); and if there ever was a time in which the image of God was not, it is
plain that He Whose image He is, is not always: nay, by the non-existence of the
express image of God's Person, He also is taken away of whom this is ever the
express image. Hence it may be seen, that the Sonship of our Saviour has not even
anything in common with the sonship of men. For just as it has been shown that the
nature of His existence cannot be expressed by language, and infinitely surpasses in
excellence all things to which He has given being, so His Sonship, naturally partaking in
His paternal Divinity, is unspeakably different from the sonship of those who, by His
appointment, have been adopted as sons. He is by nature immutable, perfect, and all-
sufficient, whereas men are liable to change, and need His help. What further advance
can be made by the wisdom of God (28)? What can the Very Truth, or God the Word,
add to itself? How can the Life or the True Light in any way be bettered? And is it not
still more contrary to nature to suppose that wisdom can be susceptible of folly? that the
power of God can be united with weakness? that reason itself can be dimmed by
unreasonableness, or that darkness can be mixed with the true light? Does not the Apostle
say, 'What communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with
Belial(29)?' and Solomon, that 'the way of a serpent upon a rack (30)' was 'too wonderful'
for the human mind to comprehend, which 'rock,' according to St. Paul, is Christ (31).
Men and angels, however, who are His creatures, have received His blessing, enabling
them to exercise themselves in virtue and in obedience to His commands, that thus they
may avoid sin. And it is on this account that our Lord being by nature the Son of the
Father, is worshipped by all; and they who have put off the spirit of bondage, and by
brave deeds and advance in virtue have received the spirit of adoption through the
kindness of Him Who is the Son of God by nature, by adoption also become sons. "His
true, peculiar, natural, and special Sonship was declared by Paul, who, speaking of God,
says, that 'He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us (32), who are not by
nature His sons. It was to distinguish Him from those who are not 'His own,' that he
called Him 'His own son.' It is also written in the Gospel, ' This is My beloved San in
whom I am well pleased (33);' and in the Psalms the Saviour says, 'The Lord said unto
Me, Thou art My Son. (34) By proclaiming natural sonship He shows that there are no
other natural sons besides Himself.
...................
"But those who are led by the Spirit of truth have no need to learn these things of me, for
the words long since spoken by the Saviour yet sound in our ears, 'No one knoweth who
the Father is but the Son, and no one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (53).' We
have learnt that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like
the Father, lacking only His "unbegotten." He is the exact and precisely similar image of
His Father. For it is clear that the image fully contains everything by which the greater
likeness exists, as the Lord taught us when He said, ' My Father is greater than I (54).'
And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father; for he
is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Father's Person, (55).' But let
no one be led by the word 'always' to imagine that the Son is unbegotten, as is thought by
some who have their intellects blinded: for to say that He was, that He has always been,
and that before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten.

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS

AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, Books III-IV

[Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., F.E.I.S., Principal of the Free Church
College, Aberdeen, assisted by James L. Salmond, M.A., M.B., formerly of Balliol
College, Oxford.]
BOOK III.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Regarding the things said concerning Christ.

The things said concerning Christ fall into four generic modes. For some fit Him even
before the incarnation, others in the union, others after the union, and others after the
resurrection. Also of those that refer to the period before the incarnation there are
six modes: for some of them declare the union of nature and the identity in essence with
the Father, as this, I and My Father are one(2): also this, He that hath seen Me hath seen
the Father(3): and this, Who being in the form of God(4), and so forth. Others declare
the perfection of subsistence, as these, Son of God, and the Express Image of His
person(5), and Messenger of great counsel, Wonderful Counsellor(6), and the like.

Again, others declare the indwelling(7) of the subsistences in one another, as, I am in the
Father and the Father in Me(8); and the inseparable foundation(9), as, for instance, the
Word, Wisdom, Power, Effulgence. For the word is inseparably established in the mind
(and it is the essential mind that I mean), and so also is wisdom, and power in him that is
powerful, and effulgence in the light, all springing forth from these(1).

And others make known the fact of His origin from the Father as cause, for instance My
Father is greater than I(2). For from Him He derives both His being and all that He
has(3): His being was by generative and not by creative means, as, I came forth from the
Father and am come(4), and I live by the Father(3). But all that He hath is not His by free
gift or by teaching, but in a causal sense, as, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what
He seeth the Father do(6). For if the Father is not, neither is the Son. For the Son is of the
Father and in the Father and with the Father, and not after(7) the Father. In like manner
also what He doeth is of Him and with Him. For there is one and the same, not similar
but the same, will and energy and power in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.