Four Discourses of S. Athanasius,
Archbishop of Alexandria,
Against the Arians

Discourse 1.

———————

{177}

Chapter 1. Introduction

§. 1.

1. OF all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged, that they have but devised [Note A] a madness [Note 1], and their irreligiousness [Note 2] has long since become notorious to all men. For, that [Note B] their authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith the Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing [Note 3] of their own mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger [Note 4] of Antichrist, {178} the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her cunning and profligacy, affects to array herself in Scripture language [Note C], like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church's paradise,—that with the pretence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ,—nay, since she hath already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip the folds of its breast-plate [Job xli. 4. Sept.], and to shew the ill-savour of its folly. So while those who are far from it, may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those [Note D] who call {179} these men Christians, are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.

§ 2.

2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas [Note 5] a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymenaus and Alexander as right-minded men, and as if the Apostle slandered them. But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichæus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades [Note 6], a man whom even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in the Thalias which he has written after him; and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of the image of corruptible man [Rom. i. 25.] [Note 7], and for Christians [Note 8] come to be called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion.

3. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians after the names of their teachers [Note E], that they themselves may {180} appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian people take their title from the Bishops [Note 9] among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become [Note F]. § 3. Yes surely; while all of us are and are called {181} Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy time since and was cast out; and those who continued with the Bishop who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion, were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and others, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer Christians, but Meletians [Note G]; and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were henceforward denominated Arians. Behold then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, are instances of the same rule; none of them bear his name [Note 10], nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For though we have {182} a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet for certain bear the name of him who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of his party have succeeded him, yet those who think with him, as being known from Arias, are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the Church, on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their catechists, but of the Saviour, and are henceforth for Greeks called Christians; while those of them who go off to the heretics, and again all who from the Church change to this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and at once are called Arians, as no longer holding Christ's faith, but having inherited Arius's madness.

§ 4.

4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniacs [Note H]? or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of what is new and evil? who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thalias a new wisdom? and with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found; nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and abandoned metres, that, while a man, {183} as Wisdom says, is known from the utterance of his word [vid. Ecclus. iv. 24.], so from those numbers should be seen the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought [Note I]. In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection; but, for all his many writings to and fro, like the serpent, he did but fall into the error of the Pharisees. They, that they might transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, and that they might deny the expected and then present Lord, were hypocritical with God's name, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God [John x. 33.], and sayest, I and the Father are one? And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language [Note 11], but is on {184} all sides recognised as godless [Note K] Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures. {185}

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Chapter 2. Extracts from the Thalia of Arius

§ 5.

1. NOW the commencement of Arius's Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tone and nature, runs thus:—

"According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones,
Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit receiving,
Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,
Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.
Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions,
I the very famous, the much suffering for God's glory;
And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge."

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these [Note 12]:—"God was not always a Father;" but "once God was alone and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father." "The Son was not always;" for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was "made out of nothing," and "once He was not," and "He was not before His generation," but He as others "had an origin of creation." "For God," he says, "was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to frame us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him." Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, {186} the attribute coexistent with God, and next, that in this Wisdom the Son was generated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. "For Wisdom," saith he, "by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom." In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar [Note 13], is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the great power [Joel ii. 25.]. The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, The Lord of hosts or powers [Ps. xxiv. 10.]. And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For "therefore," saith he, "as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known [Note 14], did God bring it to pass that He, being such, should come to be."

§ 6.

2. Moreover he has dared to say, that "the Word is not the very God;" "though He is called God, yet He is not very God," but "by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name." And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in substance, so too is "the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's substance and propriety," but belongs to things generated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that "even to the Son the Father is invisible," and "the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;" but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees "in proportion to His own measure," as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails {187} in comprehension [Note A], but "He knows not even His own substance;"—and that "the substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien [Note 15], and without participation of each other;" [Note 16] and, in his own words, "utterly unlike from each other in substance and glory, unto infinity." Thus as to "likeness of glory and substance," he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that jocose composition.

§ 7.

3. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the metre of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage [Note 17]? who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported? The heaven, as the Prophet says, was astonished, and the earth shuddered at the transgression of the Law [Jer. ii. 12. Sept.]. But the sun, with greater horror once, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind {188} at Arius's blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words which He hath already uttered by the prophet Hosea, Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me [Hos. vii. 13.]. And soon after, They imagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing [Ib. 15. Sept.]. For to turn away from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion to themselves one that is not, is to fall to what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical [Note 18] Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe [Note 19], and harbinger [Note 20] of Antichrist. Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee from that irreligious heresy [Note B], as I said above, yet since certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it as I then said, little different from the Truth, and call its professors Christians [Note 21]; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus encountered, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent. {189}

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Chapter 3. The importance of the Subject

§ 8.

1. IF then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into blessing, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law [Note 22] and the Prophets like Manichees [Note A], because the latter read some portions of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill-savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison, and to seduce the simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he has persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that he may introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft hath not escaped. For being irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at once [Note 23], and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other heresies too [Note B]; and having not a particle of truth in his belief, {190} does but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? and who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? and how shall he not err in respect to His incarnate presence [Note 24], who is simply ignorant of the Son's genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, We have no king but Cæsar, were forthwith stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine [Note 25]? or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings [Note C] of the heresy {191} gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at school [Note 26]? who told them, "Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work?" [Note D] But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers [Note 27]? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that in the latter times some shall depart from the sound [Note 28] faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth [1 Tim. iv. 1. 2. Tit. i. 14.] [Note E]?

§ 9.

2. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:—Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His substance, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's substance. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in substance [Note 29] with the very Father; while other beings, to whom {192} He said, I said ye are Gods, had this grace from the Father, only by participation [Note 30] of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father's substance. For this too the Lord has said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [John xiv. 9.]. And He ever was and is, and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting [Note 31].

3. On the other hand, what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them study it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that "God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father's substance, for He is a creature and work?" And "Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of perfect knowledge of the Father for comprehension." Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and every where putting forward blasphemy for blessing ! Were any one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God,—or rather let them say themselves, these abetters of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning God, (for the Word was God,) it were fit to answer [Note F]. For from this one question the whole case on both sides may be {193} determined, what is fitting to say,—He was, or He was not always, or before His birth; eternal, or from this and from then; true, or by adoption, and from participation and in idea [Note 32]; to call Him one of things generated, or to unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in substance, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were generated; that He is the Father's Word, or that there is another Word beside Him, and that by this other He was generated, and by another Wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and is become a partaker of this Wisdom, and second to it?

§ 10.

4. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this with which ye have burst forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and over all blessed for ever [Rom. ix. 5.], is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, knoweth not that the dead are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell [Prov. ix. 18.]? This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else [Note 33]. For should they speak, a condemnation would follow; and should they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast [Note 34] at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched, (for it is said, the light of the wicked shall be put out [Job xviii. 5.],) they hide it under the bushel [Note 35] of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius [Note 36], that what with their hypocrisy and their boasts, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its own friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have they got together [Note 37] these words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say [Note 38]? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied {194} it. For who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, and says, that He was not till He was made? or who is there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, This is My Beloved Son [Matt. iii. 17.], on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their mania, (for of such opinions he alone is sower [Note 39],) proceed we to resist him;—for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments;—that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed this heresy in them, and may learn though late, that, as being Arians, they are not Christians [Note 40].

continue

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Footnotes

A. [epinoesasai]. This is almost a technical word, and has occurred again and again already, as descriptive of heretical teaching in opposition to the received traditionary doctrine. It is also found passim in others writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against Apollinaris; "for not originating, [epinoesantes], any novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared." Hist. iii. 7. The sense of the word [epinoia] which will come into consideration below, is akin to this, being the view taken by the mind of an object independent of (whether or not correspondent to) the object itself.
Return to text

B. [to gar exelthein … delon an eie], i.e. [toi] and so infr. § 43. [to de kai proskuneisthai … delon an eie].
Return to text

C. vid. infr. § 4. fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Præscr. 42, who warns Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of isolated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church. vid. also Vincentius, who specifies obiter Sabellius and Novatian. Commonit. 2. Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies on this point, as in these two respects: (1.) they appealed to a secret tradition, unknown, even to most of the Apostles, as the Gnostics, Iren. Hær. iii. 1 [p. 205 O.T.], or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, supr. p. 78. and Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Orat. ii. § 18, c. Epiph. Hær. 69. 15. Or rather they took some words of Scripture, and made their own deductions from them; viz. "Son," "made," "exalted," &c. "Making their private irreligiousness as if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it." Orat. i. § 52 [infra p. 256]. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their [thrulletai phonai, lexeis, epe, rheta], sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text. e.g. infr. § 22 [p. 213] "amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about, &c. [perierchonto]." vid. supr. p. 22, note Y. Also [ano kai kato peripherontes], de Decr. § 13; [toi rhetoi tethrullekasi ta pantachou]. Orat. ii. § 18 [p. 307]. [to poluthpulleton sophisma], Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 14; [ten poluthrulleton dialektiken], Nyssen contr. Eun. iii. p. 125. [ten thrulloumenen aporrhoen], Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. [ten poluthrulleton phonen], Socr. ii. 43.
Return to text

D. These Orations or Discourses seem written to shew the vital importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian character of the heresy, without reference to the word [homoousion]. He has insisted in the works above translated, p. 130. ref. 2. that the enforcement of the symbol was but the rejection of the heresy, and accordingly he is here content to bring out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, if persons understood and embraced it, they would not scruple at the word. He seems to allude to what may be called the liberal or indifferent feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. § 7 fin. § 9. § 10 init. § 15 fin. § 17. § 21. § 23. He mentions in Apollin. i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says, it was "fearful to mention." S. Augustine tells us that this man taught that "all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth," "which," he adds, "is so absurd as to seem to me incredible." Hær. 72. vid, also Philastr. Hær. 91.
Return to text

E. He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians; vid. however p. 181, ref. 1. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title as applied to Catholics, and again to heretics, when they are taken by Catholics as a note against them. S. Augustine says, "Arians call Catholics Athanasians or Homoüsians, not other heretics too. But ye not only by Catholics but also by heretics, those who agree with you and those who disagree, are called Pelagians; as even by heresies are Arians called Arians. But ye, and ye only, call us Traducianists, as Arians call us Homoüsians, as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees Pharisees, and as the other heretics use various titles." Op. imp. i. 75. It may be added that the heretical name adheres, the Catholic dies away. S. Chrysostom draws a second distinction, "Are we divided from the Church? have we heresiarchs? are we called from man? is there any leader to us, as to one there is Marcion, to another Manichæus, to another Arius, to another some other author of heresy? for if we too have the name of any, still it is not those who began the heresy, but our superiors and governors of the church. We have not 'teachers upon earth,'" &c. in Act. Ap. Hom. 33 fin. [p. 466 O.T.]
Return to text

F. vid. foregoing note. Also, "Let us become His disciples and learn to live according to Christianity; for whoso is called by other name beside this, is not of God." Ignat. ad Magn. 10. Hegesippus speaks of "Menandrians, and Marcionites, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians," who "each in his own way and that a different one brought in his own doctrine." Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. "There are, and there have been, my friends, many who have taught atheistic and blasphemous words and deeds, coming in the Name of Jesus; and they are called by us from the appellation of the men, whence each doctrine and opinion began ... Some are called Marcians, others Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Saturnilians," &c. Justin. Tryph. 35 [pp. 113, 114 O.T.]. "They have a name from the author of that most impious opinion, Simon, being called Simonians." Iren. Hær. i. 23 [p. 70 O.T.]. "When men are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or by any other name, they cease to be Christians; for they have lost Christ's Name, and clothe themselves in human and foreign titles." Lact. Inst. iv. 30. "A. How are you a Christian, to whom it is not even granted to bear the name of Christian? for you are not called Christian, but Marcionite. M. And you are called of the Catholic Church; therefore ye are not Christians either. A. Did we profess man's name, you would have spoken to the point; but if we are called for being all over the world, what is there bad in this?" Adamant. Dial. § 1. p. 809. "We never heard of Petrines, or Paulines, or Bartholomeans, or Thaddeans, but from the first there was one preaching of all the Apostles, not preaching them, but Christ Jesus the Lord. Wherefore also they all gave one name to the Church, not their own, but that of their Lord Jesus Christ, since they began to be called Christians first at Antioch; which is the sole Catholic Church, having naught else but Christ's, being a Church of Christians, not of Christs, but of Christians; He being one, they from that one being called Christians. After this Church and her preachers, all others are no longer of the same character, making show by their own epithets, Manichæans, and Simonians, and Valentinians, and Ebionites." Epiph. Hær. 42, p. 366. "This is the fearful thing, that they change the name of Christians of the Holy Church, which hath no epithet but the name of Christ alone, and of Christians, to be called by the name of Audius," &c. ibid. 70. 15. vid. also Hær. 75. 6 fin. "Since one might properly and truly say that there is a 'Church of evil doers,' I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists, and Manichees, and the rest, the faith hath delivered to thee by way of security the Article, 'And in One Holy Catholic Church,' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings; and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic, in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is, (for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord,) nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body," &c. Cyril Cat. xviii. 26 [p. 252 O.T.]. "Were I by chance to enter a populous city, I should in this day find Marcionites, Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Novatians, and other such, who called themselves Christian; by what surname should I recognise the congregation of my own people, were it not called Catholic? … certainly that word 'Catholic' is not borrowed from man, which has survived through so many ages, nor as the sound of Marcion or Apelles or Montanus, nor takes heretics for its authors ... Christian is my name, Catholic my surname." Pacian. Ep. 1 [pp. 321, 322 O.T.]. "If you ever hear those who are called Christians, named, not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some one else, say Marcionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers, Campestrians, know that it is not Christ's Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist." Jerom. adv. Lucif. fin.
Return to text

G. vid. supr. p. 89, note M. Meletius was Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebais, in the first year of the fourth century. He was convicted of sacrificing to idols in the persecution, and deposed by a Council under Peter, Bishop of Alexandria and subsequently martyr. Meletius separated from his communion, and commenced a schism; at the time of the Nicene Council it included as many as twenty-eight or thirty Bishops; in the time of Theodoret, a century and a quarter later, it included a number of Monks. Though not heterodox, they supported the Arians on their first appearance, in their contest with the Catholics. The Council of Nicæa, instead of deposing them, allowed their Bishops a titular rank in their sees, but forbade them to exercise their functions.
Return to text

H. vid. p. 91, note Q. Manes also was called mad; "Thou must hate all heretics, but especially him who even in name is a maniac." Cyril. Catech. vi. 20 [p. 70 O.T.]. vid. also ibid. 24 fin.—a play upon the name, vid. p. 114, note B.
Return to text

I. It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of Arius. Athanasius speaks as if his Thalia was but a token of his personal laxity, and certainly the mere fact of his having written it seems incompatible with any remarkable seriousness and strictness. Yet Constantine and Epiphanius speak of him in very different terms, yet each in his own way, in the following extracts. It is possible that Constantine is only declaiming, for his whole invective is like a school exercise or fancy composition. Constantine too had not seen Arius at the time of this invective which was prior to the Nicene Council, and his account of him is inconsistent with itself, for he also uses the very strong and broad language about Arius quoted supr. p. 94, note A. "Look then, look all men, what words of lament he is now professing, being held with the bite of the serpent; how his veins and flesh are possessed with poison, and are in a ferment of severe pain; how his whole body is wasted, and is all withered and sad and pale and shaking, and all that is miserable, and fearfully emaciated. How hateful to see, and filthy is his mass of hair, how he is half dead all over, with failing eyes, and bloodless countenance, and woe-begone! so that all these things combining in him at once, frenzy, madness, and folly, for the continuance of the complaint, have made thee wild and savage. But not having any sense, what bad plight he is in, he cries out, 'I am transported with delight, and I leap and skip for joy, and I fly:' and again, with boyish impetuosity, 'Be it so,' he says, 'we are lost.'" Harduin. Conc. t. i. p. 457. Perhaps this strange account may be taken to illustrate the words "mania" and "Ario-maniacs." S. Alexander too speaks of Arius's melancholic temperament, [melancholikois hermosmenes doxes kenes]. Theod. Hist. i. 3, P. 741. S. Basil also speaks of the Eunomians as [eis lampran melancholian parenechthentas]. contr. Eun. ii. 24. Elsewhere he speaks of the Pneumatomachists as worse than [melancholontes]. de Sp. S. 41. Epiphanius's account of Arius is as follows:—"From elation of mind the old man swerved from the mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with manners like a wily serpent, captivating to every guileless heart by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited in cloak and vest, he was pleasant of address, ever persuading souls and flattering; wherefore what was his very first work but to withdraw from the Church in one body as many as seven hundred women who professed virginity?" Hær. 69. 3. Arius is here said to have been tall; Athanasius, on the other hand, would appear to have been short, if we may so interpret Julian's indignant description of him, [mede aner, all' anthropiskos euteles], "not even a man, but a common little fellow." Ep. 51. Yet S. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of him as "high in prowess, and humble in spirit, mild, meek, full of sympathy, pleasant in speech, more pleasant in manners, angelical in person, more angelical in mind, serene in his rebukes, instructive in his praises," &c. &c. Orat. 21. 9.
Return to text

K. And so godless or atheist Aetius, supr. p. 81. vid. p. 3, note F. for an explanation of the word. In like manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says "that the Son is a creature, who is Word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father," he falls under the text, "Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." "Such a one," he continues, "will in no long time say, as the fool, There is no God." In like manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit, as "without ([exo]) the Holy Trinity, and atheists," (Serap. iv. 6.) because they do not really believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. And so again, "As the faith delivered [in the Holy Trinity] is one, and this unites us to God, and he who takes aught from the Trinity, and is baptised in the sole Name of the Father or of the Son, or in Father and Son without the Spirit, gains nothing, but remains empty and incomplete, both he and the professed administrator, (for in the Trinity is the completion, [initiation,]) so whoso divides the Son from the Father, or degrades the Spirit to the creatures, hath neither the Son nor the Father, but is an atheist and worse than an infidel and anything but a Christian." Serap. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as [anthropous atheous], who were attempting [kratesai tou theiou]. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen [polutheos atheia]. Orat. 25. 15. and he calls faith and regeneration "a denial of atheism, [atheias], and a confession of godhead, [theotetos], Grat. 12. He calls Lucius, the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruelties, "this second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, [tes atheou peges]." Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is [aner atheos]. ibid. 12.
Return to text

A. Vid. supr. p. 96, note F. [katalepsis] was originally a Stoical word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of [ideai], to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit prius in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none "knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him," if [katalepsis] be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the [perichoresis]. P. 95, note D. or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, "searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God," so the Son, as being "in the bosom of the Father," alone "hath declared Him." vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, "If the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour." Orat. iii. 44 [infra p. 463].
Return to text

B. And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod hæretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494.
Return to text

A. Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels, (vid. Beausabre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.) but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judæis. ibid. xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord's nativity, circumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. xxxii. 6.
Return to text

B. All heresies seem connected together and to run into each other. When the mind has embraced one, it is almost certain to run into others, apparently the most opposite, it is quite uncertain which. Thus Arians were a reaction from Sabellians, yet did not the less consider than they that God was but one Person, and that Christ was a creature, supr. p. 41, note E. Apollinaris was betrayed into his heresy by opposing the Arians, yet his heresy started with the tenet in which the Arians ended, that Christ had no human soul. His disciples became, and even naturally, some of them Sabellians, some Arians. Again, beginning with denying our Lord a soul, he came to deny Him a body, like the Manichees and Docetæ. The same passages from Athanasius will be found to refute both Eutychians and Nestorians, though diametrically opposed to each other: and these agreed together, not only in considering nature and person identical, but, strange to say, in holding, and the Apollinarians too, that our Lord's manhood existed before its union with Him, which is the special heresy of Nestorius. Again, the Nestorians were closely connected with the Sabellians and Samosatenes, and the latter with the Photinians and modern Socinians. And the Nestorians were connected with the Pelagians; and Aerius, who denied Episcopacy and prayers for the dead, with the Arians; and his opponent the Semi-Arian Eustathius with the Encratites. One reason of course of this peculiarity of heresy is, that when the mind is once unsettled, it may fall into any error. Another is that it is heresy; all heresies being secretly connected, as in temper, so in certain primary principles. And lastly, the Truth only is a real doctrine, and therefore stable; every thing false is of a transitory nature and has no stay, like reflections in a stream, one opinion continually passing into another, and creations being but the first stages of dissolution. Hence so much is said in the Fathers of orthodoxy being a narrow way. Thus S. Gregory speaks of the middle and "royal" way. Orat. 32. 6. also Damasc. contr. Jacob. t. 1. p. 398. vid. also Leon. Ep. 85. 1. p. 1051. Ep. 129. p. 1254, "levissimâ adjectione corrumpitur." also Serm. 25. 1. p. 83. also Vigil. in Eutych. i. init. Quasi inter duos latrones crucifigitur Dominus, &c. Novat. Trin. 30. vid. the promise, "Thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left." Is. xxx. 21.
Return to text

C. [dorodokoi]. and so [kerdos tes philochrematias], infr. § 53. He mentions [prostasias philon], § 10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted to the Clergy as a bribe for them to Arianize: "You concede taxes as Cæsar, thereby to invite Christians to a denial; you remit what is your own, that we may lose what is God's," contr. Const. 10. And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa cædit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod. Hist. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of [philochrusous mallon e philochristous]. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Æg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. But it is obvious that there were, as was natural, two classes of men in the heretical party:—the fanatical class who began the heresy and were its real life, such as Arius, and afterwards the Anomœans, in whom misbelief was a "mania;" and the Eusebians, who cared little for a theory of doctrine or consistency of profession, compared with their own aggrandizement. With these must be included numbers, who conformed to Arianism lest they should suffer temporal loss.
Return to text

D. vid. p. 3, note F. fin. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers, vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40. 42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28; Ambros. de fid. i. n. 69 and 104.
Return to text

E. This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. Hær. I. 25 [p. 75 O.T.]; Epiph Hær. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Hær. 31, 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet), Origen in Matt. xiv. 16. Of apostolic heretics, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Hær. ii. præf. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190. (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901.) Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-pelagians. Quæst. 22. vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, except S. Alexander's Letter ap. Socr. i. 6; and, if he may hazard the conjecture, there is much in that letter like Athan.'s own writing.
Return to text

F. That is, "Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to predicate that of God, (of One who is God,) for such is the Word, viz. that He was from eternity or was created," &c. &c.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Margin Notes

1. p. 2, note E; p. 91, note Q.
Return to text

2. p. 1, note A.
Return to text

3. p. 5, note K.
Return to text

4. p. 79, note Q.
Return to text

5. de Decr. § 2, p. 4; § 24, p. 41; § 27, p. 48.
Return to text

6. p. 94, note A.
Return to text

7. vid. Hil. de Trin. viii. 28.
Return to text

8. p. 27, note H.
Return to text

9. vid. however p. 179, note E, fin.
Return to text

10. vid. however p. 179, note E.
Return to text

11. p. 178, note C.
Return to text

12. de Syn. § 15, p. 94.
Return to text

13. de Syn. § 18, p. 101.
Return to text

14. p. 11, ref. 1; p. 114, note C.
Return to text

15. p. 43, note B.
Return to text

16. p. 95, note D.
Return to text

17. Ep. Encycl. 6. Epiph. Hær. 73. 1.
Return to text

18. p. 49, note O.
Return to text

19. p. 6, note N.
Return to text

20. p. 177, ref. 4.
Return to text

21. p. 179, ref. 4.
Return to text

22. p. 130, ref. 1.
Return to text

23. p. 2, note E.
Return to text

24. [ensarkou parousias].
Return to text

25. p. 12, note Y.
Return to text

26. p. 76, note I; de Syn. § 9, p. 84.
Return to text

27. p. 78, note O.
Return to text

28. [hugiainouses]. Socrat. i. 6.
Return to text

29. [homoousios].
Return to text

30. de Decr. § 14 fin.; de Syn. p. 51. § 151.
Return to text

31. p. 25, note C.
Return to text

32. [kat' epinoian], vid. Orat. ii. § 38.
Return to text

33. p. 10, note U; p. 127, note G.
Return to text

34. p. 53, note F.
Return to text

35. Ep. Æg. 18.
Return to text

36. p. 4, note H; p.190, note C.
Return to text

37. [sunephoresan], infra, § 22.
Return to text

38. p. 12, note Y.
Return to text

39. p. 5, note K.
Return to text

40. p. 179, ref. 4.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.