Library / Athanasius

Athanasius

Orations Against the Arians

c. 339–345

Athanasius’s four discourses against Arian teaching, including his report of Arius’s Thalia. English in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II.

Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson

English translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. IV (eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892). Public domain. Digital text via New Advent Church Fathers.

Contents

• Book 1, Chapter 1: Introduction. Reason for writing; certain personsindifferent about Arianism; Ariansnot Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.
• Book 1, Chapter 2: Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Ariusmaintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God's foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father; does not knowor see the Father; does not knowHimself.
• Book 1, Chapter 3: The Importance of the Subject. The Ariansaffect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father's substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianismin contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believein as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being indifferent in the controversy? The Ariansrely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets
• Book 1, Chapter 4: That the Son is Eternal and Increate. These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concerning the 'eternal power' of God in Romans 1:20, which is shown to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, 'Once the Son was not,' its supporters not daring to speak of 'a time when the Son was not.'
• Book 1, Chapter 5: Subject Continued. Objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him coordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity. The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be understood in real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in partaking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget.
• Book 1, Chapter 6: Subject Continued. Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His coessentiality; as the Creator; One of the Blessed Trinity; as Wisdom; as Word; as Image. If the Son is a perfect Image of the Father, why is He not a Father also? Because God, being perfect, is not the origin of a race. Only the Father a Father because the Only Father, only the Son a Son because the Only Son. Men are not really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does not become a Father, because He has received from the Father to be immutable and ever the same
• Book 1, Chapter 7: Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not.
• Book 1, Chapter 8: Objections Continued. Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are born later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the essence of God, as generation does.
• Book 1, Chapter 9: Objections Continued. Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Ariansto use an unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If it means 'without Father,' there is but One Unoriginate; if 'without beginning or creation,' there are two. Inconsistency of Asterius. 'Unoriginate' a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is 'Almighty,' or 'Lord of powers.' 'Father' is the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our adoption as sons
• Book 1, Chapter 10: Objections Continued. How the Word has free will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable because the Image of the Father, proved from texts.
• Book 1, Chapter 11: Texts Explained; And First, Philippians 2:9, 10. Whether the words 'Wherefore God has highly exalted' prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word 'Son;' which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of 'highly exalted,' and 'gave,' and 'wherefore;' viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word's 'exaltation' through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word.
• Book 1, Chapter 12: Texts Explained; Secondly, Psalm 45:7, 8.}}--> Whether the words 'therefore,' 'anointed,' etc., imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued against first from the word 'fellows' or 'partakers.' He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And He is said to sanctify Himself for us, and give us the gloryHe has received. The word 'wherefore' implies His divinity. 'You have loved righteousness,' etc., do not imply trial or choice.
• Book 1, Chapter 13: Texts Explained; Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4. Additional texts brought as objections; e.g. Hebrews 1:4; 7:22. Whether the word 'better' implies likeness to the Angels; and 'made' or 'become' implies creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances under which Scripture speaks. Difference between 'better' and 'greater;' texts in proof. 'Made' or 'become' a general word. Contrast in Hebrews 1:4, between the Son and the Works in point of nature. The difference of the punishments under the two Covenants shows the difference of the natures of the Son and the Angels. 'Become' relates not to the nature of the Word, but to His manhood and office and relation towards us. Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the Eternal Father.
• Book 2, Chapter 15: Texts explained; Fifthly, Acts 2:36. The Regula Fidei must be observed; madeapplies to our Lord's manhood; and to His manifestation; and to His office relative to us; and is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Genesis 27:29, 37. The context contradicts the Arianinterpretation.
• Book 2, Chapter 16: Introductory to Proverbs 8:22, that the Son is not a Creature. Arianformula, a creature but not as one of the creatures; but each creature is unlike all other creatures; and no creature can create. The Word then differs from all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise differing, all agree together, as creatures; viz. in being an efficient cause; in being the one medium or instrumental agent in creation; moreover in being the revealer of the Father; and in being the object of worship.
• Book 2, Chapter 17: Introduction to Proverbs 8:22 continued. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God's immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God's hand, and an infiniteseries of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moseswho led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moseswas not the Agent in creation:— again, that unity is found in created ministrations, but all such ministrations are defective and dependent:— again, that He learned to create, yet could God's Wisdom need teaching? And why should He learn, if the Father works hitherto? If the Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not we for His
• Book 2, Chapter 18: Introduction to Proverbs 8:22 continued. Contrast between the Father's operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these illustrations; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God's Word and man's word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Unoriginates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arianworse than other heresies.
• Book 2, Chapter 19: Texts explained; Sixthly, Proverbs 8:22. Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. 'He created me' not equivalent to 'I am a creature.' Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, if He is a creature, it is as 'a beginning of ways,' an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is 'for the works,' which implied the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was created. Also 'the Lord' not the Father 'created' Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant.
• Book 2, Chapter 20: Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22 Continued. Our Lord is said to be created 'for the works,' i.e. with a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isaiah 49:5, etc. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added; not so when His Divine Nature; Texts in proof.
• Book 2, Chapter 21: Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs 8:22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be 'created,' or the works to be 'begotten.' 'In the beginning' means in the case of the works 'from the beginning.' Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense of 'First-born of the dead;' of 'First-born among many brethren;' of 'First-born of all creation,' contrasted with 'Only-begotten.' Further interpretation of 'beginning of ways,' and 'for the works.' Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works.
• Book 2, Chapter 22: Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context of Proverbs 8:22, and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the Incarnation.
• Book 3, Chapter 23: Texts Explained; Seventhly, John 14:10 Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.
• Book 3, Chapter 24: Texts Explained; Eighthly, John 17:3. and the Like. Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. 'One' is used in contrast to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin.
• Book 3, Chapter 25: Texts Explained; Ninthly, John 10:30; 17:11, etc. Arianexplanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Ariansin fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arianexplanation that the Father and Son are one as we are one with Christ, is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shown invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. Force of 'in us;' force of 'as;' confirmed by St. John. In what sense we are 'in God' and His 'sons.'
• Book 3, Chapter 26: Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arianscompared 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 I Peter 4:1.
• Book 3, Chapter 27: Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew 11:27; John 3:35, etc. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by 'so' in John 5:26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again they are used with reference to our Lord's human nature; for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which show that He had the power, etc., before He received it. He was Godand man, and His actions are often at once divine and human.
• Book 3, Chapter 28: Texts Explained; Eleventhly, Mark 13:32 and Luke 2:52 Arianexplanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human nature. If the Holy Spiritknowsthe Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knowsthe Father, therefore He knowsthe Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knowsthe Day in the Father; if He created and upholds all things, He knowswhen they will cease to be. He knowsnot as Man, argued from Matthew 24:42. As He asked about Lazarus's grave, etc., yet knew, so He knows; as St. Paul says, 'whether in the body I knownot,' etc., yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious as in Acts 1:7, where on the contrary He did not say He knew not. As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on.
• Book 3, Chapter 29: Texts Explained; Twelfthly, Matthew 26:39; John 12:27, etc. Arianinferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear. He feared because His flesh feared.
• Book 3, Chapter 30: Objections continued, as in Chapters vii.— x. Whether the Son is begotten of the Father's will? This virtually the same as whether once He was not? And used by the Ariansto introduce the latter question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary texts. The Ariansfollow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will; which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father
• 4. Book 4