CONTENTS.

EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS

IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.

(de decretis Nicance synedi)

CHAP. I.

INTRODUCTION.

The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council; their fickleness

they are like Jews; their employment of force instead of reason. Page 1

;

CHAP. II.

CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL.

Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council;

proceedings at Nicæa; Eusebians then signed what they now complain

of; on the unanimity of true teachers, and the process of tradition; changes

of the Arians.
5

CHAP. III.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD SON AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD.

Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial. Attempts of Arians to

find a third meaning between these; e. g. that our Lord alone was created

immediately by God; Asterius's view; or that our Lord alone partakes

the Father. The second and true sense; God begets as He makes, really;

though His creation and generation not like man's; His generation inde-

pendent of time; generation implies an internal, and therefore an eternal,

act in God; explanation of Prov. 8, 22.

b

10

PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON.

Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply
eternity; as well as the Father's title of Fountain. The Arians reply
that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, but are
names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there
is but one Son, Word, &c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him. 24

CHAP. V.

DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL'S PHRASES, FROM THE SUBSTANCE,"
AND "ONE IN SUBSTANCE."

Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we ought to look at the sense
more than the wording. Evasion of the Eusebians as to the phrase "of
God," which is in Scripture; their evasion of all explanations but those
which the Council selected; which were intended to negative the Arian
formulæ. Protest against their conveying any material sense.

30

CHAP. VI.

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL.

Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome; Origen. 43

CHAP. VII.

ON THE ARIAN SYMBOL "INGENERATE."

This term afterwards adopted by the Arians; and why; three senses of it.
A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His creatures,
not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead; Conclusion.

51

APPENDIX.

Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the People of his Diocese.

NOTE ON p. 61.

On the meaning of the phrase iξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας in the Nicene

Anathema.

66

CONTENTS.

iii

EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS,

CONCERNING THE COUNCILS HELD AT ARIMINUM IN
ITALY AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA.

CHAP. I.

de syredis.....

HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.

Reasons why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling

any; and of the style of the Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene

Councils. Proceedings at Ariminum; Letter of the Council to Constantius;

its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the

Arians.
73

CHAP. II.

HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS.

Arius's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander. Corrections

by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius. Letter of

the Council of Jerusalem. First Creed of Arians at the Dedication at

Antioch; second, Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius;

fourth, sent into Gaul to Constans; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Italy;

sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as intro-

duced above in Chapter i; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople;

eleventh, at Antioch.

ON THE SYMBOLS OF THE SUBSTANCE" AND ONE IN

CHAP. III.

SUBSTANCE."

93

We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the

sense; meaning of the Symbols; the question of their not being in

Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, are not to be

considered Arians. Reasons why "One in substance" better than "Like

in substance," yet the latter may be interpreted in a good sense. Ex-

planation of the rejection of "One in substance" by the Council which

condemned Samosatene; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria.

Parallel variation in the use of "Ingenerate;" quotation from S. Ignatius

and another. Reasons for using "One in substance;" objections to it;

examination of the word itself. Further documents of the Council of

Ariminum

129

NOTE ON CHAPTER II.

Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium,

NOTE ON PAGE 147.

On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosata.

160

165

Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism; Arians are

not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.

177

CHAP. II.

EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS.

Arius maintains 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 gene-

ration;
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 substance from the Father;

does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself.

CHAP. III.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

185

The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine is new, as well as

unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper

to the Father's Substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in

contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning. The controversy comes

to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so

in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then is there for

being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage,

and dare not avow their tenets.
189

CHAP. IV.

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 Rom. i. 20.

which is shewn 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."

195

The objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the

Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof

of His eternity. The word Son is used in a transcendant, but is to be un-

derstood in a real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in par-

taking 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. 200

CHAP. VI.

SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His

consubstantiality; as the Creator; as One of the Blessed Trinity; as

Wisdom; as Word; as Image. But if the Son be a perfect Image of

the Father, why is He not a Father also? because God, being perfect,

is not the origin of a race. The Father only a Father, because the

Only Father; the Son only 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.

205

CHAP. VII.

OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF.

Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or

One that was not.

213

CHAP. VIII.

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 Substance
of God, as generation does.
218