Section 650

only in rank, but not in nature. " If," say tliey, " the also a digest of the " Four Orations against the Ari- Holy Spirit be neither an angel nor created being, if ans." See also the articles Ariamsm ; Trinity. he proceed from the Father, he is his Son, and the Lo- | Athanasius brought against the Arian and other her- gos and he are brothers ; if so, how can the Logos be ! esies three classes of arguments : (1) from the author- called the only son of God? If they be equal, why t ity of preceding writers and the general sense of the is he called the Holy Spirit, and not Son ; and why is church ; (2) philosophical and rational arguments ; (3) it that he is not also said to have been begotten by the i scriptural and exegetieal proofs. In each of these Father?" To show them the futility of such objec- fields he showed entire mastery of the material. But tions, which suppose that, in speaking of God and his the great merit of his position was his assertion of the son Jesus, wo must be governed by the ideas of natu- supreme authority of Scripture as against the asser- ral generation, Athanasius asks in his turn, " Who, ; tions or presuppositions of reason. The Arians, Sa- then, is the father of the Father, the son of the Son? , bellians, etc. were simply precursors of the modern who the grandchildren, seeing, among men, father im- : Rationalism ; Athanasius, on the other hand, main- plies father antecedent, and son implies son consequent, ' tained that the mind of man is not, and cannot be, the and so on ad infinitum? Son among men is only a ■ measure of the universe, still less of God, the creator portion of his father ; but in God, the Son is the entire of the universe. Neander sums up his share in the image of the Father, and always Son, as the Father is Arian controversy as follows : "When the Arians always Father; nor can the Father be the Son, nor i maintained that the Son of God was only distinguished the Son the Father. We cannot, therefore, speak of ' from other created beings by the fact that God created God as having brother or ancestor of any kind, seeing t him first of all, and then all other beings by him ; the Scriptures speak of no such thing ; nor do they ; Athanasius, on the contrary, said, It is a narrow- ever give the Holy Spirit the name of So?i, but only minded representation that God must require an in- that of the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the strument for creation ; it looks as if the Son of God Son. The holy Trinity has one and the same godhead came into existence only for our sakes; and by such or divinity; it is all but one God ; we must not attach ; a representation we might be led to regard the Son of the idea of creature to it ; human reason can pene- : God, not as participating immediately in the divine trate no further; the cherubim cover the rest with essence, but as requiring an intermediate agency for their wings." In the second letter Athanasius com- himself. What, then, could that agency be between bats those who place the Son in the rank of created be- him and God? Grant that such existed, then that ings, and advances the proofs of his divinity. Thethird would be the Son of God in a proper sense; nothing letter shows that what the Scriptures say of the Son else, indeed, than the divine essence communicating as to his divine nature, they say the same also of the itself. If we do not stand in connection with God Holy Spirit ; and that the proofs which establish the through the Son of God as thus conceived of, we have divinity of the one, establish also the divinity of the no true communion with him, but something stands other. In the fourth letter he shows how the Holy between us and God, and we are, therefore, not the Spirit cannot be termed Son, and insists on the neces- children of God in a proper sense. For, in reference sity of saying nothing of God but what he has revealed to our original relation, we are only creatures of God, concerning himself; and that we must not judge of and he is not in a proper sense our Father ; onlj- so far the divine nature by what we see in men; and that is he our Father as we are placed in communion with the mystery of the Trinity cannot be fathomed by hu- the Father through Christ, who is the Son of God by a man wisdom. As Serapion had asked his opinion con- communication of the divine essence : without this cerning that text, lie who blasphemeth against the Holy doctrine it could not be said that we are partakers of Ghost hath no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in that the divine nature (Orat. contr. Arian. 1, 16). — dvayicn which is to come, he employs the conclusion of this let- Xtynv to Ik ri]Q ovesiac. tov Tvarpbg iciov aiirov ov/i- ter in discussing this point. Origen and Theognostus, irav tivca tov vibv to yap oXiog /jiTtxioOai rbvStiv, he observes, asserted that the sin against the Holy labv tori X&ytiv iin icai ytvvq,' to Si yti'vav ti aijfica- Ghost was apostasy after baptism. This Athanasius ph i) v'ibv; avrov yovv tov v'iov //myu tu uravra denies, because the words were addressed to the rhar- \ Kara ti)v tov irvevj-iaTog yuojiiv)}V Trap' avrov Xc'<ptv, isees, who had not been baptized, and yet are charged \ Kai (pavtpw tic rovrov yiviTai, iin avrog /itv b uioc with having committed this sin; he then asserts that as ■ ovcevbg ^iTt\n, to vt Ik tov liarpbg iitrexofiivov, the Jews had seen the miracles which Christ wrought, ! tovto tan b viae, •■ avrov yap tov v'iov fisrexovrsg tov and attributed them to the power of Beelzebub, there- I Stov fitTtxtiv \ey6fxs9a ('' 'iva y'ivi}rt 3-a'nc koividvoi by denying his divinity, that this alone constitutes epvotaig" — " ovk o'ibart, on vabg Seov tart ;' — " i/fitXg the sin against the Holy Ghost. Those, says he, who yap vabg Stoii lofiiv Z,<mvtoc," 2, 59). Thus, in Atha- consider only the human acts of Christ, and suppose nasius, the ideas of redemption, adoption, and commit him, therefore, to be a man only, are in some sort ex- nion with God were connected with the idea of Jesus disable. Those also who, seeing his miracles, doubted as the true Son of God. As the Arians believed that whether he was a man, could scared}' be deemed cul- they ought to pay divine honor to Christ according to pable ; but those who, seeing his miracles and divine ! the Scriptures, he charged them with inconsistency, actions, obstinately attributed them to the power of since, on their principles, men were made idolaters the devil, as the Pharisees did, committed a crime so and worshippers of a creature. The Arians objected enormous that there is reason to fear such a sin is un- to the Nicene doctrine that the idea of the Son of God pardonable. This, therefore, is the sin against the could not be distinguished from that of a created lie- Holy Ghost of which Christ speaks. The treatise ing unless anthropopathical notions were admitted. against ApolUnaris and the Epxtk to Epictetus treat Athanasius replied that certainly all religious expres- with unrivalled skill and acumen of the true doctrine sions are symbolical, and have something anthropo- of the humanity of Christ. ! pathical at their basis, which we must abstract from