A somewhat similar caution is necessary with regard to the analogy drawn out (41, &c.) between the Incarnation and the Union of the Word with the Universe. The treatise itself (17. 1, ektos kat' ousian, and see notes on 41) supplies the necessary corrective in this case. It may be pointed out here that the real difference between Athanasius and the neo-Platonists was not so much upon the Union of the Word with any created Substance, which they were prepared to allow, as upon the exclusive Union of the Word with Man, in Contrast to His essential distinctness from the Universe. This difference goes back to the doctrine of Creation, which was fixed as a great gulf between the Christian and the Platonist view of the Universe. The relation of the latter to the Word is fully discussed in the third part of the contra Gentes, the teaching of which must be borne in mind while reading the forty-first and following chapters of the present treatise.
Lastly, the close relation between the doctrine of Creation and that of Redemption marks off the Soteriology of this treatise from that of the middle ages and of the Reformation. Athanasius does not leave out of sight the idea of satisfaction for a debt. To him also the Cross was the central purpose (20. 2, cf. 9. 1, 2, &c.) of His Coming. But the idea of Restoration is most prominent in his determination of the necessity of the Incarnation. God could have wiped out our guilt, had He so pleased, by a word (44): but human nature required to be healed, restored, recreated. This (anaktisai) is the foremost of the three ideas (7. 5) which sum up his account of the dignus tanto Vindice nodus [191] .
The translation which follows is that printed in 1885 (D. Nutt, second edition, 1891) by the editor of this volume, with a very few changes (chiefly 2. 2, 8. 4, 34. 2, 44. 7, 8): it was originally made for the purpose of lectures at Oxford (1879-1882), and the analytical headings now prefixed to each chapter are extracted verbatim from notes made for the same course of lectures. The notes have mostly appeared either in the former edition of the translation, or appended to the Greek text published (D. Null, 1882) by the translator. A few, however, have now been added, including some references to the Sermo Major, which borrows wholesale from the present treatise (Prolegg. ch. III. §1. 37). Two other English translations have appeared, the one (Parker, 1880) previous, the other (Religious Tract Society, n.d.) subsequent to that of the present translator. The text followed is that of the Benedictine editors, with a few exceptions. Of those that at all affect the sense, 43.6 (kai to soma) and 51. 2 (kata tes eid;) are due to Mr. Marriott (Analecta Christiana, Oxf. 1844). For the others (13. 2, omission of me, 28. 3, kata tou puros rejecting conjectures of Montf. and Marriott, 42. 6, omission of pepoiekenai 57. 3, kai ta for ta kai) the present editor is alone responsible.
Synopsis of the Treatise.
------------------------
Page
§1.
Introduction. The Redemptive work of the Word based on His initial relation to the Creature.
36
FIRST PART.--The Incarnation of the Word.
§§2, 3.
Doctrine of Creation:
(1) Three erroneous views (2) rejected:
The Epicurean (materialistic) as failing to recognize a differentiating Principle.
36
The Platonic (matter pre-existent) as not satisfying the idea of God
37
The Gnostic (dualistic) as contradictory to Scripture
37
(2) The true doctrine (3) and its application to the Creation of Man
37
This directly brings us to a
§§4-10.
First Reason for the Incarnation:
By departing from the Word, men lost the Principle of Life, and were wasting away (4, 5)
38
God could neither avert nor suffer this (6)
39
The latter would argue weakness, the former changeableness (7) on God's part
39
The Word alone could solve this dilemma (7. 4). This done by His becoming man (8) and dying for us all (9). Reasonableness, and results of this (10)
40
§§11-16.
Second Reason for the Incarnation:
In departing from the Word, men had also lost the Principle of Reason, by which they knew God. In spite of God's witness to Himself, they were sunk into superstition and mental degradation (11, 12)
42
How none but the Word could remedy this (13, 14)
43
How He actually did so (15, 16). The Incarnation, a revelation of the Invisible Godhead
44
(§§17, 18 explain this in further detail)
45
§19.
Transition to Second Part:
The Incarnation an irresistible revelation of God. This is especially true of the Death of Christ.
46
SECOND PART.--The Death and Resurrection of Christ.
His Death:
§20.
1.--Why necessary
47
§§21-25.
2.--Why death by Crucifixion--
a.--Why public, and not natural, but at the hands of others (21-23)
47
b.--Why not of His own choosing (24)
49
c.--Why the Cross, of all deaths (25)
49
His rising again:
§26.
1.--Why on the third day
50
§27.
2.--Changed relation of Death to mankind
50
§§28-32.
3.--Reality of His Resurrection--This:
a.--To be tested by Experience (28)
51
b.--Implied by its visible effects (29-31. 3)
51
c.--Involved in the Nature of the Incarnate Word (31. 4)
53
d.--Confirmed by what we see; as is the case with all truth about the unseen God (32. 1-5)
53
Summary of what is thus proved to be true (32. 6)
53
THIRD PART.--Refutation of Contemporary Unbelief.
§§33-40.
A.--Refutation of Jews:
§§33-39.
1.--From principles admitted by them--i.e., from prophecies relating to the Messiah
54
(§39 forms the step to the next section)
57
§40.
2.--From facts: cessation of the Jewish dispensation, as foretold by Daniel
57
§§41-55.
B.--Refutation of Gentiles:
§§41-45.
1.--From principles admitted by them-
§§41, 42.
a.--The Word, whose existence contemporary philosophy allowed, might reasonably be supposed to unite Himself to some particular nature: consequently, to human nature
58
§43.
b.--Reasons for His Union with Man in particular
59
§44.
c.--Reasons why man should not be restored by a mere fiat
60
§45.
d.--Results of the Scheme actually adopted
61
§§46-55.
2.--Refutation of Gentiles from facts--
§§46-50.
a.--Discredit and decay, since the coming of Christ, of philosophic and popular paganism
61
§§51, 52.
b.--Influence of Christian morals on Society
64
§53.
c.--Influence of Christ on the individual
65
§§54, 55.
d.--Nature and glory of Christ's Work: summary of His victory over paganism
65
§§56, 57.
CONCLUSION: the enquirer referred to the Scriptures. Indispensable moral conditions of the investigation of Spiritual Truth
66
[191] The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
On the Incarnation of the Word.
------------------------
§1. Introductory.--The subject of this treatise: the humiliation and incarnation of the Word. Presupposes the doctrine of Creation, and that by the Word. The Father has saved the world by Him through Whom he first made it.
Whereas in what precedes we have drawn out--choosing a few points from among many--a sufficient account of the error of the heathen concerning idols, and of the worship of idols, and how they originally came to be invented; how, namely, out of wickedness men devised for themselves the worshipping of idols: and whereas we have by God's grace noted somewhat also of the divinity of the Word of the Father, and of His universal Providence and power, and that the Good Father through Him orders all things, and all things are moved by Him, and in Him are quickened: come now, Macarius [192] (worthy of that name), and true lover of Christ, let us follow up the faith of our religion [193] , and set forth also what relates to the Word's becoming Man, and to His divine Appearing amongst us, which Jews traduce and Greeks laugh to scorn, but we worship; in order that, all the more for the seeming low estate of the Word, your piety toward Him may be increased and multiplied. 2. For the more He is mocked among the unbelieving, the more witness does He give of His own Godhead; inasmuch as He not only Himself demonstrates as possible what men mistake, thinking impossible, but what men deride as unseemly, this by His own goodness He clothes with seemliness, and what men, in their conceit of wisdom, laugh at as merely human, He by His own power demonstrates to be divine, subduing the pretensions of idols by His supposed humiliation--by the Cross--and those who mock and disbelieve invisibly winning over to recognise His divinity and power. 3. But to treat this subject it is necessary to recall what has been previously said; in order that you may neither fail to know the cause of the bodily appearing of the Word of the Father, so high and so great, nor think it a consequence of His own nature that the Saviour has worn a body; but that being incorporeal by nature, and Word from the beginning, He has yet of the loving-kindness and goodness of His own Father been manifested to us in a human body for our salvation. 4. It is, then, proper for us to begin the treatment of this subject by speaking of the creation of the universe, and of God its Artificer, that so it may be duly perceived that the renewal of creation has been the work of the self-same Word that made it at the beginning. For it will appear not inconsonant for the Father to have wrought its salvation in Him by Whose means He made it.
[192] See Contra Gentes, i. The word (Makarie) may be an adjective only, but its occurrence in both places seems decisive. The name was very common (Apol. c. Ar. passim). Macarius' was a Christian, as the present passage shews: he is presumed (c. Gent. i. 7) to have access to Scripture.
[193] tes eusebeias. See 1 Tim. iii. 16, and note 1 on De Decr. 1.
§2. Erroneous views of Creation rejected. (1) Epicurean (fortuitous generation). But diversity of bodies and parts argues a creating intellect. (2.) Platonists (pre-existent matter.) But this subjects God to human limitations, making Him not a creator but a mechanic. (3) Gnostics (an alien Demiurge). Rejected from Scripture.
Of the making of the universe and the creation of all things many have taken different views, and each man has laid down the law just as he pleased. For some say that all things have come into being of themselves, and in a chance fashion; as, for example, the Epicureans, who tell us in their self-contempt, that universal providence does not exist, speaking right in the face of obvious fact and experience. 2. For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into [194] mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head. Now, such separate arrangement as this tells us not of their having come into being of themselves, but shews that a cause preceded them; from which cause it is possible to apprehend God also as the Maker and Orderer of all.
3. But others, including Plato, who is in such repute among the Greeks, argue that God has made the world out of matter previously existing and without beginning. For God could have made nothing had not the material existed already; just as the wood must exist ready at hand for the carpenter, to enable him to work at all. 4. But in so saying they know not that they are investing God with weakness. For if He is not Himself the cause of the material, but makes things only of previously existing material, He proves to be weak, because unable to produce anything He makes without the material; just as it is without doubt a weakness of the carpenter not to be able to make anything required without his timber. For, ex hypothesi, had not the material existed, God would not have made anything. And how could He in that case be called Maker and Artificer, if He owes His ability to make to some other source--namely, to the material? So that if this be so, God will be on their theory a Mechanic only, and not a Creator out of nothing [195] ; if, that is, He works at existing material, but is not Himself the cause of the material. For He could not in any sense be called Creator unless He is Creator of the material of which the things created have in their turn been made. 5. But the sectaries imagine to themselves a different artificer of all things, other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in deep blindness even as to the words they use. 6. For whereas the Lord says to the Jews [196] : "Have ye not read that from the beginning He which created them made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall become one flesh?" and then, referring to the Creator, says, "What, therefore, God hath joined together let not man put asunder:" how come these men to assert that the creation is independent of the Father? Or if, in the words of John, who says, making no exception, "All things [197] were made by Him," and "without Him was not anything made," how could the artificer be another, distinct from the Father of Christ?