[434] monoousion kai ouch homoousion (see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b sub fin.). The distinction cannot (to those accustomed to use the Nicene' Creed in English) be rendered so as to imply a real difference. The real distinction lies, not in the prefixes mono- and homo-, but in the sense to be attached to the ambiguous term ousia
[435] Heb. For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall encompass a man.' Cf.Orat. ii. 46, note 5.
[436] The same phrase also in Serm. M. de Fid. 18.
[437] kuriakos anthropos, see above.
[438] egennethe (1 Cor. i. 30, egenethe). The two words are constantly confused in mss., and I suspect that egenethe, which (pace Swainson p. 78, note) the context really requires, was what Ath. wrote.
[439] See also de Sent. Dionys. 17.
Introduction to In Illud Omnia,' Etc.
------------------------
This memorandum or short article was written, as its first sentence shews, during the lifetime of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and therefore not later than the summer of a.d. 342. The somewhat abrupt beginning, and the absence of any exposition of the latter portion of the text, have led to the inference that the work is a fragment: but its conclusion is evidently perfect, and the opening words probably refer to the text itself. The tract is a reply to the Arian argument founded upon Luke x. 22 (Matt. xi. 27). If all things' had been delivered to the Son by the Father, it would follow that once He was without them. Now all things' include His Divine Sonship. Therefore there was a time when the Son was not. Athanasius meets this argument by totally denying the minor premise. By all things,' he argues, Christ referred to His mediatorial work and its glories, not to His essential nature as Word of God. He then adduces Joh. xvi. 15, to shew at once the Son's distinctness from the Father, and that the Father's attributes must also be those of the Son.
The interpretation of the main text given in this tract was not subsequently maintained by Athanasius: in Orat. iii. 35, he explains it of the Son, as safeguarding His separate personality against the Sabellians. It should, however, be noted that this change of ground does not involve any concession to the Arian use of the passage: it merely transfers the denial of Athanasius from their minor to their major premise.
Beyond the fact that the tract was written before 342 there is no conclusive evidence as to its date. But it is generally placed (Montfaucon, Ceillier, Alzog) before the Encyclical,' which was written in 339, and in several particulars it differs from the later anti-Arian treatises: perhaps then we may conjecturally place it about 335, i.e. before the first exile of the Pope.'
On Luke X. 22 (Matt. XI. 27).
------------------------
§1. This text refers not to the eternal Word but to the Incarnate.
"All things were delivered to Me by My Father. And none knoweth Who the Son is, save the Father; and Who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him."
And from not perceiving this they of the sect of Arius, Eusebius and his fellows, indulge impiety against the Lord. For they say, if all things were delivered (meaning by all' the Lordship of Creation), there was once a time when He had them not. But if He had them not, He is not of the Father, for if He were, He would on that account have had them always, and would not have required to receive them. But this point will furnish all the clearer an exposure of their folly. For the expression in question does not refer to the Lordship over Creation, nor to presiding over the works of God, but is meant to reveal in part the intention of the Incarnation (tes oikonomias). For if when He was speaking they were delivered' to Him, clearly before He received them, creation was void of the Word. What then becomes of the text "in Him all things consist" (Col. i. 17)? But if simultaneously with the origin of the Creation it was all delivered' to Him, such delivery were superfluous, for all things were made by Him' (Joh. i. 3), and it would be unnecessary for those things of which the Lord Himself was the artificer to be delivered over to Him. For in making them He was Lord of the things which were being originated. But even supposing they were delivered' to Him after they were originated, see the monstrosity. For if they were delivered,' and upon His receiving them the Father retired, then we are in peril of falling into the fabulous tales which some tell, that He gave over [His works] to the Son, and Himself departed. Or if, while the Son has them, the Father has them also, we ought to say, not were delivered,' but that He took Him as partner, as Paul did Silvanus. But this is even more monstrous; for God is not imperfect [440] , nor did He summon the Son to help Him in His need; but, being Father of the Word, He makes all things by His means, and without delivering creation over to Him, by His means and in Him exercises Providence over it, so that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father (Matt. x. 29), nor is the grass clothed without God (ib. vi. 30), but at once the Father worketh, and the Son worketh hitherto (cf. Joh. v. 17). Vain, therefore, is the opinion of the impious. For the expression is not what they think, but designates the Incarnation.
[440] See Orat. ii. §24, 25, De Decr. §8, and Harnack, Dogmgesch. (ed. 2) vol. 2. p. 208, note.
§2. Sense in which, and end for which all things were delivered to the Incarnate Son.
For whereas man sinned, and is fallen, and by his fall all things are in confusion: death prevailed from Adam to Moses (cf. Rom. v. 14), the earth was cursed, Hades was opened, Paradise shut, Heaven offended, man, lastly, corrupted and brutalised (cf. Ps. xlix. 12), while the devil was exulting against us;--then God, in His loving-kindness, not willing man made in His own image to perish, said, Whom shall I send, and who will go?' (Isa. vi. 8). But while all held their peace, the Son [441] said, Here am I, send Me.' And then it was that, saying Go Thou,' He delivered' to Him man, that the Word Himself might be made Flesh, and by taking the Flesh, restore it wholly. For to Him, as to a physician, man was delivered' to heal the bite of the serpent; as to life, to raise what was dead; as to light, to illumine the darkness; and, because He was Word, to renew the rational nature (to logikon). Since then all things were delivered' to Him, and He is made Man, straightway all things were set right and perfected. Earth receives blessing instead of a curse, Paradise was opened to the robber, Hades cowered, the tombs were opened and the dead raised, the gates of Heaven were lifted up to await Him that cometh from Edom' (Ps. xxiv. 7, Isa. lxiii. 1). Why, the Saviour Himself expressly signifies in what sense all things were delivered' to Him, when He continues, as Matthew tells us: Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest' (Matt. xi. 28). Yes, ye were delivered' to Me to give rest to those who had laboured, and life to the dead. And what is written in John's Gospel harmonises with this: The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand' (Joh. iii. 35). Given, in order that, just as all things were made by Him, so in Him all things might be renewed. For they were not delivered' unto Him, that being poor, He might be made rich, nor did He receive all things that He might receive power which before He lacked: far be the thought: but in order that as Saviour He might rather set all things right. For it was fitting that while through Him' all things came into being at the beginning, in Him' (note the change of phrase) all things should be set right (cf. Joh. i. 3, Eph. i. 10). For at the beginning they came into being through' Him; but afterwards, all having fallen, the Word has been made Flesh, and put it on, in order that in Him' all should be set right. Suffering Himself, He gave us rest, hungering Himself, He nourished us, and going down into Hades He brought us back thence. For example, at the time of the creation of all things, their creation consisted in a fiat, such as let [the earth] bring forth,' let there be' (Gen. i. 3, 11), but at the restoration it was fitting that all things should be delivered' to Him, in order that He might be made man, and all things be renewed in Him. For man, being in Him, was quickened: for this was why the Word was united to man, namely, that against man the curse might no longer prevail. This is the reason why they record the request made on behalf of mankind in the seventy-first Psalm: Give the King Thy judgment, O God' (Ps. lxxii. 1): asking that both the judgment of death which hung over us may be delivered to the Son, and that He may then, by dying for us, abolish it for us in Himself. This was what He signified, saying Himself, in the eighty-seventh Psalm: Thine indignation lieth hard upon me' (Ps. lxxxviii. 7). For He bore the indignation which lay upon us, as also He says in the hundred and thirty-seventh: Lord, Thou shalt do vengeance for me' (Ps. cxxxviii. 8, LXX.).
[441] This dramatic representation of the Mission of the Son stands alone in the writings of Athanasius, and, if pressed, lends itself to a conception of the relation of the Son to the Father which, if not Arian, is at least contrary to the more explicit and mature conception of Athanasius as formulated for example in Orat. ii. 31 (and see note 7 there). The same idea appears in Milton's Paradise Lost (e.g. Book X.). See Newman, Arians 4, p. 93, note.
§3. By all things' is meant the redemptive attributes and power of Christ.
Thus, then, we may understand all things to have been delivered to the Saviour, and, if it be necessary to follow up understanding by explanation, that hath been delivered unto Him which He did not previously possess. For He was not man previously, but became man for the sake of saving man. And the Word was not in the beginning flesh, but has been made flesh subsequently (cf. Joh. i. 1 sqq.), in which Flesh, as the Apostle says, He reconciled the enmity which was against us (Col. i. 20, ii. 14, Eph. ii. 15, 16) and destroyed the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might make the two into one new man, making peace, and reconcile both in one body to the Father. That, however, which the Father has, belongs also to the Son, as also He says in John, All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine' (Joh. xvi. 15), expressions which could not be improved. For when He became that which He was not, all things were delivered' to Him. But when He desires to declare His unity with the Father, He teaches it without any reserve, saying: All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.' And one cannot but admire the exactness of the language. For He has not said all things whatsoever the Father hath, He hath given to Me,' lest He should appear at one time not to have possessed these things; but are Mine.' For these things, being in the Father's power, are equally in that of the Son. But we must in turn examine what things the Father hath.' For if Creation is meant, the Father had nothing before creation, and proves to have received something additional from Creation; but far be it to think this. For just as He exists before creation, so before creation also He has what He has, which we also believe to belong to the Son (Joh. xvi. 15). For if the Son is in the Father, then all things that the Father has belong to the Son. So this expression is subversive of the perversity of the heterodox in saying that if all things have been delivered to the Son, then the Father has ceased to have power over what is delivered, having appointed the Son in His place. For, in fact, the Father judgeth none, but hath given all judgment to the Son' (Joh. v. 22). But let the mouth of them that speak wickedness be stopped' (Ps. lxiii. 11), (for although He has given all judgment to the Son, He is not, therefore, stripped of lordship: nor, because it is said that all things are delivered by the Father to the Son, is He any the less over all), separating as they clearly do the Only-begotten from God, Who is by nature inseparable from Him, even though in their madness they separate Him by their words, not perceiving, the impious men, that the Light can never be separated from the sun, in which it resides by nature. For one must use a poor simile drawn from tangible and familiar objects to put our idea into words, since it is over bold to intrude upon the incomprehensible nature [of God].