Page images
PDF
EPUB

course.

*

bishops upon this matter, is often prefixed as the first DisIn these Discourses, Athanasius does not follow a definite arrangement; though the first may be described as more soteriological, having respect to the doctrine of redemption; the second, as cosmological, referring to the conception of creation; the third, as Christological, describing the Son as consubstantial with humanity; the fourth, as Trinitarian, insisting that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Yet the arguments, which logically belong together, are dispersed, disjecta membra," and frequently repeated, which creates no slight difficulty in the grouping and arrangement of the materials.

[ocr errors]

Besides the older treatises upon Athanasius, in the works of Hermant, Doctor of the Sorbonne, of the Benedictine Von Montfaucon, and the historian Tillemont, which contain careful investigations upon the chronology and authenticity of his writings, we have the admirable monograph of Möhler, "Athanasius the Great, and the Church of his Times, especially in Contest with the Arians," (Mainz, 1827,) in which "history and doctrine are presented, intermingled, yet so that the teachings which belong together are continuously described, though Athanasius may have expounded them at different periods of his life."+ Möhler here discusses the arguments of Athanasius against the Arians under three divisions: 1. That Arianism is in conflict with the feelings, hopes and views of Christians; 2. The dialectic, speculative and Biblical arguments, putting at the basis the Scriptural declarations about the higher nature of Christ; 3. A refutation of the grounds adduced from Scripture by the Arians for their views. The second and third of these divisions belong together; and they ought to be put before the first, for the Biblical argument gives the true norm, by which to test the "feelings and views of Christians." Baur and Dorner, in their comprehensive works on the Trinity and the Incarnation,

* Photius, in connection with the eulogy of Athanasius, which we have cited, and which is prefixed to a MS. of the works of Athanasius, speaks of "the five Books against Arius, a rout of all heresy, especially the Arian."

See Preface, s. ix. An English translation of this work has been announced.

enter into a full criticism and exposition of the opinions of Athanasius. Baur finds the essence of his system so completely in the idea of the Homousia, that he comparatively neglects the other inquiry, as to the relation of the deity of the Son to the absolute unity of God the Father. He declares the fundamental idea of Athanasius to be this-that the very substance of the Christian faith is lost, when the relation of the Son to the Father is not viewed as involving an identity of essence. His representation of the Athanasian system in relation to Arianism is comprised under three categories: 1. The absolute idea of the Father; 2. The absolute idea of the Son; 3. The absolute contents of Christian consciousness in general. The first and second of these divisions are warranted by a declaration of Athanasius in the tenth Festal Epistle, when he says that the heresy of the Arians were not possible, "if they weighed well what the Father is, and what the Son is;" the position in the third category is essential to an exhibition of the views of Athanasius. Under the first of these heads Baur considers the arguments of Athanasius as to the relation of generation to creation, as to the essence and will of God, as to necessity and freedom in God, and the relation of the Monas to the Trias, concluding with the general relation of the finite to the infinite. Under the second he investigates the idea of creation, that of gradual moral progress and its reward, and then the Logos as Mediator between God and the world; whence is derived the conclusion, that the Son has in himself the absolute idea of his own being. Under the third aspect it is shown, from our general religious consciousness, that the dependence of the finite upon the infinite demands the recognition of an absolute idea, which necessarily precedes whatever is finite; and that, more especially, the Christian consciousness consists in the idea "of the unity between God and man, which has come to mankind" through Christ;" the questions respecting the final redemption of mankind are considered in this connection. In Dorner's treatise, the division made in the principal passage (i. 889-903) is; 1. A Criticism of the Arian and Sabellian Systems; 2. Refutation of their attacks; 3. The Growth of the Church Doctrine. The speculative part of his criticism revolves around the idea of causality in the relation between the Father and the

Son; and he gives an acute and thorough exposition of the want of fundamental religious principles in the Arian system.

Since Arianism has not to do with a dogma of subordinate importance, but with the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church, and hence must have an essential influence upon all other doctrines, upon the whole of theology, it might seem pertinent to describe the conflict of Arianism with the Church, by showing its antagonism to the threefold source of doctrinal theology, viz., Scripture, Christian Consciousness, (experience,) and the Symbols of the Church. But instead of speaking of the Christian consciousness, to avoid all appearance of what is merely subjective, we prefer the phrase, "the necessary inferences from Christian truth." And as to its relation to the Symbols-since the Evangelical Church must take these in a narrower sense than the Catholics, with whom, as e. g. Möhler (i. 110,) they are nearly identical with "tradition"-the Nicene Confession is the only one with which we have here to do; and even Athanasius, in his discourses, conducts his argument without reference to this, though in other writings he expressly refers to it (Cf. De Decretis Synodi Nicaenæ, c. 19 sq.; de Synodis, c. 36; Disputatio contra Arium in Concilio Nicæno habita; Ad Imperatores Constantinum Apologia; De Ariana et Catholica Confessione, etc.) The simplest arrangement of the matter seems to us, then, to be this: Arianism conflicts, I. with the direct declarations of the Holy Scriptures; and II. with the necessary inferences from Christian truth. In both these aspects it is confuted by Athanasius, who, in opposition to it, maintains the doctrine of the Homousia, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which includes two points, 1. The Eternity of the Son; and, 2. His identity of Essence with the Father. The Scriptural proof is passed over by Baur in silence, excepting a single note, (i. 355;) and Dorner says, (i. 894,) that "it would lead too far to carry out this aspect of the discussion." While this may be correct in such treatises, yet it is essential to a monograph to present this side. Athanasius, in his first discourse against the Arians, justifies our division, when he says, that he has a double motive in view; "because the Arians deceive by appeals to Scripture, which they only falsify;" and "because they give out their doctrine,

and would force it into the Church, as genuine Christian truth." To this exhibition of the arguments of Athanasius, we will append, as the second part of this treatise, a critical judgment about the points in controversy.

A. ARIANISM IS IN CONFLICT,

I. WITH THE DIRECT DECLARATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

1. It denies the Eternity of the Son.

This it does in the well-known formula, " There was (a time) when He was not," ('Hv лOTε öte oùx v.) In respect to this phrase Athanasius finds fault at the outset that the word "time" (xpóvos) is wanting; this, he says, is a perfidy upon the credulous, (c. i. 13,) since Arius avoids saying, that there was a "time" before the world, while the sense of his formula is no other than if he had said "zpóros." Arius says: "there was a time when God alone was, and not yet Father; then was God alone, and not yet was the Wisdom and the Logos. As God has not always been Father, but became such, so the Son has not always been, for there was once (a time,) before he came into being (πpiv äv yevvydñ i. 5, 9.)" But Athanasius objects, that John i. 1, is directly opposed to this: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος: with this the Arian thesis is totally irreconcileable; "but which of the two is more worthy of God, which more credible?" Often, however, as Athanasius cites this passage, he does not give a more exact analysis of it, nor of the sense of the phrase, "In the beginning” (èv ȧpzň.) But it results from his opposition to the Arian formula, that he must have taken "beginning" in the sense which Delitzsch assigns, "the very beginning of being itself, lying beyond the beginning of creation, i. e. preëxistence before the created uniIn this sense it antedates by far the "beginning"

verse.

* This citation is from an account of Delitzsch's Exposition in Thomasius, "Christi Porson und Werk," i. 63. In the three clauses of this verse D. finds a threefold antithesis: the Logos, 1, has appeared in time, but was in the beginning; 2, appearing in time, he came into relations with man, but in the beginning, preëxistent, he stood in relation to God; 3, coming into relation with man he became flesh, but, in his original relation to God, he was God.

() in Genesis, i. 1, though some consider them identical.* Athanasius also says that Heb. i. 3, is clearly against the Arian formula, where Christ is called "the brightness of the glory and the express image of the person" of God, (añavyaoμa rūs dožñs xai zapaztýp tỷs vñootȧoεws.) As now, according to the old figure, light cannot be without rays, nor person without character, (essence without form,) so is the Father also never without the Son, who is his eternal Word, his eternal Wisdom, his Brightness and Image. (Cf. ii. c. 32.) Man's word is, indeed, a fleeting breath and sound, the herald of thought, without life or power, without impulse or energy, quickly rising and quickly vanishing; but the Word of God is eternal, personal, not a mere behest of God, but his creating and sustaining energy. Hence Paul, in 1 Cor. i. 24, does not call the Father, but only the Son, "the divine power and the divine wisdom;" the power of God, and the wisdom of God, (où dúvaμis, Oroй copía,) is not identical with God (5,) the genitive is not the nominative, (i. 11.) Hence, too, the Eternal Word is not to be confounded with the manifold words which Jesus spoke; all these together do not make up the Image of God; the Incarnate Word is not composed of these, but is one sole Word, (ii. 40.) Christ is the eternal Wisdom of God, with him from the beginning, his everlasting delight, (Prov. viii. 30.) His kingdom is called an "everlasting kingdom," (Psalm cxlv. 13;) he is the King of Eternity, and hence no point of time is conceivable in which he was not. He also ever says "I am" the Truth, the Light, your Master, etc., and not, I became such, (i. 12.) So, too, the Scripture, to exclude corporeal and material notions, makes express use, to designate the Son, of such terms as "image, word, wisdom;" but who will say that wisdom is a part, or passive? Of man that might be sooner said, but not of God, since he has that wisdom in himself, which men receive only from without, that is, from Him, (i. 28.) How now can God, the living source of all that has come into being through Christ, the Eternal Wisdom, (Ps. civ. 24; John i. 3; 1 Cor. viii. 6.) have ever been without that which is to him essential and peculiar, without the Logos

* Ulrici, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1853, s. 179 sq., identifies the two for the sake of his theory of an Immanent Trinity, in which the eternal, being of the world is already hidden in the Son.

« PreviousContinue »