Oration I Against the Arians

Contents

Reading pages: 1–11 · 12–20 · 21–31 · 32–41 · 42–51 · 52–61 · 62–64

1. 1Athanasius explains that he writes, at his readers' request, to expose the Arian heresy, which disguises itself in the words of Scripture.
2. 2Athanasius argues that the Arians, named after Arius as the Manichaeans are named after Mani, cannot be counted as Christians.
3. 3Athanasius shows from the history of heresies that sects take the name of their founders, while the church keeps the name of Christ.
4. 4Athanasius mocks Arius's “Thalia” as a drinking-song style poem and compares Arius's use of Scripture to the Pharisees' pretended piety.
5. 5Athanasius quotes the opening of Arius's “Thalia” and its main claims: the Son was not always, came to be from nothing, and is changeable by nature.
6. 6Athanasius continues quoting Arius: the Word is not true God, does not know the Father or his own substance, and is unlike the Father and the Spirit.
7. 7Athanasius says that Arius's blasphemies should horrify all, recalls his condemnation at Nicaea, and proposes to question those who think the heresy harmless.
8. 8Athanasius argues that quoting Scripture does not make Arius orthodox, since the devil too uses Scripture, and that his teaching is new and not from the fathers.
9. 9Athanasius sets the church's confession of the Son, true God of one substance with the Father, beside the claims of the “Thalia” and asks which is fitting for God.
10. 10Athanasius contrasts the Scriptural confession with the Arian “Thalia,” says the Arians hide their views behind imperial patronage, and traces the heresy to the devil.
11. 11Athanasius attacks the Arian claim “there was once when the Son was not,” showing that it implies a time before the Word, and argues from Scripture that the Son is eternal, the “eternal power” of Rom 1:20.
12. 12Athanasius argues from creation and from many texts (Isaiah, Baruch, Hebrews, the Psalms, the “I am” sayings) that the Son is eternal, as radiance is never without light.
13. 13Athanasius shows that Scripture uses “before” and “when” of creatures, but “always” of the Son, so that the Arian phrases imply a time before the Word, through whom time itself was made.
14. 14Athanasius answers the objection that an eternal Son would be the Father's brother: the Son is begotten from the Father, and God's offspring is eternal because God's nature is always complete.
15. 15Athanasius argues that if the Son were Son only by participation, he would have to participate in something between himself and the Father, which is absurd.
16. 16Athanasius concludes that the Son is not a participant in God but is himself what is participated from the Father's substance, begotten without passion or division.
17. 17Athanasius argues that if the Son was once not, the Trinity was not eternal but grew by addition, and could as well be diminished.
18. 18Athanasius affirms one eternal Godhead in the Trinity, which neither grows nor lessens, and says an originated triad is a pagan idea.
19. 19Athanasius argues that God is an eternal fountain of wisdom and life, so that his Wisdom and Word, the Son, must be eternal and cannot be counted among the things made through him.
20. 20Athanasius argues that the Son, as image, radiance, and truth of the Father, must exist whenever the Father exists, since the Father always delights in his image.
21. 21Athanasius answers the Arian argument that a true image of the Father would have to beget a son in turn: in God alone the Father is always Father and the Son always Son.
22. 22Athanasius shows that the Son remains always Son, as the Father is always Father, and then reports the catch-questions the Arians put to boys and women.
23. 23Athanasius replies that God begets as God, not as humans do, just as he creates and exists as God, and that human fatherhood is named from his.
24. 24Athanasius shows that the Arian question “Did he who is make one who was not?” is confused, and restates it properly about God and his Word.
25. 25Athanasius turns the Arian question back on them, answering that God and his Word both eternally are, and that the one sense in which the Son was “made” is his becoming man.
26. 26Athanasius rejects the idea of the Son as God's instrument and turns the Arians' question to mothers against them: a child is from the parent's own substance, and only human nature makes it later in time.
27. 27Athanasius concludes that since nothing hinders God as nature hinders human parents, the Son, who is from the Father by nature, always coexists with him.
28. 28Athanasius explains that God begets without passion or division, as the titles Word, Wisdom, and radiance show, and that he is always Father.
29. 29Athanasius answers that God's being always a maker does not make creatures eternal, since a work depends on will but the Son belongs to the Father's substance.
30. 30Athanasius exposes the Arian question “Is the unoriginate one or two?” as a trap and sets out the different meanings of “unoriginate.”
31. 31Athanasius shows that in any of its senses the word “unoriginate” gives the Arians no ground for making the Son originated.
32. 32Athanasius shows that Asterius himself spoke of an unoriginate wisdom coexisting with God, and says the Arians use “unoriginate” to smuggle in their old slogans.
33. 33Athanasius argues that “unoriginate,” like “Almighty,” names God in relation to creatures, whereas “Father” names him in relation to the Son and is the better title.
34. 34Athanasius argues that “Father,” given by Christ in the Lord's Prayer and the baptismal formula, is a truer name of God than the unscriptural “unoriginate.”
35. 35Athanasius rejects the Arian claim that the Word is changeable by free choice, arguing that a changeable Son could not be the image of the unchangeable Father.
36. 36Athanasius argues from Heb 13:8, Ps 102, and Malachi that the Son, as the Father's image, is unchangeable, unlike created things.
37. 37Athanasius introduces the Arian use of Phil 2:9–10 and Ps 45:7, which they take to show that Christ was rewarded for his choice and is therefore changeable.
38. 38Athanasius argues that if Christ became Son and was exalted only as man, he would have been improved by the flesh, contrary to Scripture's witness to his glory and worship before the incarnation.
39. 39Athanasius concludes that the Son was God and became man to deify us, and that all who are called sons and gods are so through him.
40. 40Athanasius quotes Phil 2:5–11 in full and argues that the Son, being God, humbled himself and did not need to be exalted, since he was worshipped before the incarnation.
41. 41Athanasius explains that the exaltation of Phil 2:9 belongs to Christ's humanity and is for our sake, so that we may be raised and exalted in him.
42. 42Athanasius explains that Christ “received” the name as man, so that the grace given might pass to us and we might be brought, in him, into the heavenly realms.
43. 43Athanasius says the cross, thought foolish, has brought resurrection and the worship of the true God to all nations, and that the “therefore” of Phil 2:9 names the cause of our exaltation, not a reward to Christ.
44. 44Athanasius offers a second reading of Phil 2:9: the exaltation is the resurrection, which happened because the one who died was God in a body.
45. 45Athanasius explains that the Word is said to be exalted and to receive grace because the body that was raised and exalted was his own; as Word he gives what, as man, he receives.
46. 46Athanasius turns to Ps 45:6–7 and argues that the Son is anointed with the Spirit as man, for our sake, since he is himself the giver of the Spirit.
47. 47Athanasius explains that Christ's anointing with the Spirit at the Jordan was for us, so that in him we too are washed, anointed, and sealed; the Word himself gives the Spirit.
48. 48Athanasius concludes that Christ gives as the Word and receives as man, so that what he receives, including his anointing and baptism, is for us.
49. 49Athanasius explains that the “therefore” of Ps 45:7 means that the Son was anointed because he is God and King, since only the Father's image could join humanity to the Spirit.
50. 50Athanasius compares the anointing with Christ's saying that he casts out demons by the Spirit: both are said of him as man, so that we might receive the Spirit through his flesh.
51. 51Athanasius argues that “You have loved righteousness” shows the Son's unchangeableness: as second Adam he could not fall, and so he frees changeable human flesh from sin.
52. 52Athanasius shows that Scripture says the same of the Father, that he loves righteousness and hates iniquity, so the words imply no changeableness in the Son.
53. 53Athanasius introduces the texts the Arians use to call the Word a creature (Prov 8:22; Heb 1:4; 3:1–2; Acts 2:36) and insists they be read of the incarnation.
54. 54Athanasius lays down a rule of interpretation: to read Scripture rightly one must consider the time, the person, and the matter, and heresies arise from neglecting them.
55. 55Athanasius reads Heb 1:1–4 as referring to the time of the incarnation and argues that “better” marks a difference of nature between the Son and the angels, not a comparison within one kind.
56. 56Athanasius argues that “having become” in Heb 1:4 is joined to “better” and to the title Son, so it does not make the Son originated, and that making him of the angels' kind repeats Gnostic teaching.
57. 57Athanasius argues that “better” is used between things of different kinds, and that Hebrews sets the Son, the maker of all, apart from the angels in nature.
58. 58Athanasius contrasts what Hebrews says of creatures (made, perishing) with what it says of the Son (eternal, reigning, creator), and explains “the Father is greater than I” as referring to the Son's begetting.
59. 59Athanasius explains that Hebrews calls the Son “better” because the grace and covenant brought by him differ in kind from the ministry of angels and the law, as he differs in nature from creatures.
60. 60Athanasius explains that Christ “became guarantor” of a better covenant as man, bearing the judgment in his body and freeing the flesh from sin.
61. 61Athanasius argues that the Son's sitting at the Father's right hand shows that he shares the Father's Godhead and kingdom, unlike the angels who minister.
62. 62Athanasius shows that “having become” refers to the Son's ministry as man, and points out that Scripture also says of God “become for me a refuge,” without implying that God came into being.
63. 63Athanasius explains that when Scripture says God “became” a refuge, it means his help to people in need, not that he came into being, as human usage also shows.
64. 64Athanasius concludes the first oration: every “became” said of the Son refers to what he became for us in the incarnation, not to any origin of his substance.