341 Job i. 2.

342 Gen. xxi. 5.

343 Cf. Deut. xxi. 15.

344 These tenets and similar ones were common to many branches of the Gnostics, who paid worship to the Angels, or ascribed to them the creation; the doctrine of their consubstantiality with our Lord arose from their belief in emanation. S. Athanasius here uses the word omogenhj, not omoousioj which was usual with them (vid Bull. D. F. N. ii. 1, §2) as witth the Manichees after them, Beausobre, Manich. iii. 8.

345 Ps. lxxxix. 7.

346 Ib. Ps. lxxxvi. 8.

347 Orat. ii. §20.

348 Heb. i. 10.

349 De Syn. 45, note 9.

350 Heb. i. 7.

351 §29, note 10.

352 De Decr. 19, note 3.

353 Here again is a remarkable avoidance of the word omoousion. He says that the Son is eterogenhj kai eteroousioj twn genhtwn, kai thj tou patroj ousiaj idioj kai omofuhj. vid. §§20, 21, notes.

354 John xiv. 28.

355 Athan. otherwise explains this text, Incarn. contr. Arian. 4. if it be his. This text is thus taken by Basil. contr. Eun. iv. p. 289. Naz. Orat. 30. 7, &c. &c.

356 §§60. 62. 64. ii. §18.

357 He also applies this text to our Lord's economy and ministry de Sent. D. 11. in Apoll. ii. 15.

358 Heb. ii. 1-3.

359 Part of this chapter, as for instance (7) (8) is much more finished in point of style than the general course of his Orations. It may be indeed only the natural consequence of his warming with his subject, but this beautiful passage looks very much like an insertion. Some words of it are found in Sent. D. 11. written few years sooner [cf. supr. 33, note 2.]

360 Heb. vii. 19

361 Rom. v. 14.

362 2 Tim. i. 10.

363 1 Cor. xv. 22.

364 Is. xi. 9; vid. Ps. lxxvi. 1, and Ps. xix. 4.

365 Matt. xxviii. 19.

366 John vi. 45; Is. liv. 13.

367 Heb. vii. 22; Heb. viii 6; Heb. vii. 19; Heb. ix. 23.

368 John i. 14.

369 §45, note.

370 Rom. viii. 3.

371 John iii. 17.

372 Vid. Incarn. passim. Theod. Eranist. iii. pp. 196-198, &c. &c. It was the tendency of all the heresies concerning the Person of Christ to explain away or deny the Atonement. The Arians, after the Platonists, insisted on the pre-existing Priesthood, as if the incarnation and crucifixion were not of its essence. The Apollinarians resolved the Incarnation into a manifestation, Theod. Eran. i. The Nestorians denied the Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. And the Eutychians, Leont. Ep. 28, 5.

373 John i. 17.

374 De Syn. 45, note 1.

375 Cf. August. de Fid. et Symb. 14. Does this passage of Athan.'s shew that the Anthropomorphites were stirring in Egypt already?

376 decion

377 John xvi. 15.

378 Ps. xvi. 8.

379 Heb. i. 6.

380 Vid. John xvii. 3; Mark x. 45.

381 John xiv. 10, John xiv. 9.

382 Of His divine nature: (4) (8).

383 Of His human nature, and (10).

384 Ps. xxx 3.

385 Ib. Ps. ix. 9.

386 Matt. xi. 28.

387 Is. lviii. 9.

388 John i. 14.

389 Waterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop Bull's; vol. i. p. 114. Bull's language, on the other hand, is very strong: 'Saepe olim, ut verum ingenue fateai, animum meum subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, Filius priusqnam nasceretur, non erat, sibi voluerint Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatissima Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat: ...Itaque de nativitate Filii loquuntur, quae hujus universi creationem antecessit. Quis vero, inquam, sensus dicti hujus "Filius non erat, sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante conditum mundum?" Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententiae, qui docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplicabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum universa, &c. D. F. N. iii. 9. §2.