stones respectively. The Son, accordingly, describes the Father, in John xiv. 28, not as peiтTwv but as μeilwv, because they are not different in their nature or being. There is no affinity between the nature of the Son, on the one hand, and that of angels or creatures, on the other; for the apostle could not have otherwise described the former as God, the creator of the world, and eternal (Heb. i. 8, 10, 11). The contrast here made between the Son and the angels presupposes, not a similarity, but a difference, of nature or being; the sense is: The service of the Son is as much exalted above that of the angels, as the Son differs in rank and character from a servant. For the law, which was ordained by angels, made no one perfect (Gal. iii. 19; Heb. vii. 19), whereas the incarnation of the Son perfected the Father's work. Furthermore, during the time of the law, which was received by the disposition of angels, death reigned, from Adam to Moses (Acts vii. 53; Rom. v. 14), whereas the manifestation of the Logos abolished death (2 Tim. i. 10). At an earlier period God was known in Judea alone, but now the whole earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord; the disciples have taught all nations, and the words are fulfilled: "They shall be all taught of God” (John vi. 45). So, too, in other passages of the epistle (Heb. vii. 22; viii. 6; vii. 19; ix. 23), the apostle refers to the exalted character of the office of Christ as compared with that of the angels, as well as to their essential difference, and again employs the term KрEITTWV. Thus this term is applied, throughout the whole epistle, to the Lord, for the reason that he is different from all creatures (c. Ar. 1. 55–59).

The Arians also adduced Heb. vii. 22 (KаTà TOσOÛTOV KρEITτονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος Ιησούς), as they claimed that the conception of Christ as a creature lay in the expression yéyove. Here, too (Athanasius replies), the word does not, in the most remote degree, refer to the ovcía of the Son, but to his incarnation and to his redeeming work, in view of which latter he was made [became] flesh; inasmuch as that which, according to Rom. viii. 3, the law of the old covenant

could not do, was performed by him, when he redeemed us from sin and death by his vicarious sufferings, and enabled us to walk in the Spirit (c. Ar. 1. 60). Even as we cannot assert of the Father that he had begun to be in time, in respect to his nature or being, when we read in Ps. ix. 10 (Sept.): ἐγένετο κύριος καταφυγὴ τῷ πένητι, or elsewhere meet with analogous expressions; so, too, expressions like the one just described in Heb. vii. 22, cannot be referred to the nature, being, or essence of the Son, but are to be explained in reference to that salvation which he wrought out for man (1. c. 62, 63).

No passage of the New Testament was, however, more frequently quoted by the Arians than Phil. ii. 5-11. The controversy, as far as this passage is concerned, was conducted by Athanasius, c. Ar. 1. 37-45. The Arians, he says, attempt to prove from Phil. ii. 9, 10 and Ps. xlv. 8 [Sept.; vs. 7 in the Eng. trans.], that the Lord was exalted as a reward of his virtue, and that in view of this exaltation he was called the Son of God and God. But if this be true, the Son would not be the Son in any other sense than that wherein others are such; he would be the Son, not by nature but by grace; he would continue to be the Son only so long as his moral deportment did not exhibit any change (1. c. 37). He would, moreover, be the Son of God only since the time of his incarnation, and of the obedience which, after that event, he rendered to God, for such is the source or ground of his exaltation, according to Phil. ii. 7, 8, 10. But then, what was he previously to his incarnation? somewhat else than the Son, or he did not yet at all exist. Now the latter is precisely the heresy of the Jews and the Samosatenians [adherents of the doctrine of Paul of Samosata], and, consequently, the Arians should, like the Jews, submit to circumcision, and resign the name of Christians. If Christ did not exist before his incarnation, or in consequence of that event acquired a higher character, how could all things have been made through him, or how could the

Either he was

.....

Father have been well pleased in him who had yet no complete existence? Or how could he himself have spoken of a glory which he had with the Father before the world was (John xvii. 5)? Accordingly, he was not a man, who, as such, afterwards became God; but he was God, and afterwards became also man. Athanasius next proceeds to interpret the passage itself, in order to demonstrate still inore clearly the unchangeable divine nature of the Son. The apostle, he says, thus addressed the Philippians: Toûto Opoveíodw év vμîv ô kaì èv Xplotê 'Inooû, ôs év μoppî Deoû ὑπάρχων . . . . . εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. What can be plainer than these words? He did not, as an inferior, become greater in rank or character, but rather, while he was God, he took upon him the form of a servant, and thereby he did not become more perfect, but rather "humbled himself." Where is there, at this point, any mention made of a reward of virtue, or of any progress, improvement, or aggrandizement in this state of humiliation? As God, he could not possibly be exalted. If God is the Most High, his Logos must be the same. He who is in the Father, and is in all things like unto the Father, can need neither any increment nor any exaltation. Why should he humble himself in order to receive that which he already possessed? What grace can he need who liberally communicates his grace to others? How could he receive an adorable name who had always been adored in his own name? Even before his incarnation the angels worshipped him (Heb. i. 6). In the beginning the Logos was, and the Logos was with God, and God was the Logos; but afterwards, for our sakes, the Logos was made flesh. Hence the term iπepúчwσe does not imply that the nature of the Logos had been exalted, for he always was and is equal to God; this exaltation, therefore, refers only to his human nature. Hence the exaltation denotes, not the period preceding, but the period succeeding, his incarnation. A state of exaltation can follow only a state of humiliation; and if the assumption of our flesh gives occasion to the mention of an exaltation, the

latter also can refer to the flesh or human nature of Christ alone. It was man who needed an exaltation. Now as the Logos assumed the form of a servant, and suffered death for our sakes, in order that he might thereby bring us to God, it is said in reference to these events, that he was exalted for our sakes as a man; so that as we, through his death, die in him, we might also be exalted in him, even as through him we arise from the dead, and enter into heaven, whither he has gone as our forerunner (Heb. vi. 20). When he says in John xvii. 19 that he sanctifies himself, the sense is, not that the Logos is to become holy, but that we also might be sanctified in him; so, too, the phrase: "God hath exalted him," does not imply that the Logos himself shall be exalted, but that we shall be exalted, and enter into the gates of heaven, which had been closed, not to him, but to us (c. Ar. 1. 40, 41). All that is said in vs. 9-11 respecting his name and worship, is to be taken in the same sense; it was not written for the sake of the Logos, who had been adored long before he became man. When he subsequently assumed our nature and received the name of Jesus, the whole creation still lay at his feet, and testified, in devout adoration, that the incarnation of the Logos and the death which he suffered in the flesh tended, not to the dishonor of his deity, but to the glory of God the Father. Hence the terms ὑπερύψωσεν and ἐχαρίσατο point to benefits which we receive. The former term may also be viewed as referring specially to his resurrection from the dead, in which case it would involve the following sense: He became man, and humbled himself even unto death; therefore God also exalted him through the resurrection. Even in this sense the word do would not point to any reward of his virtue, but indicate the cause of his resurrection, namely the circumstance that he, although God, had become man. All other human beings die, because their descent is from Adam alone, and death rules over them; but he was "the second man, the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. xv. 47), and he could not, in the words of Peter, "be holden of death" (Acts ii. 24 VOL. XXI. No. 81.

4

1. c. 44). If the Logos is represented as the subject of the exaltation, while in reality the latter concerned his human nature alone, the cause lies in the fact that his body, or human nature, which was immediately the subject of the exaltation, was not separate from his divine nature. While, however, in view of this fact, the Logos is said to have been . exalted, it was the Logos himself who was the author of that exaltation, since all that the Father does and grants, he does and grants through the Son. Accordingly, the Son is both he who exalts, in respect to his divine nature, and also he who is exalted, in respect to his human nature (l. c. 45). "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever" (Heb. xiii. 18), who is eternally unchangeable, is the same who gives as the Logos, and receives as a man (1. c. 48).

While the Arians adduced these passages for the purpose of showing that the origin of the Son was that of a creature, they resorted to another series in order to prove that the nature and character of the Son were confined within certain limits, and were capable of further development, thus implying that he was a creature. How can he be the Son of God by nature, they asked, and be like God in his essence or being, who declares himself that the "power" (Matt. xxviii. 18)," the judgment" (John v. 22), and, indeed, “all things" (John iii. 35; Matt. xi. 27), had been given to him by the Father? If he were the Son of God by nature, it could not have been necessary that he should first receive all things. How can he be the true power of God by nature, who, in the period of his sufferings, said: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. If it be possible, let this cup pass from me"? If he were the power of God, he would not have feared, but rather have endowed others with strength. If, further, he were the true wisdom of the Father, how could it be said of him: "Jesus increased in wisdom" (Luke ii. 52)? When he came to Bethany, he inquired where Lazarus lay (John xi. 34), and, at another time, he asked his disciples how many loaves of bread they had. How can he