424 peribombousi. De Decr. 14, n. 1; also de Fug. 2, 6. Naz. Orat. 27, 2. c.
425 S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as `Son of God according to the will (qelhma) and power of God.' ad Smyrn. 1. S. Justin as `God and Son according to His will, boulhn.' Tryph. 127, and `begotten from the Father at His will, qelhsei.' ibid. 61. and he says, dunamei kai boulh autou. ibid. 128. S. Clement `issuing from the Father's will itself quicker than light.' Gent. 10 fin. S. Hippolytus, `Whom God the Father, willing, boulhqeij, begat as He willed, wj hqelhsen. contr. Noet. 16. Origen, ek qelhmatoj. ap. Justin. ad. Menn. vid. also cure filius charitatis etiam voluntatis. Periarch. iv. 28.
426 dianoiaj interpretation, §26, n. 9.
427 Cf. Ep. Aeg. 8. and supr. ii. 3. Also Letter 54 fin. Vid. supr. de Decr. 10, n. 3. And vid. Leont. contr. Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581. Canis.) He here seems alluding to the Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the earlier Fathers.
428 Tatian had said qelhmati prophda o logoj. Gent. 5. Tertullian had said, `Ut primum voluit Deus ea edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem. adv. Prax. 6. Novatian, Ex quo, quando ipse voluit, Sermo filius natus est. de Trin. 31. And Constit. Apost. ton pro aiwnwn eudokia tou patroj gennhqenta. vii. 41. Pseudo-Clem. Genuit Deus voluntate praecedente. Recognit. iii. 10. Eusebius, kata gnwmhn kai proairesin boulhqeij o qeoj: ek thj tou patroj boulhj kai dunamewj. Dem. iv. 3. Arius, qelhmati kai boulh upesth. ap. Theod. H.E. i. 4. p. 750. vid. also de Syn. 16.
429 Prov. xii. 5, Prov. xii. 6. LXX.
432 And so supr. de Decr. 18, `by what Saint have they been taught "at will?"' That is, no one ever taught it in the sense in which they explained it; that he has just said, `He who says "at will" has the same meaning as he who says "Once He was not."' Cf. below §§61, 64, 66. Certainly as the earlier Fathers had used the phrase, so those who came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the passage in contr. Eun. vii. referred to in the next note. And Hilar. Syn. 37. The same father says, unitate Patris et virtute. Psalm xci. 8. and ut voluit, ut potuit, ut scit qui genuit. Trin. iii. 4. And he addresses Him as non invidum bonorum tuorum in Unigeniti tui nativitate. ibid. vi. 21. S. Basil too speaks of our Lord as autozwhn kai autoagaqon, `from the quickening Fountain, the Father's goodness, agaqothtoj.' contr. Eun. ii. 25. And Caesarius calls Him agaphn patroj. Quoest. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr. adv. Scrut. R. vi. 1. Oxf. Tra. and note there. Maximus Taurin. says, that God is per omnipotentiam Pater. Hom. de trad. Symb. p. 270. ed. 1784, vid. also Chrysol. Serm. 61. Ambros. de Fid. iv. 8. Petavius refers in addition to such passages as one just quoted from S. Hilary, which speak of God as not invidus, so as not to communicate Himself, since He was able. Si non potuit, infirmus; si non voluit, invidus. August. contr. Maxim. iii. 7.
433 Matt. iii. 17; Ps. xlv. 1; John i. 1; Ps. xxxvi. 9; Heb. i. 3; Phil. ii. 26; Col. i. 15.
434 prohgoumenhn and 61 fin. The antecedens voluntas has been mentioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. note 11. For Ptolemy vid. Epiph. Hoer. p. 215. The Catholics, who allowed that our Lord was qelhsei, explained it as a sundromoj qelhsij, and not a prohgoumenh; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 56. And with the same meaning S. Ambrose, nec voluntas ante Filium nec potestas. de Fid. v. 224. And S. Gregory Nyssen, `His immediate union, amesoj ounafeia, does not exclude the Father's will, boulhsin, nor does that will separate the Son from the Father.' contr. Eunom. vii. p. 206, 7. vid. the whole passage. The alternative which these words, sundromoj and prohgoumenh, expressed was this; whether an act of Divine Purpose or Will took place before the Generation of the Son, or whether both the Will and the Generation were eternal, as the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence Bull says, with the view of exculpating Novatian, Cum Filius dicitur ex Patre, quando ipse voluit, nasci. Velle illud Patris aeternum fuisse intelligendum. Defens. F. N. iii. 8. §8.
435 proballein, de Syn. 16, n. 8.
436 epigegone, Or. i. 25, 28 fin. iii 6.
437 Ps. cxv. 3; Ps. cxi. 2. LXX.; Ps. cxxxv. 6.
446 Thus he makes the question a nugatory one, as if it did not go to the point, and could not be answered, or might be answered either way, as the case might be. Really Nature and Will go together in the Divine Being, but in order, as we regard Him, Nature is first, Will second, and the generation belongs to Nature, not to Will. And so supr. Or. i. 29; ii. 2. In like manner S. Epiphanius, Haeg. 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. iv. 4. vid. others, as collected in Petav. Trin. vi. 8. §14-16.
447 Two distinct meanings may be attached to `by will' (as Dr. Clark observes, Script. Doct. p. 142. ed. 1738), either a concurrence or acquiescence, or a positive act. S Cyril uses it in the former sense, when he calls it sundromoj, as quoted §60, n. 1; and when he says (with Athan. infr.) that `the Father wills His own subsistence, qelhghj esti, but is not what He is from any will, ek boulhsewj,' Thes. p. 56; Dr. Clark would understand it in the latter sense, with a view of inferring that the Son was subsequent to a Divine act, i.e. not eternal; but what Athan. says leads to the conclusion, that it does not matter which sense is taken. He does not meet the Arian objection, `if not by will therefore by necessity,' by speaking of a concomitant will, or merely saying that the Almighty exists or is good, by will, with S. Cyril, but he says that `nature transcends will and necessity also.' Accordingly, Petavius is even willing to allow that the ek boulhj is to be ascribed to the gennhsij in the sense which Dr. Clark wishes, i.e. he grants that it may precede the gennhsij, i.e. in order, not in time, in the succession of our ideas, Trin. vi. 8, §§20, 21; and follows S. Austin, Trin. XV. 20. in preferring to speak of our Lord rather as voluntas de voluntate, than, as Athan. is led to do, as the voluntas Dei.
448 Vid. Or. i. 25, n. 2. Also Serap. i. 15, 16 init. 17, 20; iv. 8, 14. Ep. AeEg. 11 fin. Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 341. Ephr. Syr. adv. Haer. Serm. 55 init. (t. 2. p. 557.) Facund. Tr. Cap. iii. 3 init.
450 logisasqai tina boulhsij, as §66 (Latin version inexact).
451 agaqou patroj agaqon boulhma. Clem. Ped. iii. circ. fin. sofia, xrhstothj, dunamij, qelhma pantokratorikon. Strom. v. p. 547. Voluntas et potestas patris. Tertull. Orat. 4. Natus ex Patri quasi voluntas ex mente procedens. Origen. Periarch. i. 2. §6. S. Jerome notices the same interpretation of `by the will of God' in the beginning of Comment. in Ephes. But cf. Aug. Trin. xv. 20. And so Caesarius, agaph ec agaphj. Qu. 39.
454 zwsa boulh. supr. Og. ii. 2. Cyril in Joan. p. 213. zwsa dunamij. Sabell. Greg. 5. c. zwsa eikwn. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. c. zwsa energeia. Syn. Antioch. ap. Routh. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 469. zwsa isxuj. Cyril. in Joan. p. 951. zwsa sofia. Origen. contr. Cels. iii. fin. zwn logoj. Origen. ibid. zwn organon (heretically) Euseb. Dem. iv. 2.
457 Ps. lxxiii. 23, Ps. lxxiii. 24.
458 di eterou tinoj. This idea has been urged against the Arians again and again, as just above, §61; e.g. de Decr. 8, 24; Or. i. 15, below 65, sub. fin. vid. also Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 951. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 11. c. 17, a. &c.
460 polukefaloj airesij. And so poluk. panourgia, §62. The allusion is to the hydra, with its ever-springing heads, as introduced §58, n. 5. and with a special allusion to Asterius who is mentioned, §60, and in de Syn. 18. is called poluk. sofisthj.
465 peri ton qeon. vid. de Decr. 22, n. 1; Or. i. 15. Also Orat. i. 27, where (n. 2 a.), it is mistranslated. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 7.
466 ecin. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6; iv. 2, n. 7.
467 sumbainousan kai aposumbainousan, vid. de Decr. 11, n. 7, and 22, n. 9, sumbama, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. in the same, though a technical sense. vid. also Serap. i. 26; Naz. Orat. 31, 15 fin.
469 Prov. iii. 19; Ps. xxxiii. 6; Ps. cxxxv. 6, Ps. cxv. 3; 1 Thess. v. 18.
470 Read `a word,' cf. p. 394, n. 6.
472 ousia and upostasij are in these passages made synonymous; and so infr. Orat. iv. 1, f. And in iv. 33 fin. to the Son is attributed h patrikh upostasij. Vid. also ad Afros. 4. quoted supr. Exc. A, pp. 77, sqq. Up. might have been expected too in the discussion in the beginning of Orat. iii. did Athan. distinguish between them. It is remarkable how seldom it occurs at all in these Orations, except as contained in Heb. i. 3. Vid. also p. 70, note 13. Yet the phrase treij upostaseij is certainly found in Illud Omn. fin. and in Incarn. c. Arian. 10. (if genuine) and apparently in Expos..Fid. 2. Vid. also Orat. iv. 25 init.
476 Or. i. 14, n. 4; ii. 2, n. 3.
481 thj ousiaj omoia, vid. Or. i. 21, n. 8. Also ii. 42, b. iii. 11, 14 sub. fin., 17, n. 5.
484 De Decr. 3, n. 2; Orat. i. 27, ii. 4; Apol. c. Ar. 36.
486 John x. 38, John x. 30; John xiv. 9; cf. §5, n. 3.
488 The above Excursus is substituted for the longer introduction of Newman (republished in Latin in his Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1872), and is in the main a condensation of the more recent and final discussion of Zahn (Marcellus, 1867, pp. 198 seqq.). The result of the latter is to confirm the main contention of Newman, viz. that the system, rather than the person, of Marcellus is throughout in view. Earlier discussions pointing the same way are cited: `In Eusebii contra Marcellum libros Observationes, auctore K.S.C.,' Lips. 1787 (cited by Newman); Rettberg, Marcelliana, Praef. p. 7; Kuhn, Kathol. Dogm. ii. p. 344, note 1 (by Zahn).
489 The Articles Sabellianism and Sabellius (both sub. fin.) in D.C.B. vol. iv., state the contrary, but the present writer follows the standard discussion of Zahn, of which the learned articles in question do not seem to take account.