1 He was unable to speak from memory of the events of the persecution of 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), but (de Incarn. 56. 2) had been instructed in religion by persons who had suffered as martyrs. This must have been before 311, the date of the last persecution in Egypt under Maximin. Before 319 he had written his first books `against the Gentiles,' the latter of which, on the Incarnation, implies a full maturity of power in the writer, while the former is full of philosophical and mythological knowledge such as argues advanced education. But from several sources we learn that his election to the episcopate in 328 was impugned, at any rate in after years, on the ground of his not having attained the canonical age of thirty. There is no ground for supposing that this was true: but such a charge would not be made without some ground at least of plausibility. We must therefore suppose that on June 8, 328, he was not much beyond his thirtieth year. His parents, moreover, were living after the year 358 (see below, p. 562, note 6); allowing them over fourscore years at that date, we find in 298 a reasonable date for the birth of their son. We must remember that in southern climates mind and body mature somewhat more rapidly than with ourselves, and `contra Gentes' and `de Incarnatione' will scarcely appear precocious.
3 The actual connection of Athanasius with Antony at this period is implied in the received text of `Vit. Anton.' Prolog., for it could scarcely fall at any later date. At the same time the youthful life of Athanasius seems fully accounted for in such a way as to leave little room for it (so Tillemont). But our ignorance of details leaves it just possible that he may for a time have visited the great hermit and ministered to him as Elisha did of old to Elijah. (Cf. p. 195, note 2.)
4 It is of interest to note the changed conditions. In 260 bishop Dionysius had to check the Monarchian tendency in Libya, and was accused by members of his own flock of separating the Son from the Being (ousia) of the Father. In 319 a Libyan, Atius, cries out upon the Sabellianism of his bishop, and formulates the very doctrine which Dionysius had been accused of maintaining.
5 The chronology cannot be determined with precision. The Memorandum is signed by Colluthus and therefore precedes his schism. The letter to Alex. Byzant. was written after the Colluthian schism had begun. But the proceedings of Eusebius described above had at least begun when the Memorandum was circulated, which must, therefore, have been some time after the Synod of 321. The letter of Alexander to his clergy prefixed to the depositio was drawn up after it. and includes the names of the Mareotic seceders. We may, therefore, tentatively adopt the following series:-321 a.d.: Egyptian Synod deposes Arius. Arius in correspondence with Eusebius, &c Leaves Alexandria for Palestine and Nicomedia. Letters sent abroad by Alexander. Eusebius holds council and writes to Alexander. 322: Memorandum drawn up; Alexandrian clergy assemble to sign it; prefatory address to them by Alexander with reference to the Mareotic defection which has just occurred; circulation of Memorandum; schism, of Colluthus. 323: Letter of Alexander to Alexander of Byzantium; (Sept.) Constantine, master of the East, and ready to intervene in the controversy.
6 So Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 8-over 270, Eustath. in Thdt. i. 8-in fact more than 300 (de Decr. 3), according to Athanasius, who again, toward the end of his life (ad Afr. 2) acquiesces in the precise figure 318 (Gen xiv. 14; the Greek numeral tih combines the Cross with the initial letters of the Sacred Name) which a later generation adopted (it first occurs in the alleged Coptic acts of the Council of Alexandria, 362, then in the Letter of Liberius 'to the bishops of Asia in 365, infr. §9), on grounds perhaps symbolical rather than historical.
7 The name of Secundus appears among the subscriptions (cf. Soz. i. 21) but this is contradicted by the primary evidence (Letter of the Council in Soc. i. 9, Thdt. i. 9); cf. Philost. i. 9, 10. But there is evidence that there were two Secundi.
8 A term first brought into currency in this connection by Mr. Gwatkin (p. 38, note), and since adopted by many writers including Harnack; in spite of the obvious objection to the importations of political terms into the grave questions of this period, the term is too useful to be surrendered, and the `conservatives' of the Post-Nicene reaction were in fact too often political in their methods and spirit. The truly conservative men, here as in other instances, failed to enlist the sympathy of the conservative rank and file.
9 The identity of name has certainly done Eusebius no good with posterity. But no one with a spark of generosity can fail to be moved by the appeal of Socrates (ii. 21) for common fairness toward the dead.
10 Or possibly Theodoret, &c., drew a wrong inference from the words of Eustathius (in Thdt. i. 8), and the gramma was not submitted by Eusebius, but produced as evidence against him; in this case it must have been, as Fleury observes, his letter to Paulinus of Tyre.
11 Hort pp. 138, 139, and 59: the changes well classified by Gwatkin, p. 41, cf. Harnack 2, vol 2, p. 227 The main alterations were (1) The elimination of the word logoj and substitution of uioj in the principal place. This struck at the theology of Eusebius even more directly than at that of Arius. (2) The addition not only of omoousion tw patri, but also of toutestin ek thj ousiaj tou patroj between monogenh and qeon as a further qualification of gennhqenta (specially against Euseb. Nicom.: see his letter in Thdt. i. 6). (3) Further explanation of gennhqenta by g. ou poihqenta, a glance at a favourite argument of Arius, as well as at Asterius. (4) enanqrwphsanta added to explain sarkwqenta, and so to exclude the Christology which characterised Arianism from the first. (5) Addition of anathematisms directed against all the leading Arian doctrines.
12 The events have been related in what seems to be their most likely order, but there is no real certainty in the matter. It is clear that there were at least two public sittings (Soz. i. 17, the language of Eus. V.C. iii. 10, is reconcileable with this) in the emperor's presence, at the first of which the libelli were burned and the bishops requested to examine the question of faith. This was probably. on June 19. The tearing up of the creed of Eus. Nic. seems from the account of Eustathius to have come immediately before the final adoption of a creed. The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, which was the basis of that finally adopted, must therefore have been propounded after the failure of his namesake. (Montfaucon and others are clearly wrong in supposing that this was the `blasphemy' which was torn to pieces!) The difficulty is, where to put the dramatic scene of whisperings, nods, winks, and evasions which compelled the bishops to apply a drastic test. I think (with Kölling, &c.) that it must have preceded the proposal of Eusebius, upon which the omoousion was quietly insisted on by Constantine; for the latter was the only occasion (profasij) of any modification in the Caesarean Creed, which in itself does not correspond to the tests described infr. p. 163. But Montfaucon and others, followed by Gwatkin, place the scene in question after the proposal of Eus. Caes. and the resolution to modify his creed by the insertion of a stringent test,-in fact at the `pause' of the council before its final resolution, This conflicts with the clear statement of Eusebius that the omoousion was the `thin end of the wedge' which led to the entire recasting of his creed (see infr. p. 73. The idea of Kölling, p. 208, that the creed of Eusebius was drawn up by him for the occasion, and that the maqhmah of the council was ready beforehand as an alternative document, is refuted by the relation of the two documents; see Hort, pp. 138, 139). It follows, therefore, from the combined accounts of Ath., Euseb. and Eustathius (our only eye-witnesses) that (1) the fathers were practically resolved upon the omoousion before the final sitting. (2) That this resolve was clinched by the creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia. (3) That Eusebius of Caesarea made his proposal when it was too late to think of half-measures. (4) That the creed of Eusebius was modified at the Emperor's direction (which presupposes the willingness of the Council). (5) That this revision was immediately followed by the signatures and the close of the council. The work of revision, however, shews such signs of attention to detail that we are almost compelled to assume at least one adjournment of the final sitting. When the other business of the council was transacted, including the settlement of the Easter question, the Meletian schism, and the Canons, it is impossible to say. Kaelling suo jure puts them at the first public session. The question must be left open, as must that of the presidency of the council. The conduct of the proceedings was evidently in the hands of Constantine, so that the question of presidency reduces itself to that of identifying the bishop on Constantine's right who delivered the opening address to the Emperor: this was certainly not Hosius (see Vit. C. iii. 11, and vol. 1 of this series, p. 19), but may have been Eusebius of Caesarea, who probably after a few words from Eustathius (Thdt.) or Alexander (Theod. Mops. and Philost.) was entrusted with so congenial a task. The name of Hosius stands first on the extant list of signatures, and he may have signed first, although the lists are bad witnesses. The words of Athanasius sometimes quoted in this connection (p. 256), `over what synod did he not; preside?' must be read in connection with the distinction made by Theodoret in quoting the passage in question (H.E. ii. 15) that Hosius 'was very prominent at the great synod of Nicae, and presided over those who assembled at Sardica. This is the only evidence we possess to which any weight can be attached.
14 While yet the distinction between the `presence' and `existence' of God in Christ (Newman, Ar. 4. p. 123) is very delicate: both ideas are covered by `Dasein'. The two forms of Monarchianism are related exactly as the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is to the Nestorian.
15 Our authorities are Hippolytus Philosophum., TertullianAgainst Praxeas, and the early fragment `against heresies' printed in Tertullian's works. The statements of Tertullian and Hippolytus agree remarkably, though obviously independent. The first (modalist) Monarchian teacher in Rome was Praxeas (Tert.) from Asia, who was followed by the pupils of Noetus, also an Asiatic (Hippol.), Epigonus (Renan Marc-Aurèle 230, note, identifies `Praxeas' with Epigonus; I cannot undertake to pronounce upon the point, but see Harnack, Dogmg. 11. p. 608) and Cleomenes. Praxeas arrived in Rome under Victor (or earlier, Harnack, p. 610), and combined strong opposition to Montanism, with equally strong modalism in his theology. In both respects his influence told upon the heads of the Church. Montanism was expelled, Modalism tolerated, Theodotus excommunicated; `Duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit: prophetiam expulit et haeresin intulit: Paracletum fugavit et Patrein crucifixit'. (Tert.) `Praxeas haeresin introduxit quam Victor[inus] (perhaps a confusion with Zephyrinus) corroborate curavit' (`Tertullian' adv. Haer.)
19 Cels. iii. 34, cf. Alexander's mesiteuousa fusij monogenhj. But observe that the passage insisted on by Shedd, 294, etepoj kat= ousian kai upokeimenon o uioj tou patroj, does not bear the sense he extracts from it. ousia here is not `essence' but `hypostasis'.
20 The formula ktisma o uioj is ascribed to Origen by the anti-Chalcedonists of the sixth century, but is probably a `consequenz-macherei' from the above; see Caspari Alte v. N. Quellen, p. 60, note. But ktisma was sometimes applied to the Son in a vague sense, on the ground of Prov. viii. 22, a text not used in this way by Origen.
22 The position of Eusebius of Caesarea is at the `extreme left' of the Origenist body. (`A reflex of the unsolved problems of the Church of that time,' Dorner.) It is as though Dionysius instead of withdrawing and modifying his incriminated statements, had involved them in a haze of explanations and biblical phrases which left them where they were. But this is not so much Arianism as confusion. `All is hollow and empty, precarious and ambiguous. With a vast apparatus of biblical expressions and the use of every possible formula, Monotheism is indeed maintained, but practically a created subordinate God is inserted between God and mankind' (Harnack, p. 648). See also Dorner, Lehre der Pers. Chr. Pt. 1, pp. 793-798. The language quoted by Ath. below, p. 459, was doubtless meant by Eusebius in an Origenist sense.
23 The theological genesis of Paul's system is obscure. The theory of Newman that he was under strong Jewish influences is largely based upon the late and apparently quite erroneous tradition that his patroness Zenobia was a Jewess; see p. 296, note 9a, and Gwatkin, p. 57, and note 3. Harnack regards him as the representative of `archaic' East-Syrian adoptionism such as pervades the `Discussion of Archelaus with Manes;' see Routh, Rell. v. especially pp. 178-184. But Paul would not have spoken of Mary as `Dei Genetrix,' p. 128; I cannot see more in these `Acta' than a naive adoptionism homologous to the `naive modalism' of much early Christian language, but like it not representative of the entire view of those who use it; we must also note that the statements of `Archelaus' are coloured by reaction against the docetism of `Manes;' but Paul may well have taken up this naive adoptionism, and, by srict Aristotelian logic, developed it as the exclusive basis of his system. Whether Paul's use of the idea of the Logos betrays the faintest influence of Origen is to me, at least, extremely uncertain.
24 aposunagwgoj emeinen, Alex. Alexand. in Thdt.; the objections of Gwatkin, p. 18, note, are generously meant rather than convincing: the `creed of Lucian' is not usable without discrimination for Lucian's position: see discussion by Caspari A.u.N.Q. p. 42, note.
25 It was pointed out clearly by Newman, Arians, pp. 8, 403, but with an eagerly drawn inference to the discredit of the later Antiochene School and of the genuine principles of exegesis as recognised at the present day by Protestants and Catholics alike (see Wetzer und Welte-Kaulen, Kirchen-Lexicon, i. 953 sqq., iv. 1116, and Patrizzi as abridged in Cornel. a Lap. in Apoc. ed. Par. 1859, pp. xvi. sqq. The Lucianic origin of Arianism was denied by Gwatkin in his Studies, but the denial is tacitly withdrawn in his Arian Controversy. Harnack, Dogmgesch. i???1. 598, ii2. 183 sqq. must, I think, convince any open mind of the fact. Consult his article on Lucian in Herzog???2. viii. 767 (the best investigation), also Neander H.E. ii. 198, iv. 108; Möller K.G. i. 226, D.C.B. iii. 748; Kölling, vol. 1, pp. 27-31, who makes the mistake of taking the `Lucianic creed' as his point of departure.
26 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note 1, 575, note 1.)
27 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note 1, 575, note 1.)
28 aparallakton eikona, which an Arian would be prepared to admit as the result of the prokoph. (See below, §6, on the Creeds of 341). I cannot regard Asterius as a `'semi-Arian;' the only grounds for it are the above phrase and the statement (Lib. Syn.) that he attended the Council of 341 with the Conservative Dianius. But Asterius was as ready to compromise with conservatism as he had formerly been with heathenism, and his anxiety for a bishopric would carry him to even greater lengths in order to attend a council under influential patronage.
30 They appear to have comprised the Arian appeal to Scripture of which (considering the Biblical learning of Lucian and what we hear of the training of Aetius, to say nothing of the exegetical chair held by Arius at Alxa.) their use must be pronounced meagre and superficial. In the O.T. they harped upon three texts, Deut. vi. 4 (Monotheism), Ps. xlv. 8 (Adoptionism), and Prov. viii. 22, LXX. (the Word a Creature). In the N.T. they appeal for Monotheism (in their sense) to Luke xviii. 19, John xvii. 3; The Son a Creature, Acts ii. 36, 1 Cor. i. 24, Col. i. 15, Heb. iii. 2; Adoptionism, Matt. xii. 28; prokoph, Luke ii. 52; also Matt. xxvi. 41, Phil. ii. 6, sq., Heb. i. 4; The Son treptoj, &c., Mark xiii. 32, John xiii. 31, John xi. 34; inferior to the Father, John xiv. 48, Matt. xxvii. 46, also Matt. xi. 27 a, Matt. xxvi. 39, Matt. xxviii. 18, John xii. 27, and 1 Cor. xv. 28 (cf. pp. 407, sq.). In this respect Origen is immeasurably superior.
31 They are regarded by Athan., a generation after they were written, as the representative statement of `the case' for Arianism (pp. 459 sq.; 324 sqq., 361, 363, 368, &c., from which passages and Eus. c. Marcell. a fragmentary restoration might be attempted). For what is known of his history (not in D.C.B.) see Gwatkin, p. 72, note; for his doctrinal position see above, p. xxviii.
32 A theology which aims at consistency most borrow a method, a philosophy, from outside the sphere of religion. The most developed system of Catholic theology, that of S. Thomas Aquinas, borrows its method from the same source as did Arius,-Aristotle.
33 This illustrates the famous paradox of Cardinal Newman (Development, ed. 1878, pp. 142-4), that the condemnation of Arian Christology left vacant a throne in heaven which the medieval Church legitimately filled with the Blessed Virgin; that the Nicene condemnation of the Arian theology is the vindication of the medieval; that `the rotaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son come up to it.' But the qestion here was one of worship, not of theology. The Arians worshipped Christ, whom they regarded as a created being: therefore, the Nicene fathers urge with one consent, they were idolaters. The idea of a created being capable of being worshipped was as Arian legacy to the Church, no doubt. But this very idea, to Athanasius and Hilary, marked them out as idolaters. It was reserved for later times `to find a subject for an Arian predicate' (Mozley). The argument is an astonishing admission.
34 The enormous literature of the subject is partly given by Harnack, ii. p. 182, Schaff, Nicene Christ. §§119, 120. The student will find great help from Bigg, Bampt. Lect. pp. 179, note 163-165, Gwatkin, Studies, p. 42, sqq.; Newman's Arians 4, pp. 185 to 193, and his notes and excursus embodied in this volume, especially that appended to Epist. Euseb. p. 77; Zahn's Marcellus, pp. 11-27 (also p. 87), perhaps the best modern discussion; Harnack ii. pp. 228-230, and note 31; Loofs §§32-34; Shedd i. 362-37a; and the Introduction to the Tomus and ad Afros in this volume pp. 482, 488. The use of ousia in Aristotle is tabulated by Bonitz in the fifth volume (index) to the Berlin edition: its use in Plato is less frequent and less technical, but see the brief account in Liddell and Scott.
35 Gregory Thaumaturgus was the great Origenist influence in northern Asia Minor: the Cappadocian fathers were also influenced in the direction of the omoousion by Apollinarius: see the correspondence between Basil and the latter Bas. Epp. 8, 9, edited by Dräseke in Ztschr. für K.G. viii. 85 sqq. Apollinarius was of course equally opposed to Arianism and to Origen: see also p. 449 sq.
39 For Asia besides Marcellus we have only Diodorus of Tenedos, not at Nicaea, but expelled soon after 330, p. 271; signs at Sardica, p. 147, banished again p. 276, not in D.C.B.; for Syria the names p. 271, cf. p. 256.
40 Always an important factor in the stability of the Byzantine throne, see, on Justinian, D.C.B. iii. 545a, sub fin. Newman, Arians, Appendix v., brings no conclusive proof of strong Nicene feeling among the masses of the laity in this region. But `the people' in Galatia, according to Basil, remained devoted to Marcellus.
43 Eager opposition, however, was not lacking. The accounts are confused, but the statement of the bishops leaves room for a strong minority of malcontents, who may have elected `Theonas' (was he the exiled Arian bishop of Marmarica? the electors of `Theonas' in Epiph. Haer. 68 are Meletians, but there is no Theonas in the Meletian catalogue of 327; the Arians and Meletians very likely combined; the latter properly had no votes, but they were not likely to regard this; see Gwatkin, p. 66, note, Church Quarterly Review. xvi. p. 393). The protests of the poposition were apparently disregarded and Athanasius consecrated before the other side considered the question as closed, (The statement of Epiph. Haer. 69, that the Arians chose one Achillas, is unsupported.) Athanasius was probably only just thirty years old, and his opponents did not fail to question whether he were not under the canonical age.
44 Soz. ii. 21, 22: the account is not very clear; probably there was a gradual approximation, the first step being the Meletian support of the Arian Theonas against Athanasius in 328, if the view suggested above is correct.
45 Fest. Ind. iii. The Index is of course right in giving 330-331 as the year of his departure for Nicomedia, but makes a slip in assigning his absence as the cause of delay in the despatch of the Letter for that year instead of for the following one. See p. 512 note 1.
47 The conduct of Constantine will appear fairly consistent if we suppose that after ordering the investigation at Antioch, supr. (332?) he received proofs (333) of the falsehood of the Arsenius story, but that, finding that the complaints were constantly renewed, and that Ath. refused to meet his accusers at Caesarea, he yielded to the suggestion (Eus. Nic. ?) that the assembly of so many bishops at Jerusalem might be a valuable opportunity for finally dealing with so troublesome a matter. He desired peace, and had not lost his faith in councils. Hefele follows Socrates i. 29, in his error as to the date of the discovery of Arsenius (E. Tr. ii. 21).
50 The Greek Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep. 13; the Chron. Pasch. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But if the Mareotic Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly did (Soz. l.c.), these dates are untrustworthy.
52 The courier Palladius, who was considered a marvel, could carry a message from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days, about 250 miles a day, Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight miles an hour for 12 1/2 hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from Nicomedia to Treveri would be easily covered by a horseman in the time specified; see Gibbon quoted p. 115, note 1, and for other examples, Gwatkin, p. 137.
56 The ordinary time for the entry of the Prefect upon his duties seems to have been about the end of the Egyptian Year (end of August). Accordingly the prefectures and years in Fest. Ind. roughly correspond: Philagrius was already Prefect when the Mareotic Commission arrived (Aug. 335). According to the headings to the Festal Letters vi., vii., he had superseded Paternus in 334: either the Index or the headings are mistaken. For the popularity of Philagrius, see Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 28, who mentions that his reappointment was due to the request of a deputation from Alex. (this must have come from the Arians!) and that the rejoicings which welcomed his return exceeded any that could have greeted the Emperor, and nearly equalled those which had welcomed the return of Athanasius himself. But Gregory is a rhetorician; see p. 138, and Tillem. viii. 664.
58 Gregory shewed his Arianism by employing Ammon as his secretary, see p. 96. The curious parallelism between Gregory and George (infr. §8),-the names differing (in Latin) by a single letter only, both Arians, both Cappadocians, both intruded bishops of Alexandria, both arriving from court, both arriving in Lent, both exercising violence, both charged by Ath. with the storming of churches, with similar scenes of desecration, maltreatment of virgins, &c., in either case,-is one of the strangest examples of history repeating itself within a few years. What wonder that the fifth-century historians confuse the two still further together, and that they still find followers? The most important point of confusion is the alleged murder of Gregory (due to Theodoret), who really died a natural death. It is none too soon for this time-honoured blunder to do the like. On the inveterate tendency of Georges and Gregories to coalesce, and exchange names in transcription (to say nothing of modern typography), see D.C.B. ii. pp. 640-650, 778 sq., 798 sq., passim.
59 In some church other than `Theonas,' probably `Quirinus,' which latter, however, was stormed on Easter Day, pp. 273, 95, note 3. The statement, Hist. Ar. 10, that he sailed for Rome before Gregory's arrival is in any case verbally inexact, but it may refer to his flight from `Theonas.'
63 On the one hand the deputation after the council reached Constantius at Antioch about Easter (April 15), 344. They were, however sent not directly by the Council, but by Constans after its close (Thdt. ii. 8). We may be certain that their arrival at Antioch was at the very least two months after the close of the council; but in all probability the interval was much longer. Again, the course of events described above forbids us to put the council earlier than the early summer of 343. But according to the Festal Index xv. the council at any rate began before the end of August in that year. If the bishops left their churches after Easter (a very natural and usual arrangement, compare Nicaea, the Dedication, &c.), they could easily assemble by the end of June. The Orientals came somewhat later. The beginning of July is accordingly our terminus a quo, the end of January our terminus ad quem. What exact part of the interval the council occupied we cannot decide.
64 The statement in the synodal letter of Philippolis that Asclepas had been deposed `seventeen' years before is clearly corrupt. The true reading may be `seven' (council of CP. in 336) or xiii, which might easily be changed to xvii. (Cf. Hefele, pp. 89, 90).
66 It must be observed that the Index is loose in its statement here: see Gwatkin, p. 105, Sievers, p. 108. The statement of Thdt., &c., that he was murdered is simply due to the usual confusion of Gregory with George (cf. p. xliii. note 5).
67 This visit cannot have been between May 7 and Aug. 27, when Const. was at CP. Nor can it well have been before May 7. We must, therefore, with Sievers, p. 110, put it in September. Yet see Gwatkin, p. 127, note.
69 In de Sent. Dion. 23, 24, Arius is spoken of in a way consistent with his being still alive. But the phase of the Arian controversy to which the tract relates begins a decade after Arius' death, and we therefore follow the indications which class the de Sent. with the de Decr.
72 The envoys of Magnentius had come from Italy through Libya in 350-351. The `desert' (Apol. Const. 27, 32) must be the region between Alxa. and Cyrenaica, not Palestine as Tillem. viii. 186, infers from Ep. Aeg. 5. There is no evidence that Ath. left his province during this exile, and Palestine was a most dangerous territory to venture into. The cautious vagueness of his language, Ep. Aeg. 5, while it baffles even our curiosity, yet favours the hypothesis that the events referred to belong to the Egyptian persecution.
73 This date, coming from the common source of the Historia Acephala and Festal Index (i.e. from the accredited Alexandrian chronology of the period), must be accepted unless there is cogent proof of its incorrectness. No such proof is offered: we have no positive statement to the contrary, but only (1) the fact that the intrusion of George is related, Apol. Fug. 6, immediately after an attack on the great church, possibly the coup de main of Syrianus, but more probably that of p. 290, note 9, without any hint of a long interval. This is true, and if there were no evidence the other way might justify a guess that George came in Lent, 356; but no one would claim that the passage is conclusive by itself; (2) the `improbability' of George delaying his arrival so long. Improbability is a relative term; we know too little of George's consecration or movements to justify its use in the present connection. All the evidence goes to shew that the court party were far from sanguine as to the nature of his reception, and that their misgivings were well-founded. The above considerations look very small when we compare them with the mass of positive evidence the other way. (1.) The civil Governor had changed: Maximus held the post on Feb. 8, 356 (Hist. Ar. 81, &c.), Cataphronius when the churches were transferred to the party of George, see below, 6. (2.) The military Commander had changed: Syrianus was replaced by Sebastian, who appears just after the transfer of churches, Hist. Ar. 55-60 (Dr. Bright in D.C.B. i. 194, note, seems to admit that Sebastian belongs to a later date than the Lent of 356). (3.) The Wednesday (and Thursday) of Hist. Ar. 55 were not `in Lent.' They suit the data of Hist. Aceph. perfectly well. (4.) Had George arrived before Easter 356, Athan. would have heard of it `in the Desert,' Apol. Const. 27; but he has only heard of his nomination wnomasqh 28, probably from the letters given in §§30, 31). (5.) The Letter to the Egyptian bishops was written from Libya or Cyrenaica, when the coercion of the episcopate had begun: it postulates some time since his expulsion, but George was then (§7) only in contemplation. (6.) There is no evidence that the coup de main of Syrianus was other than unpopular in the city. This was reported to Const., who after the (Easter) outrages on the Virgins (Ap. Const. 27; Hist. Ar. 48), and after the expulsion of the sixteen bishops (Hist. Ar. 54, this was probably about Easter, Ap. Const. 27) sent Heraclius (with the `discreditable' letter), in whose company (Hist. Ar. 55) the new Prefect Cataphronius first appears. This let loose the refuse of the heathen population as described, ib. 55-60. (7.) Hare the precise statement of the Hist. Aceph. fits in exactly. The Presbyters and people of Ath. remained in possession of the Churches until the arrival of the new Prefect, with Count Heraclius, on June 10. (8.) Heraclius is expressly called the precursor of George (p. 288) and is evidently sent to disarm the reported hostility of the (even heathen) public to the appointment. It may be added that if we are to take `probabilities' into account, it is easier to imagine a reason for a court nominee like George having been slow to take up a dangerous post, than for the Alexandrian chronologists of the day having invented a year's interval when none had existed. Montfaucon had already noticed that `a good deal must have happened' between the irruption of Syrianus and the entry of George. The data of Athanasius are for the first time clearly explained by the light thrown on them by the chroniclers. I should also have urged the fact that the commemoration of George's Pentecost Martyrs on May 21 in the Roman Martyrology suits 357 and not 356, had I succeeded in tracing the history of the entry, which has, however, so far eluded my efforts.
74 We are quite in the dark as to when, and by whom, George was consecrated bishop. The statement of Sozomen iv. 8, that he was ordained by a council of thirty bishops at Antioch, including Theodore of Heraclea, who had died before the exile of Liberius in 355 (Thdt. H.E. ii. 16, p. 93. 13), is involved in too hopeless a tangle of anachronisms to be of any value for our enquiry. But that George was ordained in Antioch is in itself likely enough, and if so, his ordination would probably follow close upon the expulsion of Athanasius. But the repeated assurances of Ath. that George came from court would imply that after his ordination George went to Italy. That at once puts his arrival in Alxa. in Lent 356 out of the question.
75 The statements of Ath. as to George are made at secondhand, and must be taken cum grano. He is `notoriously wealthy,' yet `hired' by the Arians. (Cf. p. 249; but apparently he combined wealth and avarice.) That he was `a heathen' is certainly untrue. His `ignorance' is equally so: we know that he was a well-read man and possessed a remarkably good library (D.C.B. ii. 638). That he had `the temper of a hangman' (p. 227) is in keeping with all that we know of him, and as to his general character, the statements of Athanasius and other churchmen are not stronger than Amm. Marcell. XXII. xi. 4 (cf. Gibbon, iii. 171 sqq., ed. Smith, but correct his jeu d'esprit on `S. George and the Dragon' by Bright, in D.C.B. ubi supra; yet see Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. vii. III..).
76 p. 497. George was at Sirmium in the Spring of 359 (Soz. (v. 16). Paul Catena came to Alxa. from a similar commission at Scythopolis. He was apparently aided in both places by Modestus the Comes Orientis. From Liban. Ep. 205, we gather, to the credit of George, that he was the intermediary of requests for mitigation or some of the sentences. He was at this time at Antioch, from whence also `Ex Comitatu Principis,' Amm. XXII. xi., he returned to Alxa. in 361, evidently before he had heard of the Emperor's death. (Sievers, pp. 138 sq.)
77 We Cannot fix the date when this word was first adopted as a shibboleth. It occurs, but not conspicuously, in the `Macrostich' of 344, but not in any other creed till the `dated' symbol of 359. But if (as Krüger, Lucif, p. 42, note, assumes) the omoiousion was adopted as a protest against the bald omoion, the latter must have been current long before 357, when the former was proscribed. I incline to regard the omoion (as a test word) as a later rival to the omoiousion.
78 Apparently it began with the quarrel over the election to the bishopric of Antioch, which Eudoxius managed to seize after the death of Leontius. George was aggrieved at his rights as an elector being ignored, and may have had hopes of the see for himself. See Soz. iv. 13; but Philost. iv. 5 with much less likelihood puts this down to Basil.
79 The discussions, reported with every appearance of substantial accuracy by Thdt. ii. 27, may have taken place at this time, or at the council of the succeeding month (Thdt. fails to distinguish the two meetings). Gwatkin, p. 180, appears to be right in adopting the former alternative, viz. that the party of Basil prudently abstained from attending a council in which they would be overpowered: cf. Soz. iv. 24, who however contradicts himself in the next chapter, sub fin. But the case is not quite clear.
81 He states (1) That a rigorist party in the council were at first opposed to all conciliatory measures; this is highly probable, see Hieron. adv. Lucif. 20; (2) that former active Arians were to be admitted to lay communion only; this is not unlikely; (3) by implication, that Eusebius and Lucifer went first to Antioch, and agreed to take no step till after the Council which Eus. was to attend in person, and Luc. by deputy, at Alxa., but that Luc. broke his promise. This may contain a grain of truth, i.e. that Lucifer promised to do nothing before he heard from Alxa., but Eusebius can scarcely have gone to Antioch. I owe these notices to the excellent analysis of our sources of information in Krüger, Lucif. p. 46 sq.; but he makes an odd slip, p. 48, in saying that Soz. `schweigt von der Synode zu Alex. uberhaupt.'
83 Krüger, in Theol. Litzg. 1890, p. 620 sqq., fixes the death of Theodore for Easter 363, on the ground, as I venture to think, of a date (345) for the death of Pachomius too early by one year. The question is too intricate to discuss here, but with all deference to so competent a critic, I am confident that Theodore lived till at any rate the following Easter. See infr. p. 569, note 3.
85 The tract de Hypocrisi Meletii et Eusebii printed among the `dubious' works of Athanasius may well express the sentiments of some of his friends of the party of Paulinus on this occasion. Tillem. viii. 708.
86 So Hist. Aceph., Fest. Ind. Socrates iv. 13 says he hid four months `in his Father's tomb.' Soz. vi. 12, mentions the story, but finding it contradicted by the Hist. Aceph., adopts the vague compromise eij ti xwrion ekrupteto. The `New River' divided Alexandria from its Western suburbs.
87 For the best treatment of the document, see Zahn, p, 95. I am quite unable to follow the theory advanced in D. C. B. iii 812; least of all the writer's suggestion that Athanasius was `egregiously duped' (!) by Marcellus.
89 Of his personal appearance little is known. Gregory Naz. praises his beauty of expression, Julian sneers at his small stature. Later tradition adds a slight stoop, a hooked nose and small mouth, short beard spreading into large whiskers, and light auburn hair, (See Stanley ubi supr).
90 To begin with, we have the interesting fact that Alexander studied the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up his tract peri yuxhj kai swmatoj eij to paqoj into a homiletical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to savour of `modalism,' (see Krüger in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1888, p. 434, sqq.: his grounds are convincing). Secondly, the expressions attributed to him by Arius (in his letter to Euseb. Nic.), and his letter to his namesake of Byzantium, bear out the above statement.
91 The reader is requested to supplement the necessarily very slender treatment of the Athanasian theology in this chapter by referring to the General Index to this volume, as well as to the Index of Texts, for guidance to the passages of Athanasius which are needed to check, fill out, and qualify what is here presented only in broad outline.
92 The above is strikingly illustrated by the discussion (pp. 381-383) of prwtotokoj pashj ktisewj (Col. i. 15). At first sight Ath. appears to contradict himself, explaining prwtotokoj as he does first solely of the Saviour as Incarnate, and then of the cosmic and creative function of the Word. But closer examination brings out his view of creation itself (p. 383) as an act of Grace, demanding not (as the current Eastern theology held, in common with Arius) the mediation of a subordinate Creator, but an act of absolutely Divine condescension analogous to, and anticipatory of, the Incarnation. The apparently disturbing persistence in the argument of the cosmological explanation of prwtotokoj is really therefore due to a subtle change in it, by virtue of which it comes into relation with the Soteriological idea,-which is the pivot of the entire anti-Arian position of Athanasius on this question,-and with the ultimate scheme in which (cf. Rom. viii.) the effects of the Incarnation are to embrace the whole creation. Because creation as such involves the promise of adoption, and tends to deification as its goal, the Son is prwtotokoj in the region of Grace and of Creation alike.
93 On the subject of §2, see also Pell. Lehre des h. Athan. and Shedd ii. pp. 37, sqq., 237, sqq. The former demonstrates his full accord with modern Roman Catholic teaching, the latter, his exact harmony with the modern Protestant view of the doctrine. It is at least a tribute to the greatness of Athan. that advocates of all sides are so eager to claim him.
95 The idea, of a mysterious unwritten tradition is a legacy ot Gnosticism to the Church. Irenaeus, in order to meet the Gnostic appeal to a supposed unwritten Apostolic tradition, confronts it with the consistency of the public and normal teaching of the Churches everywhere, of which the Roman Church is a convenient microcosm or compendium. The idea of a paradosij agrafoj is adopted by Clement and Origen, and passes from the latter to Eusebius, and to the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil de Sp. S. 27, applies it only to practical details), Epiphanius, and later writers. Details in Harnack ii. 90, note, cf. Salmon, Infallibility, Lect. ix. On the somewhat different subject of the `Disciplina Arcani,' see Herzog-Plitt. s.v. `Arkan-Disciplia'
96 What is conspicuously true of the Second General Council is in reality not less true of the First. Its high authority to later ages is due not to its formal character as a council, but to the character of its work; the consent of the Church, and that not readily given, but as the result of a long process of searching and sifting, has given to it its `irreformable' authority. Its authority is expressly put on a par with that of the Antiochene Synod of c. 269, by Ath. de Syn. 43 (consult the whole discussion, pp. 473, 475, &c.). Short of a council which should include every bishop of the entire Church, in unanimous agreement,-an impossible contingency,-the claims of any given council to be truly ecumenical are relative, not absolute; and no consistent theory is possible of the conditions under which a council could by virtue of its constitution claim infallibility for its decisions. The supposed infallibility of general councils lies in reality outside them, in the authority which sanctions and consecrates their decisions. According to the precedent of Nicaea this is the Church `diffusive' (cf. p. 489, and Pusey, Councils, p. 225, sq.), and such consent, again, must necessarily be partial and relative. If a more tangible and expeditious theory is wanted, we have it in the Roman system, according to which a council is infallible if ratified by the Pope. This at once puts all such councils, whether local or general, on one level, and affords a ready criterion. In other words, the only consistent (mechanical) theory of the infallibility of councils is one which makes councils superfluous. If such a theory had been known to the Church in the age of councils, the councils would not have been held.
97 The doctrine of Athanasius is, not formally but none the less really, the doctrine of Chalcedon, which again stands or falls together with that of Nicaea. Like the latter, it transcends the power of human thought to do more than state it in terms which exclude the (Nestorian and Monophysite) alternatives. The Man Jesus Christ is held to have lacked nothing that constitutes personality in man; the human personality which therefore belongs to it ideally, being in fact merged in the Divine personality of the Son. The `impersonality,' as it is sometimes called, of Christ qua man is therefore better spoken of as His Divine Personality. Personality and will are correlated but not identical ideas.
98 The candid, but friendly, and often just, criticisms on Mr. Gwatkin's book do not concern us here. But the Reviewer's chronological strictures are his weakest point: he uses his texts without criticism, and falls far short of Mr. Gwatkin's standard of searching historical method.
99 E.g. that he died five months after his return home from the council (Tillem.), or after the reconciliation of Meletius (Montf.). As neither event is dated, both hypotheses render the `five months' useless for chronology.
100 The above resumé of the details of the evidence makes it clear that Mr. Gwatkin's alleged oversights are in reality those of his critic. The proposal of the latter to correct `Epiph.' in Fest. Ind. to `Pharmuthi' is especially gratuitous.
18 For the following chapters Döllinger, `The Gentile and the Jew,', is a rich mine of illustration. The recently published `Manual of the History of Religions,' by Prof. Chaptepie de la Saussaye (Eng. Tra. pub. by Longmans), summarises the best results of recent research.
23 The Newtera is a puzzle. The most likely suggestion is that of Montfaucon, who refers it to Cleopatra, who nea !Isij exrhmatize (Plut. Vit. Anton.). He cites also a coin of M. Antony, on which Cleopatra is figured as qea newtera. Several such are given by Vaillant, de Numism. Cleopatr. 189. She was not the first of her name to adopt this style, see Head Hist. Num. pp. 716, 717. The text might be rendered `Isis, both the Maid and the Younger.'
28 This explanation of gods as deified men is known as Euhemerism, from Euhemerus, who broached the theory in the third century, b.c. (supra, 10, note 1); but `there were Euhemerists in Greece before Euhemerus' (Jowett's Plato, 2. 101). The Fathers very commonly adopt the theory, for which, however, there are very slight grounds. Such cases as those of Antinous and the Emperors as well as the legends of heroes and demigods, gave it some plausibility (see Döllinger; Gentile and Jew, vol. i. p. 344. Eng. Tr.).
35 This may refer to Maximus of Tyre (Saussaye, §11), or to the lost treatise of `the divine Iamblichus' IIeri agalmatwn, which was considered worth answering by Christian writers as late as the seventh century (Philoponus in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 215).
36 This is in effect the defence of the `Scriptor de Mysteriis' (possibly Iamblichus, see Bernays `2 Abhandlungen' 1880, p. 37): material means of worship are a means of access directly to the lower (or quasi-material) gods, and so indirectly to the higher. Few men can reach the latter without the aid of their manifestation in the lower; parestin aulwj toij enuloij ta aula (v. 23, of. 14).
38 Hdt. ii. 69; cf. Juv. Sat. xv. 36, `numina vicinorum Odit uterque locus.'This is one of the few places where Athanasius has any Egyptian `local colour' (cf. supra 9 and so). M. Fialon is certainly too imaginative (p. 86 contradicted p. 283), when he sees in the contra Gentes an appreciation of the higher religious principles which the modern science (`toute Francaise') of Egyptology has enabled us to read behind the grotesque features of popular Egyptian poly theism.
41 i.e. among the licentious worshippers the lifeless image is the only one free from vice, although the worshippers credit him with divine attributes, and therefore, according to their superstition, with a licentious lite.
6 Cf. Plato Paedr. 245 C-E., Legg. 896, A, B. The former passage is more likely to be referred to here as it is, like the text, an argument for immortality. Athan, has also referred to Phaedrus above. §5. (Against Gwatkin, Stuaies, p. 101.
36 metoxh, cf. de Syn. 48, 51, 53. This was held by Arians, but in common with Paul Samos, and many of the Monarchian heretics. The same principle in Orig. on Ps. 135 (Lomm. xiii. 134) ou kata metousian alla kat ousian qeoj.
39 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
1 See Contra Gentes, i. The word (Makarie) may be an adjective only, but its occurrence in both places seems decisive. The name was very common (Apol. c. Ar. passim). `Macarius' was a Christian, as the present passage shews: he is presumed (c. Gent. i. 7) to have access to Scripture.
3 Or, "been made in one way only." In the next clause I formerly translated the difficult words wj epi swmatoj enoj `as in the case of the universe;' but although the rendering has commended itself to others I now reluctantly admit that it puts too much into the Greek (in spite of §41.5).
24 Literally "what is reasonable with respect to God," i.e. what is involved in His attributes and in His relation to us, cf. Rom. iii. 26, cf. Anselm, ib. I. 12, who slightly narrows down the idea or Athan. `Si peccatum sic dimittitur impunitum, similiter erit apud Deum peccanti et non peccanti, quod Deo non convenit .... Inconvenientia autem iniustitia est.'
84 Literally `at an even' [distance], as contrasted with (a) the same day (2, above), (b) the third day (en tritaiw diasthmati (6, below). en isw must therefore be equivalent in sense to deuteraiou. Possibly the literal sense is `[had the Resurrection taken place] at an equal interval between the Death and the [actual day of] the Resurrection.'
98 thn uper autou dunamin. The Ben. version simplifies this difficult expression by ignoring the uper. Mr. E. N. Bennett has suggested to me that the true reading may be uperaulon for iper autou (auloj supra 8. 1, uperaulwj in Philo). I would add the suggestion that autou stood after uperaulon, and that the similarity of the five letters in ms. caused the second word to be dropped out. `His' exceeding immaterial power would be the resulting sense. (See Class. Review, 1890, No. iv. p. 182.)
102 Properly "let us destroy the tree with its bread" (i.e. fruit). The LXX, translate b???elahmô `upon his bread,' which is possible in itself; but they either mistook the verb, or followed some wrong reading. Their rendering is followed by all the Latin versions. For a comment on the latter see Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 19, iv. 40.
119 Athan. here assumes, for the purpose of his argument, the principles of the Neo-platonist schools. They were influenced, in regard to the Logos, by Philo, but even on this subject the germ of their teaching may be traced in Plato, especially in the Timoeus, (See Drummond's Philo, i. 65-88. Bigg's Bamp. Lect. 14, 18, 248-253, and St. Aug. Confess. in `Nicene Fathers,' Series 1, vol. 1, p. 107 and notes.)
121 epibebhkenai, cf. above, 20. 4, 6. The Union of God and Man in Christ is of course `hypostatic' or personal, and thus (supra 17. 1), different in kind from the union of the Word with Creation. His argument is ad homines. It was not for thinkers who identified the Universe with God to take exception to the idea of Incarnation.
`All true, all faultless, all in tune, Creation's wondrous choir
Opened in mystic unison, to last till time expire.
And still it lasts: by day and night with one consenting voice
All hymn Thy glory Lord, aright, all worship and rejoice:
Man only mars the sweet accord" ....
(`Christian Year,' Fourth Sunday after Trinity.)
149 In Plato's ideal Republic, the notion of any direct influence of the highest ideals upon the masses is quite absent. Their happiness is to be in passive obedience to the few whom those ideals inspire. (Contrast Isa. liv. 13, Jer. xxxi. 34.)
154 St. Augustine, Civ. D. IV. xvi. commenting on the fact that the temple of `Repose' (Quies) at Rome was not within the city walls, suggests `qui illam turbam colere perseveraret ...doemoniorum, cure Quietem hahere non posse.'
156 qeopoihqwmen. See Orat. ii. 70, note 1, and many other passages in those Discourses, as well as Letters 60. 4, 61 2. (Eucharistic reference), de Synodis 51, note 7. (Compare also Iren. IV. xxxviii. 4, `non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii,' cf. ib. praef. 4. fin. also V. ix. 2, `sublevat in vitam Dei.' Origen Cels. iii. 28 fin. touches the same thought, but Ath. is here in closer affinity to the idea of Irenaeus than to that of Origen.) The New Test. reference is 2 Pet. i. 4, rather than Heb. ii. 9 sqq; the Old Test., Ps. lxxxii. 6, which seems to underlie Orat. iii. 25 (note 5). In spite of the last mentioned passage, `God' is far preferable as a rendering, in most places, to `gods,' which has heathenish associations. To us (1 Cor. viii. 6) there are no such things as `gods.' (The best summary of patristic teaching on this subject is given by Harnack Dg. ii. p. 46 note.)
2 (Eph. iv. 4.) St. Alexander in Theod. begins his Epistle to his namesake of Constantinople with some moral reflections, concerning ambition and avarice. Athan. indeed uses a similar introduction to his Ep. Aeg., but it is not addressed to an individual.
5 kai eboulomhn men siwph <\=85_epeidh de <\=85_anagkhn esxon. vid. Apol. contra. Ar. §1 init, de Decr. § 2. Orat. i. 23, init. Orat. ii. init. Orat. iii. 1. ad Serap. i. 1. 16. ii. 1 init. iii. init. iv. 8 init. Letters 52. 2, 59. 3 fin. 61. 1. contra Apollin. i. 1 init.
12 ouk aei pathr. This enumeration of Arius's tenets, and particularly the mention of the first, corresponds to de Decr. §6. Ep. Aeg. §12. as being taken from the Thalia. Orat. i. §5. and far less with Alex. ap. Theod. p. 731, 2. vid. also Sent. D. §16. kataxrhstikwj, which is found here, occurs de Decr. §6.
13 ousian. ousia tou logou or tou uiou is a familiar expression with Athan. e.g. Orat. i. 45, ii. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18 init. 22, 47 init 56 init. &c., for which Alex. in Theod. uses the word upostaij e.g. thn idiotropon autou upostasin thj upostasewj autou aperiegastou newteran thj upostasewj gensin h tou uonogenouj anekdihghtoj upostasij thn tou logou upostasin.
14 (2 Cor vi. 14.) koinwnia fwti. This is quoted Alex. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 738; by S. Athan. in Letter 47. It seems to have been a received text in the controversy, as the Sardican Council uses it, Apol Ar. 49, and S. Athan. seems to put it into the mouth of St. Anthony, Vit. Ant. 69.
31 (1 Tim. iv. 1.) Into this text which Athan. also applies to the Arians (cf. note on Or. i. 9.), Athan. also introduces, like Alexander here, the word ugianoushj, e.g. Ep. Aeg. §20, Orat. i. 8 fin. de Decr. 3, Hist. Arian. §78 init. &c. It is quoted without the word by Origen contr. Cels. v. 64, but with ugiouj in Matth. t. xiv. 16. Epiphan, has ugiainoushj didaskaliaj, Hoer. 78. 2. ugiouj did. ibid. 23 p. 1055.
33 fqoreaj twn yuxwn. but S. Alex. in Theod. uses the compound word. fqoropoioj. p. 731. Other compound or recondite words (to say nothing of the construction of sentences) found in S. Alexander s Letter in Theod., and unlike the style of the Circular under review, are such as h filarxoj kai filarguroj proqesi: xristemporian: frenoblabouj: idiotropon: omostoixoij oullabaij: qehgorouj apostolouj: antidiastolhn thj patrikhj maieusewj: melagxolikhn: filoqeoj safhneia anosiourgiaj: flhnafwn mufwn. Instances of theological language in S. Alex. to which the Letter in the text contains no resemblance are axwriota pragmata duo: o uioj thn kata panta ouoiothta autou ek fusewj apomacamenoj: di esoptrou akhlidwtou kai euyuxou qeiaj eikonoj: mesiteuousa fusij monogenhj: taj th upostasei duo fuseij.
2 And so infr. "most pious," §4. "most wise and most religious," ibid. "most religious," §8. §10. Eusebius observes in his Vit. Const. the same tone concerning Constantine, and assigns to him the same office in determining the faith (being as yet unbaptized), E.g. "When there were differences between persons of different countries, as if some common bishop appointed by God, he convened Councils of God's ministers; and not disdaining to be present and to sit amid their conferences," &c. i. 44. When he came into the Nicene Council, "it was," says Eusebius, "as some heavenly Angel of God," iii. 10. alluding to the brilliancy of the imperial purple. He confesses, however, he diet not sit down until the Bishops bade him. Again at the same Council, "with pleasant eyes looking serenity itself into them all, collecting himself, and in a quiet and gentle voice" he made an oration to the Fathers upon peace. Constantine had been an instrument in conferring such vast benefits, humanly speaking, on the Christian Body, that it is not wonderful that other writers of the day besides Eusebius should praise him. Hilary speaks of him as "of sacred memory," Fragm. v. init. Athanasius calls him "most pious," Apol. contr. Arian. 9; "of blessed memory," ad Ep. Aeg. 18. 19. Epiphanius "most religious and of ever-blessed memory," Haer. 70. 9. Posterity, as was natural, was still more grateful.
3 "The children of the Church have received from their holy Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; and withal to deliver and preach it to their own children... Cease not, faithful aud orthodox men, thus to speak, and to teach the like from the divine Scriptures, and to walk, and to catechise, to the confirmation of yourselves and those who hear you; namely, that holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the holy and only Virgin of God received its custody from the holy Apostles of the Lord; and thus, in the case of each of those who are under catechising, who are to approach the Holy Laver, ye ought not only to preach faith to your children in the Lord, but also to teach them expressly, as your common mother teaches, to say: `We believe in One God,'" &c. Epiph. Ancor. 119 fin., who thereupon proceeds to give at length the [so-called] Constantinopolitan Creed. And so Athan. speaks of the orthodox faith, as "issuing from Apostolical teaching and the Fathers' traditions, and confirmed by New and Old Testament." Letter 60. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as "declared by the Church and established from all Scripture." Cat. v. 12. "Let us guard with vigilance what we have received ...What then have we received from the Scriptures but altogether this? that God made the world by the Word," &c., &c. Procl. ad Armen. p. 612. "That God, the Word, after the union remained such as He was, &c., so clearly hath divine Scripture, and moreover the doctors of the Churches, and the lights of the world taught us." Theodor. Dial. 3 init. "That it is the tradition of the Fathers is not the whole of our case; for they too followed the meaning of Scripture, starting from the testimonies, which just now we laid before you from Scripture." Basil de Sp. §16. vid. also a remarkable passage in de Synod. §6 fin. infra.
6 The only clauses of the Creed which admit of any question in their explanation, are the "He was not before His generation," and "of other subsistence or essence." Of these the former shall be reserved for a later part of the volume; the latter is treated of in a note at the end of this Treatise [see Excursus A.].
7 Eusebius does not commit himself to any positive sense in which the formula "of the essence" is to be interpreted, but only says what it does not mean. His comment on it is "of the Father, but not as a part;" where, what is not negative, instead of being an explanation, is but a recurrence to the original words of Scripture, of which ec ousiaj itself is the explanation; a curious inversion. Indeed it is very doubtful whether be admitted the ec ousiaj at all. He says, that the Son is not like the radiance of light so far as this, that the radiance is an inseparable accident of substance, whereas the Son is by the Father's will, kata gnwmhn kai proairesin, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 3. And though he insists on our Lord being alone, ek qeon, yet he means in the sense which Athan. refutes, supr. §6, viz. that He alone was created immediately from God, vid. next note 6. It is true that he plainly condemns with the Nicene Creed the ec ouk ontwn of the Arians, "out of nothing," but an evasion was at hand here also; for he not only adds, according to Arian custom, "as others" (vid. note following) but he has a theory that no being whatever is out of nothing, for non-existence cannot be the cause of existence. God, he says, "proposed His own will and power as `a sort of matter and substance' of the production and constitution of the universe, so that it is not reasonably said, that any thing is out of nothing. For what is from nothing cannot be at all. How indeed can nothing be to any thing a cause of being? but at all that is, takes its being from One who only is, and was, who also said `I am that I am.'" Demonstr. Ev. iv. 1. Again, speaking of our Lord, "He who was from nothing would not truly be Son of God, `as neither is any other of things generate.'" Eccl. Theol. i. 9 fin. [see, however, D.C.B. ii. p. 347].
8 Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord is a creature. "This offspring," he says, "did He first produce Himself from Himself as a foundation of those things which should succeed, the perfect handy-work, dhmiourghma, of the Perfect, and the wise structure, arxitektonhma, of the Wise," &c. Accordingly his avowal in the text is but the ordinary Arian evasion of "an offspring, not as the offsprings." E.g. "It is not without peril to say recklessly that the Son is originate out of nothing `similarly to the other things originate.'" Dem Ev. v. 1. vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And he considers our Lord the only Son by a divine provision similar to that by which there is only one sun in the firmament, as a centre of light and heat. "Such an Only-begotten Son, the excellent artificer of His will and operator, did the supreme God and Father of that operator Himself first of all beget, through Him and in Him giving subsistence to the operative words (ideas or causes) of things which were to be, and casting in Him the seeds of the constitution and governance of the universe;... Therefore the Father being One, it behoved the Son to be one also; but should any one object that He constituted not more, it is fitting for such a one to complain that He constituted not more suns, and moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other things." Dem. Ev. iv. 5 fin. vid. also iv. 6.
9 Eusebius does not say that our Lord is "from the essence of" the Father, but has "an essence from" the Father. This is the Semi-arian doctrine, which, whether confessing the Son from the essence of the Father or not, implied that His essence was not the Father's essence, but a second essence. The same doctrine is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra, though they seem to have confessed "of the essence." And this is one object of the omoousion, to hinder the confession "of the essence" from implying a second essence, which was not obviated or was even encouraged by the omoiousion. The Council of Ancyra, quoting the text "As the Father hath life in Himself so," &c., says, "since the life which is in the Father means essence, and the life of the Only-begotten which is begotten from the Father means essence, the word `so' implies a likeness of essence to essence." Haer. 73. 10 fin. Hence Eusebius does not scruple to speak of "two essences," and other writers of three essences, contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 25. He calls our Lord "a second essence." Dem. Ev. vi. Praef. Praep. Ev. vii. 12. p. 320, and the Holy Spirit a third essence, ibid. 15. p. 325. This it was that made the Latins so suspicions of three hypostases, because the Semi-arians, as well as they, understood upostasij to mean essence [but this is dubious]. Eusebius in like manner [after Origen] calls our Lord "another God," "a second God." Dem. Ev. v. 4. p. 226. v. fin. "second Lord." ibid. 3 init. 6. fin. "second cause." Dem. Ev. v. Pr...f. vid. also eteron exousa to kat ousian upokeimenon Dem. Ev. v. 1. p. 215. kaq eauton ousiwmenoz ibid. iv. 3. And so eteroj para ton patira. Eccl. Theol. i. 60. p. 90. and zwhn idian exwn. ibid. and zwh kai ufestwj kai tou patroj uparxwn ektoj ibid. Hence Athan. insists so much, as in de Decr., on our Lord not being external to the Father. Once admit that He is in the Father, and we may call the Father, the only God, for He is included. And so again as to the Ingenerate, the term does not exclude the Son, for He is generate in the Ingenerate.
10 This was the point on which the Semi-arians made their principal stand against the "one in essence," though they also objected to it as being of a Sabellion character. E.g. Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d.p. 149. a, b. v. 1. pp. 213-215. contr. Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. p. 73. in laud. Const. p. 525. de Fide i. ap. Sirmond. tom. i. p. 7. de Fide ii. p. 16, and apparently his de Incorporali. And so the Semi-arians at Ancyra Epiph. Haer. 73. 11. p. 858. a, b. And so Meletius ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril Hier. Catech. vii. 5. xi. 18. though of course Catholics would speak ass strongly on this point as their opponents.
11 Here again Eusebius does not say "from the Father's essence," but "not from other essence, but from the Father." According to note 5, supr. be considered the will of God a certain matter or substance. Montfaucon in loc. and Collect. Nov. Praef. p. xxvi. translates without warrant "ex Patris hypostasi et substantiâ." As to the Son's perfect likeness to the Father which he seems here to grant, it has been already shewn, de Decr. 20, note 9, how the admission was evaded. The likeness was but a likeness after its own kind, as a picture is of the original. "Though our Saviour Himself teaches," he says, "that the Father is the `only true God,' still let me not be backward to confess Him also the true God, `as in an image,' and that possessed; so that the addition of `only' may belong to the Father alone as archetype of the image ...As, supposing one king held sway, and his image was carried about into every quarter, no one in his right mind would say that those who held sway were two, but one who was honoured through his image; in like manner," &c. de Eccles. Theol. ii. 23, vid. ibid. 7.
12 Athanasius in like manner, ad Afros. 6. speaks of "testimony of ancient Bishops about 130 years since;" and in de Syn. §43. of "long before" the Council of Antioch, a.d. 269. viz. the Dionysii, &c. vid. note on de Decr. 20.
13 Socrates, who advocates the orthodoxy of Eusebius, leaves out this heterodox paragraph [§§9, 10] altogether. Bull, however, Defens. F. N. iii. 9. n. 3. thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius alludes to the early part of the clause, supr. §4. and de Syn. §13. where he says, that Eusebius implied that the Arians denied even our Lord's existence before His incarnation. As to Constantine, he seems to have been used on these occasions by the court Bishops who were his instructors, and who made him the organ of their own heresy. Upon the first rise of the Arian controversy he addressed a sort of pastoral letter to Alexander and Arius, telling them that they were disputing about a question of words, and recommending them to drop it and live together peaceably. Euseb. vit. C. ii. 69. 72.
14 [Rather `potentially' both here and three lines below.] Theognis, [one] of the Nicene Arians, says the same, according to Philostorgius; viz. "that God even before He begat the Son was a Father, as having the power, dunamij, of begetting." Hist. ii. 15. Though Bull pronounces such doctrine to be heretical, as of course it is, still he considers that it expresses what otherwise stated may be orthodox, viz. the doctrine that our Lord was called the Word from eternity, and the Son upon His descent to create the worlds. And he acutely and ingeniously interprets the Arian formula, "Before His generation He was not," to support this view. Another opportunity will occur of giving an opinion upon this question; meanwhile, the parallel on which the heretical doctrine is supported in the text is answered by many writers, on the ground that Father and Son are words of nature, but Creator, King, Saviour, are external, or what may be called accidental to Him. Thus Athanasius observes, that Father actually implies Son, but Creator only the power to create, as expressing a dunamij; "a maker is before his works, but he who says Father, forthwith in Father implies the existence of the Son." Orat. iii. §6. vid. Cyril too, Dial. ii. p. 459. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eun. iv. 1. fin. On the other hand Origen argues the reverse way, that since God is eternally a Father, therefore eternally Creator also: "As one cannot he father without a son nor lord without possession, so neither can God be ca ed All-powerful, without subjects of His power;" de Princ. i. 2. n. 10. hence he argued for the eternity of matter.
15 [This excursus supports the view taken above, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b; the student should supplement Newman's discussion by Zahn Marcellus and Harnack Dogmengesch. as quoted at the head of that section of the Prolegg. The word `Semi-arian' is used in a somewhat inexact sense in this excursus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c, and §8 (2) c.]
5 This word, which became the watchword of the Acacian party, the successors of the Eusebians, marks the relatively early date of this treatise. At a later period Athanasius would not use it without qualification (see Orat. ii. §22, note 4), and later still, rejected the Word entirely as misleading (de Synodis, §53. note 9). Vet see ad Afros. 7, and Orat. ii. 34.
6 o kuriakoj anqrwpoj (see above, introductory remarks). The expression is quoted as used by Ath., apparently from this passage, by Rufinus (Hieron. Opp. ix. p. 131, ed. 1643), Theodoret, Dial. 3, and others. The expression `Dominicus Homo' used by St. Augustine is rendered `Divine Man'in Nicene and P. N. Fathers, Series i. vol. vi. p. 40 b.
7 monoousion kai oux omoousion (see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b sub fin.). The distinction cannot (to those accustomed to use the `Nicene' Creed in English) be rendered so as to imply a real difference. The real distinction lies, not in the prefixes mono- and omo-, but in the sense to be attached to the ambiguous term ousia.
2 This dramatic representation of the Mission of the Son stands alone in the writings of Athanasius, and, if pressed, lends itself to a conception of the relation of the Son to the Father which, if not Arian, is at least contrary to the more explicit and mature conception of Athanasius as formulated for example in Orat. ii. 31 (and see note 7 there). The same idea appears in Milton's Paradise Lost (e.g. Book X.) See Newman, Arians 4, p. 93, note.
4 treij upostaseij. This expression is a link between this tract and the Expositio (§2), and is one of the indications it bears of an early date. At this time we see that Athanasius speaks of Three `Hypostases,' but qualifies his language by the caveat (Expos. 2) that they are not memerismenai. In this he follows his Origenist predecessor Dionysius, and the language of the present passage is that of Basil or the Gregories. But it is not the language of Athan. himself in his later years. See above, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b, and Introd. to Tom. ad Ant. and to Ad Afr.
7 Assembling in the Churches seems to have been a sort of protest or demonstration, sometimes peaceably, but sometimes in a more exceptionable manner;-peaceably, during Justina's persecution at Milan, Ambros. Ep. i. 20. August. Confess. ix. 15, but at Ephesus after the third Ecumenical Council the Metropolitan shut up the Churches, took possession of the Cathedral, and succeeded in repelling the imperial troops. Churches were asylums, vid. Cod. Theodos. ix. 45. §4. &c.; at the same time arms were prohibited.
11 The Prefect of Egypt was called [after 367, see Sievers, p. 119, and Prolegg. ch. v. Appendix, yet see Apol. Ar. §83] Augustalis as having been first appointed by Augustus, after his victories over Antony. He was of the Equestrian, not, as other Prefects, of the Senatorian order. He was the imperial officer, as answering to Propraetors in the Imperial Provinces. vid. Hofman. in voc. [on Philagrius, see Apol. c. Ari. §72, Prolegg. ch. ii. §5 (1) note].
15 Churches, as heathen temples before them, were used for deposits. At the sack of Rome, Alaric spared the Churches and their possessions; nay, be himself transported the costly vessels of St. Peter into his Church.
18 Lent and Passion Week was the season during which Justina's persecution of St. Ambrose took place, and the proceedings against St. Chrysostom at Constantinople. On the Paschal Vigils, vid. Tertull. ad Uxor. ii. 4. [Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. iv. p 46] p. 426, note n. Oxf. Tr.
19 parskeuh, i.e., Good Friday. [Apr. 13, 339,] The word was used for Friday generally as early as S. Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 877. ed. Pott. vid. Constit. Apostol. v. 13 Pseudo-Ign. ad Philipp. 13.
20 [On the difficulties of this part of the history, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1) ad fin., and ch. v. §3, c. It must be noted that according to the following passage Ath. had left the `other church' before Easter Day. It was probably that of `Quirinus,' Hist. Ar. 10.]
1 The Council of Sardica says eighty; which is a usual number in Egyptian Councils. (vid. Tillemont, vol. 8. p. 74.) There were about ninety Bishops in Egypt, the Thebais, and Libya. The present Council was held [at the end of 338 or possibly at the beginning of 339]. Its synodal Epistle is contained below, §3, and is particularly addressed to Pope Julius, §20.
6 This implies that Valens nd Ursacius were subjected to some kind of persecution, which is natural [most improbable]. They relapsed in 351, when Constantius on the death of Constans came into possession of his brother's dominions; and professed to have been forced to their former recantation by the latter Emperor.
16 The Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops of the two parties of S. Alexander and Meletius being assembled for the election, and having sworn to elect by the common voice, six or seven of these broke their oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no one had thought of, and consecrated him in secret to the great surprise and scandal of both ecclesiastical and lay persons. vid. Socr. ii. 17. Philostorgius (a.d. 425) adds particulars, explanatory or corrective of this statement, of which the Bishops in the text do not seem to have heard; viz., that Athanasius with his party one night seized on the Church of St. Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops whom he found there to consecrate him against their will; that he was in consequence anathematized by all the other Bishops, but that, fortifying himself in his position, he sent in his election to the Emperor, and by this means obtained its confirmation. H. E. ii. 16. It appears, in matter of fact, that S. Athan. was absent at time of his election; as Socrates says, in order to avoid it, or as Epiphanius, on business at the Court; these reasons are compatible. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §4, and Gwatkin's note, quoted there.]
17 It is contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony's monks, the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit. Ant., which would decide the question, varying in different mss. The word "ascetic" is used of those who lived a life, as afterwards followed in Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene times. [See D.C.B. 1. 181a, and Prolegg. ch. ii §1 ad fin, and Introd. to Vit. Ant.]
18 The Canons of Nicaea and Sardica were absolute against translation, but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. §6. only as a general rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except "a reasonable cause" and the sanction of a Council; one of the Councils of Carthage prohibits them when subserving ambitious views, and except for the advantage of the Church. Vid. list of translations in Socr. Hist. vii. 36. Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Niceph. Hist. xiv. 39. Coteler. adds others ad Can. Apost. 14. [cf Hist Ari. 7.]
21 Or Theognis; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian's, and was deposed together with him after the Nicene Council for communicating with Arians. [They were not ecclesiastically deposed, but exiled by the Emperor, see Prolegg. ch ii. §§3 (1) and (2) c, 6 (1).] Constantine banished them to Gaul; they were recalled in the course of two or three years. He was dead by the date of the Council of Sardica.
25 At the Council of Tyre, Potarno, an Egyptian Bishop and Confessor asked Eusebius what had happened to him in prison during the persecution, Epiph. Haer. 68, 7, as if hinting at his cowardice. It appears that Eusebius was prisoner at Caesarea with S. Pamphilus; yet he never mentions the fact himself, which is unlike him, if it was producible. [The insinuation of Potammon was groundless: see Dic. C. Biog. ii. 311.]
26 George, Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a priest by S. Alexander, for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism. Athan. speaks of him elsewhere as reprobated even by his party. de Fug. 26. [Cf. §49, de Syn. 17. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c, 2.]
31 The circumstances of this appeal, which are related by Athan. below, §86, are thus summed up by Gibbon; "Before the final sentence could be pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw himself into a bark which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial city. The request of a formal audience might have been opposed or eluded; but Athanasius concealed his arrival, watched the moment of Constantine's return from an adjacent villa, and boldly encountered his angry sovereign as he passed on horseback through the principal street of Constantinople. So strange an apparition excited his surprise and indignation; and the guards were ordered to remove the importunate suitor; but his resentment was subdued by involuntary respect; and the haughty spirit of the Emperor was awed by the courage and eloquence of a Bishop, who implored his justice and awakened his conscience." Decl. and Fail, xxi. Athan. was a small man in person.
34 This period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state but not embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear most of this Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but a sect, persecution enforced a discipline, and when they were commensurate with the nation, faith made it unnecessary. We are now returned to the state of the fourth century.
47 This Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 325, and had the office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece, &c. He was at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards Arius admitted to communion. His influence with the Court party seems to have been great, judging from Count Dionysius's tone in speaking of him. Infr. §§66, 80, 81.
51 The district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay in the territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the south-west. It consisted of various large villages, with handsome Churches, and resident Priests, and of hamlets which had none; of the latter was "Irene of Sccontarurus)" (infr. §85.) where Ischyras lived.
63 a.d. 339. vid. Hist. Arian. §11. [Socrates (iii. 5) and Sozomenus (ii. 8, &c.), confuse the Antiochene Synod, which sent the letter referred to, with the Synod of the `Dedication' held in 341 a.d., after the receipt of the letter of Julius.]
64 Vito and Vincentius, Presbyters, had represented Silvester at Nicaea. Liberius sent Vincentius, Bishop, and Marcellus, Bishop, to Constantius; and again Lucifer, Bishop, and Eusebius, Bishop. [The practice was common to all bishops, not peculiar to that of Rome.] S. Basil suggests that Damasus should send legates into the East, Ep. 69. The Council of Sardica, Can. 5, recognised the Pope's power of sending legates into foreign Provinces to hear certain appeals; "ut de Latere suo Presbyterum mittat." [It conferred the power (1) upon Julius (2) without any right of initiative, in Can. 3; Can. 5 simply regulates the exercise of the power thus conferred. The genuineness of these Canons has been disputed: at Rome they were quoted in the fifth century as `Nicene.'] vid. Thomassin. de Eccl. Disc. Part I. ii. 117. [D.C.B. iii. 530, D.C.A. 197, 1658.]
68 By Danius, which had been considered the same name as Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Montfaucon in loc. understands the notorious Arian Bishop of Nicaea, called variously Diognius (supr. §13.) Theognius (infr §28.), Theognis (Philost. Hist. ii. 7.) Theogonius, (Theod. Hist. i. 19.), and assigns some ingenious and probable reasons for his supposition. [`Danius' was the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappad., he also signs at Philippopolis. See D.C.B. under Dianius and Basil.] Flacillus, Arian Bishop of Antioch, as Athan. names him, is called Placillus (in S. Jerome's Chronicon, p. 785.), Placitus (Soz. iii. 5.), Flacitus (Theod. Hist. i. 21.). Theodorus was Arian Bishop of Heraclea, whose Comments on the Psalms are supposed to be those which bear his name in Corderius's Catena. [He was not a thorough Arian.]
69 Some of the topics contained in the Eusebian Letter are specified in Julius's answer. It acknowledged, besides, the high dignity of the [church] of Rome, as being a "School (frontisthrion) of Apostles and a Metropolis of orthodoxy from the beginning," but added that "doctors came to it from the east; and they ought not themselves to hold the second place, for they were superior in virtue, though not in their Church." And they said that they would hold communion with Julius if he would agree to their depositions and substitutions in the Eastern Sees. Soz. iii. 8.
71 As this determination does not find a place among the now received Canons of the Council, the passage in the text becomes of great moment in the argument in favour of the twenty Canons extant in Greek being but a portion of those passed at Nicaea. vid. Alber. Dissert. in Hist. Eccles. vii. Abraham Ecchellensis has argued on the same side (apud Colet. Concil. t. ii. p. 399. Ed. Ven. 1728), also Baronius, though not so strongly, Ann. 325. nn. 157 &c. and Montfaucon in loc. Natalis Alexander, Saec. 4. Dissert. 28 argues against the larger number, and Tillemont, Mem. vi. 674. [But it is far more likely that Julius is making a free use of Can. Nic. 5; the Arabic canons are apparently referred to in the above note: no one now defends them.]
72 The number of the Fathers at the Nicene Council is generally considered to have been 318, the number of Abraham's servants, Gen. xiv. 14. Anastasius (Hodeg. 3. fin.) referring to the first three Ecumenical Councils, speaks of the faith of the 318, the 150, and the 200. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1).]
94 Or rather, halts, monai. They are enumerated in the Itinerary of Antoninus, and are set down on Montfaucon's plate. The route passes over the Delta to Pelusium, and then coasts all the way to Antioch. These monai were day's journeys, Coustant in Hilar. Psalm 118, Lit. 5. 2. or half a day's journey, Herman. ibid; and were at unequal intervals, Ambros. in Psalm 118, Serm. 5. §5. Gibbon says that by the government conveyances, "it was easy to travel an 100 miles in a day along the Roman roads." ch. ii. Monh or mansio properly means the building, where soldiers or other public officers rested at night (hence its application to monastic houses). Such buildings included granaries, stabling, &c. vid. Con. Theod. ed. Gothofr. 1665. t. 1. p. 47, t. 2: p. 507. Du Cange Gloss. t. 4. p. 426. Col. 2.
96 Athan. only suggests this, supr. Encyc. 3. S. Hilary says the same of the conduct of the Arians at Toulouse; "Clerks were beaten with clubs; Deacons bruised with lead; nay, even on Christ Himself (the Saints understand my meaning) hands were laid." Contr. Constant. 11.
97 Julius here acquits Marcellus; but he is considered heretical by S. Epiphanius, loc. cit. S. Basil. Epp. 69, 125, 263, 265. S. Chyrsostom in Hebr. Hom. ii. 2. Theodoret, Haer. ii. 10. vid. Petav. de Trin. i. 13. who condemns him, and Bull far more strongly, Def. F. N. ii. 1. §9. Montfaucon defends him (in a special Dissertation, Collect. Nov. tom. 2.) and Tillemont. Mem. tom. 7. P. 513, and Natalis Alex. Saec. iv. Dissert. 30. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c.]
104 e.g. Sarapammon and Potamo, both Confessors, who were of the number of the Nicene Fathers, and had defended Athan. at Tyre, were, the former banished, the latter beaten to death. vid. infr. Hist. Ar. 12.
105 The Pseudo-Sardican Council, i.e. that of Philippopolis, retort this accusation on the party of Marcellus; Hilar. Fragm. iii. 9. but the character of the outrages fixes them on the Arians, vid. infr. §45, note [There were doubtless outrages on both sides].
111 Coustant in loc. fairly insists on them word "all," as shewing that S. Julius does not here claim the prerogative of judging by himself all Bishops whatever, and that what follows relates merely to the Church of Alexandria.
113 Socrates says somewhat differently, "Julius wrote back .... that they acted against the Canons, because they had not called him to a Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome." Hist. ii. 17. Sozomen in like manner, "for it was a sacerdotal law, to declare invalid whatever was transacted beside the will of the Bishop of the Romans." Hist. iii. 10. vid. Pope Damasus ap. Theod. Hist. v. 10. Leon. Epist. 14. &c. In the passage in the text the prerogative of the Roman see is limited, as Coustant observes, to the instance of Alexandria; and we actually find in the third century a complaint lodged against its Bishop Dionysius with the Pope. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.]
114 diataceij. St. Paul says outwj en taij ekklhsiaij diatassomai.1 Cor. vii. 17. ta de loipa diatacomai. Ibid. xi. 34. vid. Pearson, Vind. Ignat. p. 298. Hence Coustant in col. Athan. would suppose Julius to refer to 1 Cor. v. 4. which Athan. actually quotes, Ep. Encycl. §2. supr. p. 93. Pearson, loc. cit. considers the diataceij of the Apostles, as a collection of regulation and usages, which more or less represented, or claimed to represent, what may be called St. Paul's rule, or St. Peter's rule, &c. Cotelier considers the diatazeij as the same as the didaxai, the "doctrine" or "teaching" of the Apostles. Praefat. in Const. Apost. So does Beveridge, Cod. Can. Illustr. ii. 9. §5.
115 [Petri] in Sede sua vivit potestas et excellit auctoritas Leon. Serm. iii. 3. vid. contra Barrow on the Supremacy, p. 116. ed. 1836. "not one Bishop, but all Bishops together through the whole Church, do succeed St. Peter, or any other Apostle.
119 Musonian was originally of Antioch, and his name Strategius; he had been promoted and honoured with a new name by Constantine, for whom he had collected information about the Manichees. Amm. Marc. xv. 13, §1. In 354, he was Praetorian Prefect of the East. (vid. de Syn. 1, note 1.) Libanius praises him.
138 Asclepas, or Asclepius of Gaza, Epiph. Hoer. 69. 4. was one of the Nicene Fathers, and according to Theod. Hist. i. 27. was at the Council of Tyre, which Athan. also attended, but only by compulsion. According to the Eusebians at Philippopolis, they had deposed him [17 years previously, but the number must be corrupt, or the statement incorrect]. They state, however, at the same time, that he had been condemned by Athanasius and Marcellus, vid. Hilar. Fragm. iii. 13. Sozomen, Hist. iii. 8. says that they deposed him on the charge of having overturned an altar; and, after Athan. infr. §47, that he was acquitted at Sardica on the ground that Eusebius of Caesarea and others had reinstated him in his see (before 339). There is mention of a Church built by him in Gaza ap. Bolland. Febr. 26. Vit. L. Porphyr. n. 20. p. 648.
140 Theodulus, Bishop of Trajanopolis in Thrace, who is here spoken of as deceased, seems to have suffered this persecution from the Eusebians upon their retreat from Sardica, vid. Athan. Hist. Arian. §19. We must suppose then with Montfaucon, that the Council, from whom this letter proceeds, sat some considerable time after that retreat, and that the proceedings spoken of took place in the interval. Socrates, however, makes Theodulus survive Constans, who died 350. H. E. ii. 26.
141 The usual proceeding of the Arians was to retort upon the Catholics the charges which they brought against them, supr. §33, note 4. Accordingly, in their Encyclical from Philippopolis, they say that "a vast multitude had congregated at Sardica, of wicked and abandoned persons, from Constantinople and Alexandria; who lay under charges of murder, blood, slaughter, robbery, plunder, spoiling, and all nameless sacrileges and crimes; who had broken altars, burnt Churches, ransacked private houses," &c. &c. Hil. Fragm. iii. 19.
155 In like manner the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by as many as 470 subscriptions, according to Ephrem (Phot. Bibl. p. 801) by 1600 according to Eulogius (ibid. p. 877), i.e. of Bishops, Archimandrites. &c.
156 Hosius is called by Athan, the father and the president of the Council. Hist. Arian. 15. 16. Roman controversialists here explain why Hosius does not sign himself as the Pope's legate. De Marc. Concord. v. 4. Alber. Dissert. ix. and Protestants why his legates rank before all the other Bishops, even before Protogenes. Bishop of the place. Basnage, Ann. 347. 5. Febronius considers that Hosius signed here and at Nicaea, as a sort of representative of the civil, and the Legates of ecclesiastical supremacy. de Stat. Eccl. vi. 4. And so Thomassin, "Imperator velut exterior Episcopus: praefuit autem summus Pontifex, ut Episcopus interior." Dissert. in Conc. x. 14. The popes never attended in person the Eastern Councils. St. Leo excuses himself on the plea of its being against usage. Epp. 37. and 93. [Silvester's absence from Nic`a was due solely to extreme old age. But Sardica was a Western council.]
157 [The above names, with a few exceptions, comprise those present at the Council. See additional Note at the end of this Apology, where a list is given in alphabetical order of all bishops present, with their Sees.]
168 oi en tw kanaliw thj 'Italiaj. "Canalis est, non via regia aut militaris, verum via tranversa, quae in regiam seu basilicam influit, quasi aquae canalis in alveum." Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. vi. de Curiosis, p. 196. who illustrates the word at length. Du Cange on the contrary, in voc. explains it of "the high road." Tillemont professes himself unable to give a satisfactory sense to it. vol. viii. p. 685. [The word occurs in the XIth. Sardican canon, where the Greek version (Can. XX. in Bruns) glosses it kanaliw htoi parodw.]
170 Athan. says, supr. §1. that the Letter of the Council was signed in all by more than 300. It will be observed, that Athan.'s numbers in the text do not accurately agree with each other. The subscriptions enumerated are 284, to which 63 being added, made a total of 347, not 344. [The enumeration of Ath. includes many who signed long afterwards. Those `from Palestine' are simply the signatories of the synodal letter of 346, below §57. The number, 170 mentioned by Ath. Hist. Ar. 15 gives an orthodox majority of 20. See additional Note at end of this Apology, and Gwatkin, Studies, p. 121, note.]
174 "They acquainted Julius the Bishop of Rome with their case; and he, according to the prerogative (pronomia) of the Church in Rome, fortified them with letters in which he spoke his mind, and sent them back to the East, restoring each to his own place, and remarking on those who had violently deposed them. They then set out from Rome, and on the strength (qarrountej) of the letters of Bishop Julius, take possession of their Churches." Socr. ii. 15. It must be observed, that in the foregoing sentences Socrates has spoken of "(imperial) Rome." Sozomen says, "Whereas the care of all (khdemoniaj) pertained to him on account of the dignity of his see, he restored each to his own Church." iii. 8. "I answer," says Barrow, "the Pope did not restore them judicially but declaratively, that is, declaring his approbation of their right and innocence, did admit them to communion. ...Besides, the Pope's proceeding was taxed, and protested against, as irregular;. ...and, lastly, the restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops had no complete effect. till it was confirmed by the synod of Sardica, backe by the imperial authority." Suprem. p. 360. ed. 1836.
191 [Gibbon, ch. xxi. note 108, doubts the fact of this recantation on the ground of the dissimilar tone of the two letters that follow. Newman explains that they treat Julius as `a superior,' Athanasius as `an equal;' but surely he was something more than an equal. Fear of Constans, and the desire to secure themselves from attack, would make it importer for them at any price to obtain the favour of the first bishop of the West. In order to do this they had to make their peace with Athanasius; but in doing so, they went no further than they could help.]
4 [According to the tenses in the original the five months mark the date not of Alexander's death (April 17, 328), but of the renewed Meletian troubles. The settlement did not keep them quiet for five months. The terminus a quo of the five months is somewhat doubtful; but it certainly is not the Council of Nicaea, see §71, &c. Montf. Monit. in Vit. S. Athanasii, also Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1) and ch. v. §3 a.]
17 Dalmatius was the name of father and son, the brother and nephew of Constantine. Socrates, Hist. i. 27. gives the title of Censor to the son; but the Chron. Pasch. p. 531 (Dind.) gives it to the father. Valesius, and apparently Tillemont (Empereurs, vol. 4. p. 657) think Socrates mistaken. The younger Dalmatias was created Caesar by Constantine a few year before his death; and as well as his brother Hannibalian, and a number of other relatives, was put to death by the soldiery, on the death of Constantine. vid. Hist. Ar. 69. [Gwatkin, p. 108 note].
20 [The monh here is not a monastery in the later sense, but a village or cluster of cells. This intercepted letter demonstrates the existence of Meletian monks, of which there is other evidence also: (see below, Introd. to Vit. Ant. The objection of Weingarten to the genuineness of this letter is purely arbitrary)].
21 According to the system of government introduced by Diocletian and Constantine, there were thirty-five military commanders of the troops, under the Magistri militum, and all of these bore the name of duces or dukes; the comites, or counts, were ten out of the number, who were distinguished as companions of the Emperor. vid. Gibbon, ch. 17. Three of these dukes were stationed in Egypt [i.e. in the whole prefecture; one only in the province of Egypt in the narrower sense].
25 i.e. Meletian Bishops who had conformed; or, since they are not in the list, §71. Catholic Bishops with whom the conforming party were familiar; or Meletians after the return of Meletius. vid. Tillemont, Mem. vol. 8. p. 658.
26 On the "cursus publicus," vid. Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 5. It was provided for the journeys of the Emperor, for persons whom he summoned, for magistrates, ambassadors, and for such private persons as the Emperor indulged in the use of it, which was gratis. The use was granted by Constantine to the Bishops who were summoned to Nicaea, as far as it went, in addition (though aliter Valesius in loc.) to other means of travelling. Euseb. v. Const. iii. 6. The cursus publicus brought the Bishops to the Council of Tyre. ibid. iv. 43. In the conference between Liberius and Constantius, Theod. Hist. ii. 13. it is objected that the cursus publicus is not sufficient to convey Bishops to the Council which Liberius proposes; he answers that the Churches are rich enough to convey their Bishops as far as the sea. Thus S. Hilary was compelled (data evectionis copia, Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 57.) to attend at Seleucia, as Athan. at Tyre. Julian complains of the abuse of the cursus publicus, perhaps with an allusion to these Councils of Constantius. vid. Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 5. 1. 12. where Gothofred quotes Liban. Epitaph. in Julian. vol. i. p. 569. ed. Reiske.) Vid. the well-known passage of Ammianus, who speaks of the Councils being the ruin of the res vehicularia Hist. xxi. 16. The Eusebians at Philippopolis say the same thing. Hilar. Frag. iii. 25. The Emperor provided board and perhaps lodging for the Bishops at Ariminum; which the Bishops of Aquitaine, Gaul, and Britain, declined, except three British from poverty. Sulp. Hist. ii. 56. Hunneric in Africa, after assembling 466 Bishops at Carthage, dismissed them without modes of conveyance, provision, or baggage. Victor Utic. Hist. iii. init. In the Emperor's letter previous to the assembling of the sixth Ecumenical Council, a.d. 678, (Harduin, Conc. t. 3. p. 1048 fin.) he says he has given orders for the conveyance and maintenance of its members. Pope John VIII. reminds Ursus, Duke of Venice (a.d. 876.), of the same duty of providing for the members of a Council, "secundum pios principes, qui in talibus munifice semper erant intenti." Colet. Concil. (Ven. 1730,) t. xi. p. 14.
27 stratopedon: vid. Chrys. on the Statues, p. 382, note 6. Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. vi. 32, 1. 1. Castra sunt ubi Princeps est. ibid. 35, 1. 15. also Kiesling. de Discipl. Cler. i. 5. p. 16. Beveridge in Can. Apost. 83. interprets strateia of any civil engagement as opposed to clerical.
40 Curiosus; the Curiosi (in curis agendis) were properly the overseers of the public roads, Du Cange in voc., but they became in consequence a sort of imperial spy and were called the Emperor's eyes. Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. t. 2. p. 194. ed. 1665. Constantius confined them to the school of the Agentes in rebus (infr. Apol. ad Const. §10.), under the Master of the Offices. Gothoft. ibid. p. 192.
46 On the different kinds of Ducenaries, vid. Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. XI. vii. 1. Here, as in Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. the word stands for a Procurator, whose annual pay amounted, to 200 sestertia, vid. Salmas. Hist Aug. t. l. p. 533. In like manner a Centenary is one who receives 100.
47 The title Patrician was revived by Constantine as a personal distinction. It was for life, and gave precedence over all the great officers of state except the Consul. It was usually bestowed on favourites, or on ministers as a reward of services. Gibbon, Hist, ch. 17. This Julius Constantius, who was the father of Julian, was the first who bore the title, with L. Optatus, who had been consul the foregoing year. Illustrissimus was the highest of the three ranks of honour. ibid.
49 Colluthus formed & schism on the doctrine that God was not the cause of any sort of evil, e.g. did not inflict pain and suffering. Though a Priest, he took on himself to ordain, even to the Priesthood [§12]. St. Alexander even seems to imply that he did so for money. Theod. H.E. i. 3. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §2.]
64 That Chorepiscopi were real Bishops, vid. Bevereg. in Conc. Ancyr. Can. 13. Routh in Conc. Neocaes. Can. 13. referring to Rhabanus Maurus. Thomassin on the other hand denies that they were Bishops, Discipl. Eccl. i. 2. c. 1. [see D.C.A. s.v.]
66 It was against the Canon of Sardica, and doubtless against ancient usage, to ordain a Bishop for so small a village, vid. Bingham, Antiqu. II. xii., who, however, maintains by instances, that at least small towns might be sees. Also it was against usage that a layman, as Ischyras, should be made a Bishop. ibid. x. 4, &c. St. Hilary, however, makes him a Deacon. Fragm. ii. 16.
67 Dogs without owners, and almost in a wild state, abound, as is well known, in Eastern cities; vid. Psalm lix. 6, Psalm lix. 14, Psalm lix. 15. 2 Kings ix. 35, 2 Kings ix. 36. and for the view taken in Scripture of dogs, vid. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 56 [and Dict. Bib. s.v.].
73 "Once in an entertainment, at which he (Constantine) received Bishops, he made the remark that he too was a Bishop; using pretty much these words in my hearing, 'You are Bishops of matters within the Church, I am appointed by God to be Bishop of matters external to it." Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 23.
77 ephkouse gar aplwj. Montfaucon In Onomast. (Athan. t. 2. ad calc.) points out some passages in his author, where epakouein, like upakouein, means "to answer." vid. Apol. Const. §16 init. Orat. iii. 27 fin.
79 Here ends the second part of the Apology, as is evident by turning back to §58. (supr. p. 130) to which this paragraph is an allusion. The express object of the second part was to prove, what has now been proved by documents, that Valens and Ursacius did but succumb to plain facts which they could not resist. It is observable too from this passage that the Apology was written before their relapse, i.e. before a.d. 351 or 352. The remaining two sections are often after 357, as they mention the fall of Liberius and Hosius, and speak of Constantius in different language from any which has been found above. Introd. to Apol. Const. and Hist. Ar.]
1 eusebeia, asebeia, &c., here translated "religion, irreligion, religious, &c. &c." are technical words throughout, being taken from S. Paul's text, "Great is the mystery of godliness," eusebeiaj, i.e. orthodoxy. Such too seems to be the meaning of "godly admonitions," and "godly judgments," and "this godly and well-learned man," in our Ordination Services. The Latin translation is "pius," "pietas." It might be in some respects suitably rendered by "devout" and its derivatives. On its familiar use in the controversy depends the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, Arian Bishop of Constantinople, which was received with loud laughter in the Cathedral, and remained in esteem down to Socrates' day, "The Father is asebhj, as being without devotion, the Son eusebhz, devout, as paying devotion to the Father." Socr. Hist. ii. 43. Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with alhqwj eusebia. Theod. Hist. i. 4.
2 It appears that the Arians did not venture to speak disrespectfully of the definition of the Council till the date (a.d. 352) of this work, when Acacius headed them. Yet the plea here used, the unscriptural character of its symbol, had been suggested to Constantius on his accession, a.d. 337, by the Arian priest, the favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his will, Theod. Hist. ii. 3; and Eusebius of Caesarea glances at it, at the time of the Council, in the letter to his Church, which is subjoined to this Treatise.
3 Alexander also calls them chameleons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12. Athanasius so calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. §79. Cyril compares them to "the leopard which cannot change his spots." Dial. ii. init. t. v. i. Aub., Naz. Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the Arians, vid. infra, §4. &c. Orat. ii. 40. He says, ad Ep. Aeg. 6. that they considered Creeds as yearly covenants; and de Synod. §3. 4. as State Edicts. vid. also §14. and passim. "What wonder that they fight against their fathers, when they fight against themselves?" §37.
6 alogiaj; an allusion frequent in Athanasius, to the judicial consequence of their denying the Word of God. Thus, just below, n. 3. "Denying the Word" or Reason "of God, reason have they none." Also Orat. i. §35. fin. §40. init. §62. Orat. ii. §7. init. Hence he so often calls the Arians "mad" and "deranged;" e.g. "not aware how `mad' their `reason' is." Orat. i. §37.
11 Or ungodliness, aqeothtoj. Thus Aetius was called o aqeoj, the ungodly. de Synod. §6; and Axius complains that Alexander had expelled him and his from Alexandria, wj anqrwpouj aqeouj. Theodor. Hist. i. 4. "Atheism" and "Atheist" imply intention, system, and profession, and are so far too strong a rendering of the Greek. Since Christ was God, to deny Him was to deny God. The force of the term, however, seems to be, that, whereas the Son had revealed the "unknown God," and destroyed the reign of idols, the denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry and its attendant spiritual ignorance. Thus contr. Gent. §29. fin. he speaks of "the Greek idolatry as full of all Atheism" or ungodliness, and contrasts with it the knowledge of "the Guide and Framer of the Universe, the Father's Word," "that through Him `we may discern His Father,' and the Greeks may know `how far they have separated themselves from the truth.'" And Orat. ii. 43. he classes Arians with the Greeks, who "though they have the name of God in their mouths, incur the charge of `Atheism,' because they know not the real and true God, `the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'" (vid. also Basil in Eunom. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards he gives a further reason for the title, observing that Arianism was worse than previous heresies, such as Manicheism, inasmuch as the latter denied the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God's substance His connatural Word, and, as far as its words went, infringed upon the perfections and being of the first Cause. And so ad Ep. Aeg. §17. fin. he says, that it alone, beyond other heresies, "has been bold against the Godhead Itself in a mad way (manikwteron, vid. foregoing note), denying that there is a Word, and that the Father was always Father." Elsewhere he speaks more generally, as if Arianism introduced "an Atheism or rather Judaism `against the Scriptures,' being next door to Heathenism, so that its disciple cannot be even named Christian; for all such tenets are `contrary to the Scriptures;'" and he makes this the reason why the Nicene Fathers stopped their ears and condemned it. ad Ep. Aeg. §13. For the same reason he calls the heathen aqeoi, atheistical or ungodly, "who are arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scripture." contr. Gent. §14. vid. eidwlwn aqeothta. §46. init. Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution worse than the pagan `cruelties,' and therefore "a Babylonian Atheism," Ep. Encycl. §5. as not allowing the Catholics the use of prayer and baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius at heist, for his treatment of Hosius; oute ton qeon fobhqeij o aqeoj. Hist. Arian. 45. Another reason for the title seems to have lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship `on its own shewing,' viz. as worshipping One whom they yet maintained to be a creature. [Prolegg. ch. it. §3 (2)a, sub. fin.]
13 Apparently an allusion to Joh. xviii. 12. Elsewhere, he speaks of "the chief captain" and "the governor," with an allusion to Acts xxiii. 22-24. &c. Hist. Arian. §66. fin. vid. also §2. Apol. contr. Arian. §8. also §10. and 45. Orat. ii. §43. Ep. Encycl. §5. Against the use of violence in religion, vid. Hist. Arian. §33. 67. (Hil. ad Const. 1. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, that at Nicaea, "it was not necessity which drove the judges to" their decision, "but all vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose." ad Ep. Aeg. 13.
15 epispeirantoj tou diabolou, the allusion is to Matt. xiii. 25, and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism. He draws it out at length, Orat. ii. §34. Elsewhere, he uses the image for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon Adam's fall, contr. Apoll. i. §15. as does S. Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 40. n. 3. using it of such as lead to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. v. 10. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, of the natural passions and of false reason misleading them, de An. et Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. c. 2.
16 The Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions (at the end of the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the insertion of the phrases, "of the substance" and "one in substance." Athan. says that the Arians must not criticise the latter before they had cleared themselves of the former. Thus he says presently, that they were at once irreligious in their faith and ignorant in their criticism; and speaks of the Council negativing their formulae, and substituting those which were "sound and ecclesiastical." vid. also n. 4.
17 And so S. Leo "passim" concerning the Council of Chalcedon, "Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur in that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever concerning any retractation," Ep Ep. 94. He calls such an act a "magnum sacrilegium," Ep. 157. c. 3. "To be seeking for what has been disclosed, to retract what has been perfected, to tear tip what has been laid down (definita), what is this but to be unthankful for what we gained?" Ep. 162. vid. the whole of it. He says that the attempt is "no mark of a peace-maker but a rebel." Ep. 164. c. 1. fin. vid. also Epp. 145, and 156, where he says, none can assail what is once determined, but "aut antichristus aut diabolus." c. 2.
19 qeomaxein, qeomaxoi. vid. Acts v. 39, Acts xxiii. 9. are of very frequent use in Athan. as is xristomaxoi, in speaking of the Arians, vid. infra passim. also antimaxomenoi tw owthri, Ep. Encycl. §5. And in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 10. b.c.p. 12. p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 729. And so qeomaxoj glwssa, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. xristomaxwn. Ep. 236. init. vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. 19 e. p. 24 e.). qeomaxoj glwssa, is used of other heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. §8.
22 The party he is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he does not seem to have had much distinct knowledge. He contrasts them again and again in the passages which follow with the Eusebians of the Nicene Council, and says that he is sure that the ground they take when examined will be found substantially the same as the Eusebian. vid. §6 init. et alib. §7. init. §9. circ. fin. §10. circ. fin. §13. init. tote kai nun. §18. circ. fin. §28. fin [On Acacius see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (2) b.]
26 Thus S. Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, "We have not the task of refuting their tenets, for they suffice for the overthrow of each other." Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Graec. Affect. i. p. 707. &c. August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and Vincentius's celebrated Commonitorium passim.
30 This is Athan.'s deliberate judgment. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin., ib. §24. he speaks of Arius's "hatred of the truth." Again, "though the diabolical men rave" Orat. iii. §8. "friends of the devil, and his spirits," Ad Ep. Aeg. 5. Another reason of his so accounting them, was their atrocious cruelty towards Catholics; this leads him elsewhere to break out: "O new heresy, that has put on the whole devil in irreligious doctrine and conduct!" Hist. Arias. §66, also Alexander, `diabolical,' ap Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 731. `satanical,' ibid. p. 741. vid. also Socr. i. 9. p. 30 fin. Hilar. contr. Const. 17.
31 kataxrhstikwj. This word is noticed and protested against by Alexander, Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11 a. by the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Haer. 73. n. 5. by Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 23. and by Cyril, Dial. ii. t. v. i. pp. 432, 3.
33 Vid. Orat. i. §38. The controversy turned on the question what was meant by the word `Son.' Though the Arians would not allow with the Catholics that our Lord was Son by nature, and maintained that the word implied a beginning of existence, they did not dare to say that He was Son merely in the sense in which we are sons, though, as Athan. contends, they necessarily tended to this conclusion, directly they receded from the Catholic view. Thus Arius said that He was a creature, `but not as one of the creatures.' Orat. ii. §19. Valens at Ariminum said the same, Jerom. adv. Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, that not daring directly to deny that He was God, the Arians merely asked `whether He was a Son.' de Trin. viii. 3. Athanasius remarks upon this reluctance to speak out, challenging them to present `the heresy naked,' de Sent. Dionys. 2. init. `No one,' he says elsewhere, `puts a light under a bushel; let them shew the world their heresy naked.' Ep. Aeg. 18. vid. ibid. 10. In like manner, Basil says that (though Arius was really like Eunomius, in faith, contr. Eunom. i. 4) Aetius his master was the first to teach openly (fanerwj), that the Father's substance was unlike, anomoioj, the Son's. ibid. i. 1. Epiphanius Haer. 76 p. 949. seems to say that the elder Arians held the divine generation in a sense in which Aetius did not, that is, they were not so consistent and definite as he. Athan. goes on to mention some of the attempts of the Arians to find some theory short of orthodoxy, yet short of that extreme heresy, on the other hand, which they felt ashamed to avow.
38 i.e. what is your authority? is it not a novel, and therefore a wrong doctrine? vid. infr. §13. ad Serap. i. 3. Also Orat. i. §8. `Who ever heard such doctrine? or whence or from whom did they hear it? who, when they were under catechising, spoke thus to them? If they themselves confess that they now hear it for the first time, they must grant that their heresy is alien, and not from the Fathers.' vid. ii. §34. and Socr. i. 6. p. 11 c.
42 Vid. infr. §17 Orat. ii. §31. 71. Irenaeus calls the Son and Holy Spirit the Hands of God. Haer. iv, praef. vid. also Hilar. de Trin. vii. 22. This image is in contrast to that of instrument, organon, which the Arians would use of the Son. vid Socr. i. 6. p. 11, as implying He was external to God, whereas the word Hand implies His consubstantiality with the Father.
57 In like manner, `Men were made through the Word, when the Father Himself willed.' Orat. i. 63. `The Word forms matter as injoined by, and ministering to, God.' prostattomenoj kai utournwn. ibid. ii. §22. contr. Gent. 46. vid. note on Orat. ii. 22.
59 His argument is, that if the Son but partook the Father in the sense in which we partake the Son, then the Son would not impart to us the Father, but Himself, and would be a separating as well as uniting medium between the Father and us; whereas He brings us so near to the Father, that we are the Father's children, not His, and therefore He must be Himself one with the Father, or the Father must be in Him with an incomprehensible completeness. vid. de Synod. §51. contr. Gent. 46. fin. Hence S. Augustine says, `As the Father has life in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself, not by participating, but in Himself. For we have not life in ourselves, but in our God. But that Father, who has life in Himself, begat a Son such, as to have life in Himself, not to become partaker of life, but to be Himself life; and of that life to make us partakers. Serm. 127. de Verb. Evang. 9.
62 And so in Orat. ii. §19-22. `Though the Son surpassed other things on a comparison, yet He were equally a creature with them; for even in those things which are of a created nature, we may find some things surpassing others. Star, for instance, differs from star in glory, yet it does not follow that some are sovereign, and others serve, &c.' ii. 20. And so Gregory Nyssen contr. Eunom. iii. p. 132 D. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 970.
66 The force lies in the word fusei, `naturally,' which the Council expressed still more definitely by `essence.' Thus Cyril says, `the term "Son" denotes the essential origin from the Father.' Dial 5. p. 573. And Gregory Nyssen, `the title "Son" does not simply express the being from another' vid. infra. §19.), but relationship according to nature. contr. Eunom. ii. p. 91. Again S. Basil says, that Father is `a term of relationship,' oikeiwsewj. contr. Eunom. ii. 24. init. And hence he remarks, that we too are properly, kuriwj, sons of God, as becoming related to Him through works of the Spirit. ii. 23. So also Cyril, loc. cit. Elsewhere S. Basil defines father `one who gives to another the origin of being according to a nature like his own;' and a son `one who possesses the origin of being from another by generation,' contr Eun. ii. 22. On the other hand, the Arians at the first denied that `by nature there was any Son of God.' Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 732.
68 One of the characteristic points in Athanasius is his constant attention to the sense of doctrine, or the meaning of writers, in preference to the words used. Thus he scarcely uses the symbol omoousion, one in substance, throughout his Orations, and in the de Synod. acknowledges the Semiarians as brethren. Hence infr. §18. he says, that orthodox doctrine `is revered by all though expressed in strange language, provided the speaker means religiously, and wishes to convey by it a religious sense.' vid. also §21. He says, that Catholics are able to `speak freely,' or to expatiate, parrhsiazomeqa, `out of Divine Scripture.' Orat.i §9. §9. vid. de Sent. Dionys. §20. init. Again: `The devil spoke from Scripture, but was silenced by the Saviour; Paul spoke from profane writers, yet, being a saint, he has a religious meaning.' de Syn. §39, also ad Ep. ¦g. 8. Again, speaking of the apparent contrariety between two Councils, `It were unseemly to make the one conflict with the other, for all their members are fathers; and it were profane to decide that these spoke well and those ill, for all of them have slept in Christ.' §43. also §47. Again: `Not the phrase, but the meaning and the religious life, is the recommendation of the faithful.' ad Ep. ¦g. §9.
70 Vid. also Incarn. §17. This contrast is not commonly found in ecclesiastical writers, who are used to say that God is present everywhere, in substance as well as by energy or power. S. Clement, however, expresses himself still more strongly in the same way, `In substance far off (for how can the originate come close to the Unoriginate?), but most close in power, in which the universe is embosomed.' Strom. 2. circ. init. but the parenthesis explains his meaning. Vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 6. p. 44. The common doctrine of the Fathers is, that God is present everywhere in substance. Vid. Petav. de Deo, iii. 8. and 9. It may be remarked, that S. Clement continues `neither enclosing nor enclosed.'
71 6 In Almighty God is the perfection and first pattern of what is seen in shadow in human nature, according to the imperfection of the subject matter; and this remark applies, as to creation, so to generation. Athanasius is led to state this more distinctly in another connection in Orat. i. §21. fin. `It belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly (kuriwj) Father, and the Son properly (kuriwj) Son; and in Them and Them only does it hold that the Father is ever Father, and the Son ever Son.' Accordingly he proceeds, shortly afterwards, as in the text, to argue, `For God does not make men His pattern, but rather we men, for that God is properly and alone truly Father of His own Son, are also called fathers of our own children, for "of Him is every father-hood in heaven and on earth named,"' §23. The Semiarians at Ancyra quote the same text for the same doctrine. Epiphan. Haer. 73. 5. As do Cyril in Joan. i. p. 24. Thesaur. 32. p. 281. and Damascene de Fid. Orth. i. 8. The same parallel, as existing between creation and generation is insisted on by Isidor. Pel. Ep. iii. 355. Basil contr. Eun. iv. p. 280 A., Cyril Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Epiph. Haer. 69. 36. and Gregor. Naz. Orat. 20. 9. who observes that God creates with a word, Ps. cxlviii. 5, which evidently transcends human creations. Theodorus Abucara, with the same object, draws out the parallel of life, zwh, as Athan. that of being, einai. Opusc. iii. p. 420-422.
72 Vid. de Synod. §51. Orat. i. §15, 16. reusth. vid. Orat. i. §28. Bas. in Eun. ii. 23. rusin. Bas. in Eun. ii. 6. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28, 22. Vid. contr. Gentes, §41, 42; where Athan. without reference to the Arian controversy, draws out the contrast between the Godhead and human nature.
73 S. Cyril, Dial iv. init. p. 505 E. speaks of the qrulloumeh, and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Athan. disclaims it, Expos. §1. Orat. i. §21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i 3. p. 743. On the other hand, Athanasius quotes it in a passage which he adduces from Theognostus, infr. §25. and from Dionysius, de Sent. D. §23. and Origen uses it, Periarchon, i. 2. It is derived from Wisd. vii. 25.
75 The title `Word' implies the ineffable mode of the Son's generation, as distinct from material parallels, vid. Gregory Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iii. p. 107. Chrysostom in Joan.Hom. 2. §4. Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5. p. 37. Also it implies that there is but One Son. vid. infr. §16. `As the Origin is one essence, so its Word and Wisdom is one, essential and subsisting.' Orat, iv. 1. fin.
76 `Man,' says S. Cyril, `inasmuch as he had a beginning of being, also has of necessity a beginning of begetting, as what is from him is a thing generate, but. ...if God's essence transcend time, or origin, or interval, His generation too will transcend these; nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of the power of generating, that it doth not this in time. For other than human is the manner of divine generation; and together with God's existing is His generating implied, and the Son was in Him by generation, nor did His generation precede His existence, but He was always, and that by generation.' Thesaur. v. p. 35.
81 Jer. ii. 13. Vid. infr. passim. All these titles, `Word, Wisdom, Light' &c., serve to guard the title `Son' from any notions of parts or dimensions, e.g. `He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and single. He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son ...for ...the Word and Wisdom is neither creature, nor part of Him Whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten.' Orat. i. §28.
87 i.e. `Granting that the prima facie impression of this teat is in favour of our Lord's being a creature, yet so many arguments have been already brought, and may be added, against His creation, that we must interpret this text By them. It cannot mean that our Lord was simply created, because we have already shewn that He is not external to His Father.'
95 peribombousin. So in ad Afros. 5. init. And Sent. D. §19. perierxontai peribombountej. And Gregory Nyssen. contr. Eun. viii. p. 234 C. wj an touj apeirouj taij platwnikaij kallifwniai peribombhseien. vid. also perierxontai wj oi kanqaroi. Orat iii. fin.
96 proswpa. vid. Orat. i. §54. ii. §8. Sent. D. 4. not persons, but characters; which must also be considered the meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. ii. 2. and 10; though it there approximates (even in phrase, ouk en diairesei proswpwn) to its ecclesiastical use, which seems to have been later. Yet persona occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27; it may be questioned, however, whether in any genuine Greek treatise till the Apollinarians.
103 The main argument of the Arians was that our lord was a Son, and therefore was not eternal, but of a substance which had a beginning. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3(2) a.] Accordingly Athanasius says, `Having argued with them as to the meaning of their own selected term "Son," let us go on to others, which on the very face make for us, such as Word, Wisdom, &c.'
108 alogoj, asofoj. Vid. infr., §26. This is a frequent argument in the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Son or substantial Word (logoj), is as great a sacrilege as to deny His Reason, logoj, from which the Son receives His name. Thus Orat i. §14. fin. Athan. says, `imputing to God's nature an absence of His Word (alogian or irrationality), they are most irreligious.' Vid. §19. fin. 24. Elsewhere, he says. `Is a man not mad himself, who even entertains the thought that God is word-less and wisdom-less? for such illustrations and such images Scripture hath proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend concerning God, we might even from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as is attainable.' Orat. ii 32. vid also iii. 63. iv. 12. Serap. ii. 2.
111 And so phgh chra. Serap. ii. 2. Orat. i. §14 fin. also it. §2, where Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty God is Father, cannot really believe in Him as a Creator. If the divine substance be not fruitful (karpogonoj), but barren, as they say, as a light which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to maintain that He possesses the creative energy?' Vid. also phgh qeothtoj, Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. phgh ekprhghj, of the Son, Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And Cyril, `If thou take from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the generative power (karpogonon) of the divine nature so that It no longer is perfect. This then is a token of its perfection, and the Son who went forth from Him apart from time, is a pledge (sfragij) to the Father that He is perfect.' Thesaur. p. 37.
112 Arius said, as the Eunomians after him, that the Son was not really, but only called, Words and Wisdom, which were simply attributes of God, and the prototypes of the Son. Vid. Socr. i. 6. Theod. H.E.i. 3, and infr. Orat. ii.37, 38.
116 As the Arians took the title Son in that part of its earthly sense in which it did not apply to our Lord, so they misinterpreted the title Word also; which denoted the Son's immateriality and indivisible presence in the Father, but did not express His perfecttion. Vid. Orat. it. §34-36. contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. Aeg. 16. Epiph. Haer. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p. 349. Origen (in a passage, however, of questionable doctrine), says, `As there are gods many, but to us one God the Father, and many lords, but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so there are many words, but we pray that in us may exist the Word that was in the beginning, with God, and was God.' In Joan. tom. it. 3. `Many things, it is acknowledged, does the Father speak to the Son,' say the Semiarians at Ancyra, `but the words which God speaks to the Son, are not sons. They are not substances of God, but vocal energies; but the Son, though a Word, is not such, but, being a Son, is a substance.' Epiph. Haer. 73. 12. The Semiarians are speaking against Sabellianism, which took the same ground here as Arianism; so did the heresy of the Samosatene, who according to Epiphanius, considered our Lord as the internal Word, or thought. Haer. 65. The term word in this inferior sense is often in Greek rhma. Epiph. supr. and Cyril, de Incarn. Unig. init. t. v. i. p. 679.
117 `If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea (xarakthra) of Christianity, they would not have said that the Lord of glory was a creature.' Ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. §2, he says, Arians are not Christians because they are Arians, for Christians axe called, not from Arius, but from Christ, who is their only Master. Vid. also de Syn. §38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Afros. 4. Their cruelty and cooperation with the heathen populace was another reason. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. 12.
118 All the titles of the Son of God are consistent with each other, and variously represent one and the same Person. `Son' and `Word,' denote His derivation; `Word' and `Image,' His Similitude; `Word' and `Wisdom,' His immateriality; `Wisdom' and `Hand,' His coexistence. `If He is not Son, neither is He Image' Orat. ii. §2. 'How is them Word and Wisdom, unless He be a proper offspring of His substance? ii. §22. Vid. also Orat. i. §20. 21. and at great length Orat. iv. §20, &c. vid. also Naz. Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August. in Joan. xlviii. 6. and in Psalm. xliv. 5. Psalm (xlv.) 5.
127 Vid. a beautiful passage, contr. Gent. 42, &c. Again, of men, de Incarn. 3. 3; also Orat. ii. 78. where he speaks of Wisdom as being infused into the world on its creation, that it might possess `a type and semblance of its Image.'
133 By aiwn, age, seems to be meant duration, or the measure of duration, before or independent of the existence of motion, which is in measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are creatures, so are the ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an age has a sort of positive existence, though not an ousia or substance, and means the same as `world,' or an existing system of things viewed apart from time and motion. Vid. Theod. in Hebr. i. 2. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages thus considered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3. and God is the King of the ages, Tim. 1. 17. or is before all ages, as being eternal, or proaiwnioj. However, sometimes the word is synonymous with eternity; `as time is to things which are under time, so ages to things which are everlasting.' Damasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, and `ages of ages' stands for eternity; and then the `ages' or measures of duration may be supposed to stand for the ideai or ideas in the Divine Mind, which seems to have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses the Almighty as aiwnotoke, parent of the ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Ciera. Alex. Hymn. Poed. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. 5. p. 580. or again, aiwnioj. Theodoret sums up what has been said thus: `Age is not any subsisting substance, but is an interval indicative of time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate with creation, now with human life.' Hoer. v. 6. If then, as Athan. says in the text, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is independent of duration altogether; He does not come to be in time, but is above and beyond it, or eternal. Elsewhere he says, 'The words addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, `Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages,' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured by ages, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were madness to say, "There was once when the Everlasting (aiwnioj) was not." Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander; `Is it not unreasonable that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to all of which belongs `was not,' should be said not to be? for, if so, that interval in which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the Father, precedes that Wisdom of God which framed all things.' Theod. Hist. i. 4. vid also Basil de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34.
136 Athan. here retorts, as it was obvious to do, the charge brought against the Council which gave occasion for this Treatise. If the Council went beyond Scripture in the use of the word `essence' (which however can hardly be granted), who made this necessary, but they who had already introduced the phrases, `the Son was out of nothing,' &c., &c.? `Of the essence,' and `one in essence,' were directly intended to contradict and supplant the Arian unscriptural innovations, as he says below, §20. fin. 21. init. vid. also ad Afros. 6. de Synod. §36, 37. He observes in like manner that the Arian agenhtoj, though allowable as uses by religious men, de Syn. §40. was unscriptural, Orat. i. §30, 34. Also Epiph. Hoer. 76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. Incarn. 80.
141 Hence it stands in the Creed, `from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father.' vid. Eusebius's Letter, infr. According to the received doctrine of the Church all rational beings, and in one sense all beings whatever, are `from God,' over and above the fact of their creation; and of this truth the Arians made use to deny our Lord's proper divinity. Athan. lays down elsewhere that nothing remains in consistence and life, except from a participation of the Word, which is to be considered a gift from Him, additional to that of creation, and separable in idea from it; vid. above, §17, note contr. Gent. 42. de Incarn. 5. Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of God and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs so frequently in the Arian controversy, in the number, not only of the creatures, but of things generate, gennhta. This was the sense in which the Arians said that our Lord was Son of God; whereas, as Athan. says, `things originate, being works, cannot be called generate, except so far as, after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also; not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit.' Orat. i. 56. The question then was, as to the distinction of the Son's divine generation over that of holy men; and the Catholics answered that He was ec ousiaj, from the essence of God; not by participation of grace, not by resemblance, not in a limited sense, but really and simply, and therefore by an internal divine act. vid. below, §22. and infr. §31. [The above note has been modified so as to eliminate the erroneous identification of gennhtoj and genhtoj.]
144 When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed to God, or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or the Father the only God, or God is said to be unoriginate, agenhoj, this is not in contrast to the Son, but to all things which are distinct from God vid. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13. Cyril. Thesaur. p 142. `The words "one" and "only" ascribed to God in Scripture,' says S. Basil, `are not used in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to those who are not God, and falsely called so.' Ep. 8. n. 3. Oil the other hand, when the Father is mentioned, the other Divine Persons are implied in Him, `The Blessed and Holy Trinity,' says S. Athan. `is indivisible and one in itself; and when the Father is mentioned, His Word is added, and the Spirit in the Son; and if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.' ad Serap. i. 14.
145 Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, `"I am," to on, is really proper to God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught before Him, nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be.' Naz. Orat. 30. 18 fin. Also Cyril Dial. i.p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 9. and the Seminarians at Ancyra, Epiph H§r. 73. 12 init. By the `essence,' however, or, `substance' of God, the Council did not mean any thing distinct from God, vid. note 3 infr. but God Himself viewed in His self-existing nature (vid. Tert. in Hermog, 3.), nay, it expressly meant to negative the contrary notion of the Arians, that our Lord was from something distinct from God, and in consequence of created substance. moreover the term expresses the idea of God positively, in contradistinction to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense, eternal, &c. Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any thing distinct from God as those epithets do.
156 vid. ad Afros. 5, 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, `If we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He is one in essence, omoousion,' determined the Council on the adoption of the term. de Fid iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed `of the essence,' in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Axius, however, had disclaimed omoousion already Epiph. Hoe. 69. 7. It was a word of old usage in the Church, as Eusebius of Caesarea confesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13 fin. has the translation `unius substantiae:' (vid. Lucifer de non Parc. p. 218.) as he has `de substantia Paris,' in Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theognostus and the two Dionysii, infr. §25, 26. And before them Clement had spoken of the enwsij thj monadikhj ousiaj, `the union of the single essence,' vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has `per substantiae communionem,' de Trinit. 31.
157 The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and tile image of the Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original, differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed the strong word aparallaktoj unvarying[or rather exact] image, vid. beginning of §20. which had been used by the Catholics (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words kat' ousian, or `according to substance.' Even this strong phrase, however, kat' ousian aparallaktoj eikwn, or aparallaktwj omoioj, did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. that `like' applies to qualities rather than to essence §53. Also Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. `while in itself,' says the same Father `it is frequently used of faint similitudes and falling very far short of the original.' Ep. 9. n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word omoousion as implying, as the text expresses it, `the same in likeness,' tauton th omoiwsei, that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. the passage about gold and brass, §23 below, Cyril in Joan. 1, iii. c. v. p. 302. [See below de Syn. 15, note 2.]
160 gennhma, offspring; this word is of very frequent occurrence in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6-8. explicitly disavows the word, as an unscriptural invention of Eunomius. `That the Father begat we are taught in many places: that the Son is offspring we never heard up to this day, for Scripture says, "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given."' c. 7. He goes on to say that `it is fearful to give Him names of our own to whom God has given a name which is above every name;' and observes that offspring is not the word which even a human father would apply to his son, as for instance we read, `Child, (teknon,) go into the vineyard,' and `Who art thou, my son?' moreover that fruits of the earth are called offspring (`I will not drink of the offspring of this vine'), rarely animated things, except indeed in such instances as, `O generation (offspring) of vipers.' Nyssen defends his brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p 105. In the Arian formula `an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,' it is synonymous with `work' or `creature.' On the other hand Epiphanius uses it, e.g. Hoer. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.
167 sumbebhkoj. Cf. Orat. iv. 2. also Orat. i. 36. The text embodies the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God's goodness as an accident, `as colour to the body,' `as flame is ruddy and the sky blue,' Legat. 24. This, however is but a verbal difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, to ontwj on, and His unity of nature, to monofuej, as in the number of episumbebhkota autw. Eusebius uses the word sumbebhkoj in the same way [but see Orat. iv. 2, note 8], Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections to observe. `There are cogent reasons for considering these things as accidents sombebhkota in God, though they be not.' Thesaur. p. 263. vid. the following note.
168 peribolh, and so de Syn. §34. which is very much the same passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen says that `neither the immateriality of God nor ingenerateness, present to us His essence.' Orat. 28. 9. And S. Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that `not every thing which is said to be in God is said according to essence.' de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that there are qualities or the like belonging to Him, peri auton, it is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words peri qeon occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, though it would require more words than could be given to it here. Petavius has treated the subject fully in his work de Deo. i. 7-11. and especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no difference between the divine `proprietates' and essence, they speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He is; when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but view His Divine Nature as if in projection (if such a word may be used), and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be divided into genus and difference.
170 In like manner de Synod. §34. Also Basil, `The essence is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God.' contr. Eun. i. 10 fin. `The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded.' Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. `When we say the power of the Father, we say nothing else than the essence of the Father.' August. de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, `Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is essence and being.' Praep. Evang. xi. 10.
171 Athan.'s ordinary illustration is, as here, not from `fire,' but from `radiance,' apaugasma, after S. Paul [i.e. Hebrews[ and the Author of the Book of Wisdom, meaning by radiance the light which a light diffuses by means of the atmosphere. On the other hand Arius in his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Haer. 69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of Hieracas that the Son was from the Father as a light from a light or as a lamp divided into two, which after all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius refers to fire, Orat. iv. §2 and 10, but still to fire and its radiance. However we find the illustration of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Groec. 5. At this early day the illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bearing, as that of fire in Athan.'s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who considered the Son as `like the sun's light in the heaven,' which `when it sets, goes away with it,' whereas it is as `fire kindled from fire.' Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius, says `as light from fire,' using also the word aporroia, effluence: vid. also Orig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull. Ap. 21. Theognostus, quoted infr. §25.
173 As `of the essence' declared that our Lord was uncreate, so `one in essence' declared that He was equal with the Father; no term derived from `likeness,' even `like in essence' answering for this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood of resemblance or representation. vid. §20, notes 8, 9.
174 Athan. has just used the illustration of radiance in reference to `of the essence:' and now he says that it equally illustrates `one in essence;' the light diffused from the sun being at once contemporaneous and homogeneous with its original.
176 The point in which perhaps all the ancient heresies concerning our Lord's divine nature agreed, was in considering His different titles to be those of different beings or subjects, or not really and properly to belong to one and the same person; so that the Word was not the Son, or the Radiance not the Word, or our Lord was the Son, but only improperly the Word, not the true Word, Wisdom, or Radiance. Paul of Samosata, Sabellius [?], and Arius, agreed in considering that the Son was a creature, and that He was called, made after, or inhabited by the impersonal attribute called the Word or Wisdom. When the Word or Wisdom was held to be personal, it became the doctrine of Nestorius.
177 Athanasius elsewhere calls him `the admirable and excellent.' ad Serap. iv. 9. He was Master of the Catechetical school of Alexandria towards the end of the third century, being a scholar, or at least a follower of Origen. His seven books of Hypotyposes treated of the Holy Trinity, of angels, and evil spirits, of the Incarnation, and the Creation. Photius, who gives this account, Cod. 106, accuses him of heterodoxy on these points; which Athanasius in a measure admits, as far as the wording of his treatise went, when he speaks of his `investigating by way of exercise.' Eusebius does not mention him at all. [His remains in Routh, Rell. iii. 409-414.]
178 Vid. above §15. fin. `God was alone,' says Tertullian, `because there was nothing external to Him, extrinsecus; yet not even then alone, for He had with Him, what He had in Himself, His Reason.' in Prax. 5. Non per adoptionem spiritus filius fit extrinsecus, sed naturâ filius est. Origen. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4.
180 It is sometimes erroneously supposed that such illustrations as this are intended to explain how the Sacred Mystery in question is possible, whereas they are merely intended to shew that the words we use concerning it are not self-contradictory, which is the objection most commonly brought against them. To say that the doctrine of the Son's generation does not intrench upon the Father's perfection and immutability, or negative the Son's eternity, seems at first sight inconsistent with what the words Father and Son mean, till another image is adduced, such as the sun and radiance, in which that alleged inconsistency is seen to exist in fact. Here one image corrects another; and the accumulation of images is not, as is often thought, the restless and fruitless effort of the mind to enter into the Mystery, but is a safeguard against any one image, nay, any collection of images being supposed sufficient. If it be said that the language used concerning the sun and its radiance is but popular not philosophical, so again the Catholic language concerning the Holy Trinity may, nay must be, economical, not adequate, conveying the truth. not in the tongues of angels, but under human modes of thought and speech.
181 en gumnasia ecetasaj. And so §27. of Origen, chtwn kai gumnazwn. Constantine too, writing to Alexander and Arius, speaks of altercation, fusikhj tinoj gumnasiaj eneka. Socr. i. 7. In somewhat a similar way, Athanasius speaks of Dionysius writing kat' oikonomian, economically, or with reference to certain persons addressed or objects contemplated, de Sent. D. 6. and 26.
182 The Arians at Nicaea objected to this image, Socr. i. 8. as implying that the Son was a probolh, issue or development, as Valentinus taught. Epiph. Hoer. 69. 7. Athanasius elsewhere uses it himself.
183 By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be referred in our thoughts to the First as the Fountain of Godhead, vid. §15. note 9, and §19, note 6. It is one of the especial senses in which God is said to be one. Cf. Orat. iii. §15. vid. also iv. §1. `The Father is union, enwsin,' says S. Greg. Naz. `from whom and unto whom are the others.' Orat 42. 15. also Orat. 20. 7. and Epiph. Hoer. 57. 5. Tertullian, before Dionysius, uses the word Monarchia, which Praxeas had perverted into a kind of Unitarianism or Sabellianism, in Prax. 3. Irenaeus too wrote on the Monarchy, i.e. against the doctrine that God is the author of evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20. [see S. Iren. fragment 33, Ante-Nic. Lib.] And before him was Justin's work de Monarchia, where the word is used in opposition to Polytheism. The Marcionites, whom Dionysius presently mentions, are also specified in the above extract by Athan. vid. also Cyril. Hier. Cat. xvi. 3. Epiphanius says that their three origins were God, the Creator, and the evil spirit. Hoer. 42, 3. or as Augustine says, the good, the just, and the wicked, which may be taken to mean nearly the same thing. Hoer. 22. The Apostolical Canons denounce those who baptize into Three Unoriginate; vid. also Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5. Naz. Orat. 20. 6. Basil denies treij arxikai upostaseij, de Sp. S. 38. which is a Platonic phrase.
184 And so Dionysius Alex. in a fragment preserved by S. Basil, `If because the subsistences are three, they say that they are partitive, memerismenaj, still three there are, though these persons dissent, or they utterly destroy the Divine Trinity.' de Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. expresses the same more distinctly, ou treij upostaseij memerismenaj, Expos. Fid. §2. In S. Greg. Naz. we find ameristoz en memerismenoiz h qeothz. Orat. 31. 14. Elsewhere for mem. he substitutes aperrhgmenaj. Orat. 20. 6. apecenwmenaj allhlwn kai diespasmenaj. Orat. 23. 6. as infr. cenaj allhlwn pantapasi kexwrismenaj. The passage in the text comes into question in the controversy about the ec upostasewj h ousiaj of the Nicene Creed, of which infr. on the Creed itself in Eusebius's Letter.
186 The word triaj, usually translated Trinity, is first used by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 15. Gibbon remarks that the doctrine of `a numerical rather than a generical unity,' which has been explicitly put forth by the Latin Church, is favoured by the Latin language; triaj seems to excite the idea of substance, trinitas of qualities.' ch. 21. note 74. It is certain that the Latin view of the sacred truth, when perverted, becomes Sabellianism; and that the Greek, when perverted, becomes Arianism; and we find Arius arising in the East, Sabellius in the West. It is also certain that the word Trinitas is properly abstract; and expresses triaj or `a three,' only in an ecclesiastical sense. But Gibbon does not seem to observe that Unitas is abstract as well as Trinitas; and that we might just as well say in consequence, that the Latins held an abstract unity or a unity of qualities, while the Greeks by monaj taught the doctrine of `a one' or a numerical unity. `Singularitatem hanc dico (says S. Ambrose), quod Graece monothj dicitur; singularitas ad personam pertinet, unitas ad naturam.' de Fid. v. 1. It is important, however, to understand, that `Trinity' does not mean the state or condition of being three, as humanity is the condition of being man, but is synonymous with three persons. Humanity does not exist and cannot be addressed, but the Holy Trinity is a three, or a unity which exists in three. Apparently from not considering this, Luther and Calvin objected to the word Trinity, `It is a common prayer,' says Calvin: `Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us. It displeases me, and savours throughout of barbarism.' Ep. ad Polon. p. 796.
194 This extract discloses to us (in connexion with the passages from Dionysius Alex. here and in the de Sent. D.) a remarkable anticipation of the Arian controversy in the third century. 1. It appears that the very symbol of hn ote ouk hn, `once He was not,' was asserted or implied; vid. also the following extract from Origen, §27. and Origen Periarchon, iv. 28. where mention is also made of the ec ouk ontwn, `out of nothing,' which was the Arian symbol in opposition to `of the substance.' Allusions are made besides, to `the Father not being always Father,' de Sent. D. 15. and `the Word being brought to be by the true Word, and Wisdom by the true Wisdom;' ibid. 25. 2. The same special text is used in defence of the heresy, and that not at first sight an obvious one, which is found among the Arians, Prov. viii. 22. 3. The same texts were used by the Carbolics, which occur in the Arian controversy. e.g. Deut. xxxii. 6. against Prov. viii. 22. and such as Ps. cx. 3. Prov. viii. 25. and the two John x. 30. John xiv. 10. 4. The same Catholic symbols and statements are found, e.g. `begotten not made,' `one in essence,' `Trinity,' adiaireton, anarxon, aeigenej, `light from light,' &c. Much might be said on this circumstance, as forming part of the proof of the very early date of the development and formation of the Catholic theology, which we are at first sight apt to ascribe to the 4th and 5th centuries. [But see Introd. to de Sent. Dion.]
196 a men wj zhtwn kai gumnazwn ergaye, tauta mh wj autou fronountoj dexesqw tij, alla twn proj erin filoneikountwn en tw zhtein, adewj orizwn apofainetai, touto tou filoponou to fronhma esti. 9alla. Certe legendum all' a, idque omnino exigit sensus. Montfaucon. Rather for adewj read a de wj, and put the stop at zhtein instead of dexesqw tij.
198 vid. supr. §4. Orat. i. §7. Ad Afros. 2, twice. Apol. contr. Arian. 7. ad Ep. Aeg. 5. Epiph. Hoer 70. 9. Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 6. The Council was more commonly called megalh, vid. supr. §26. The second General Council, a.d. 381, took the name of ecumenical. vid. Can. 6. fin. but incidentally. The Council of Ephesus so styles itself in the opening of its Synodical Letter.
199 The profession under which the decrees of Councils come to us is that of setting forth in writing what has ever been held orally or implicitly in the Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases as eggrafwj ezeteqh with reference to them. Thus Damasus, Theod. H. E. v. 10. speaks of that `apostolical faith, which was set forth in writing by the Fathers in Nicaea.' On the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch speaks of the doctrine of our Lord's perfect humanity being `inculcated by our Holy Fathers, but not as yet [i.e. till the Council of Chalcedon] being confirmed by the decree of an ecumenical Council' Phot. 229. p. 801. (eggrafwj, however, sometimes relates to the act of subscribing; Phot. ibid. or to Scripture, Clement. Strom. i. init. p. 321.) hence Athan. says ad Afros. 1. and 2. that `the Word of the Lord which was given through the ecumenical Council in Nicaea remaineth for ever;' and uses against its opposers the texts, `Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set' (vid. also Dionysius in Eus. H. E. vii. 7.), and `He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.' Prov. xxii. 28. Ex. xxi. 17. vid. also Athan. ad Epict. 1. And the Council of Chalcedon professes to `drive away the doctrines of error by a common decree, and renew the unswerving faith of the Fathers,' Act. v. p. 452. [t. iv. 1453 ed. Col.] `as,' they proceed, `from of old the prophets spoke of Christ, and He Himself instructed us, and the creed of the Fathers has delivered to us,' whereas `other faith it is not lawful for any to bring forth, or to write, or to draw up, or to hold, or to teach.' p. 456. [1460 ed. Col.] vid. S. Leo. supr. p. 5. note m. This, however, did not interfere with their adding without undoing. `For,' says Vigilius, `if it were unlawful to receive aught further after the Nicene statutes, on what authority venture we to assert that the Holy Ghost is of one substance with the Father, which it is notorious was there omitted?' contr. Eutych. v. init.; he gives other instances, some in point, others not. vid. also Eulogius, apud Phot. Cod. 23. pp. 829. 853. Yet to add to the confession of the Church is not to add to the faith, since nothing can be added to the faith. Leo, Ep. 124. p. 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the Nicene faith is sufficient to refute every heresy, ad Max. 5. fin. (also Leo. Ep. 54. p. 956. and Naz. Ep. 102. init.) excepting, however, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; which explains his meaning.The Henoticon of Zeno says the same, but with the intention of dealing a blow at the Council of Chalcedon. Evagr. iii. 14. p. 345. Aetius at Chalcedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon the Fathers did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and that Cyril and Leo did but interpret the Creed. Conc. t. 2. p. 428. [t. iv. 1430, 1431 ed. Col. See this whole subject very amply treated in Dr. Pusey's On the Clause, And the Son, pp. 76 sqq.] Leo even says that the Apostles' Creed is sufficient against all heresies, and that Eutyches erred on a point `of which our Lord wished no one of either sex in the Church to be ignorant,' and he wishes Eutyches to take the plentitude of the Creed `puro et simplici corde.' Ep. 31. p. 857, 8.
201 agenhton. Opportunity will occur for noticing this celebrated word on Orat. i. 30-34. where the present passage is partly rewritten, partly transcribed. Mention is also made of it in the De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius would seem to have been but partially acquainted with the writings of the Anomoeans, whose symbol it was, and to have argued with them from the writings of the elder Arians, who had also made use of it. [On Newman's unfortunate confusion of agenhton and agennhton, see Lightfoot, as quoted in the note on Exp. Fid. §1. Newman's reasons are stated in note 7 to Orat. i. 56.]
202 Montfaucon quotes a passage from Plato's Phaedrus, in which the human soul is called `unoriginate and immortal [246 a.];' but Athan. is referring to another subject. the Platonic, or rather the Eclectic [i.e. Neo-Platonic] Trinity. Thus Theodoret, `Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining the sense of Plato, say, that he taught Three principles beyond time and eternal, Good, Intellect, and the Soul of all,' de Affect. Cur ii. p. 750. And so Plotinus himself, `It is as if one were to place Good as the centre, Intellect like an immoveable circle round, and Soul a moveable circle, and moveable by appetite.' 4 Ennead. iv. c. 16. vid. Porphyry in Cyril. contr. Julian. viii. t. ult. p. 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennnead. v. 2 and 3. Athan.'s testimony that the Platonists considered their three upostaseij all unoriginate is perhaps a singular one. In 5 Ennead. iv. 1. Plotinus says what seems contrary to it, h de arxh agennhtoj, speaking of his tagaqon. Yet Plato, quoted by Theodoret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of eite arxhn eite arxaj.
205 And so de Syn. §46. `we have on careful inquiry ascertained, &c.' Again, `I have acquainted myself on their account [the Arians'] with the meaning of agenhton.' Orat. i. §30. This is remarkable, for Athan. was a man of liberal education, as his Orat. contr. Gent. and de Incarn. shew, especially, his acquaintance with the Platonic philosophy. Sulpicius too spears of him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. Hist. ii. 50. S. Gregory Naz. says, that he gave some attention, but not much, to the subjects of general education, twn egkukliwn, that he might not be altogether ignorant, of what he nevertheless despised, Orat. 21. 6. In the same way S. Basil, whose cultivation of mind none can doubt, speaks slightingly of his own philosophical knowledge. He writes of his `neglecting his own weakness, and being utterly unexercised in such disquisitions;' contr. Eunom. init. And so in de Sp. §5. he says, that `they who have given time' to vain philosophy, `divide causes into principal, cooperative,' &c. Elsewhere he speaks of having `expended much time on vanity, and wasted nearly all his youth in the vain labour of pursuing the studies of that wisdom which God has made foolishness,' Ep. 223. 2. In truth, Christianity has a philosophy of its own. Thus in the commencement of his Vioe Dux Anastasius says, `It is a first point to be understood, that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not proceed upon, or follow, the philosophical definitions in all respects, and especially as regards the mystery of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, but a certain rule of its own, evangelical and apostolical.' p. 20.
206 Four senses of agenhton are enumerated, Orat. i. §30. 1. What is not as yet, but is possible; 2. what neither has been nor can be; 3. what exists, but has not come to be from any cause: 4. what is not made, but is ever. Only two senses are specified in the de Syn. §46. and in these the question really lies; 1. what is, but without a cause; 2. uncreate.
207 Ballesqwsan para pantwn, Orat. ii. §28. An apparent allusion to the punishment of blasphemy and idolatry under the Jewish Law. vid. [Ex. xix. 13. and] reference to Ex. xxi. 17, in §27, note 2. Thus, e.g. Nazianzen: `While I go up the mount with good heart, that I may become within the cloud, and may hold converse with God, for so God bids; if there be any Aaron, let him go up with me and stand near. And if there be any Nadab or Abihu, or of the elders, let him go up, but stand far off, according to the measure of his purification. ...But if any one is an evil and savage beast, and quite incapable of science and theology; let him stand off still further, and depart from the mount: or he will be stoned and crushed; for the wicked shall be miserably destroyed. For as stones for the bestial are true words and strong. Whether he be leopard, let him die spots and all,' &c. &c. Orat. 28. 2.
208 The Arians argued that the word unoriginate implied originate or creature as its correlative, and therefore indirectly signified Creator; so that the Son being not unoriginate, was not the Creator. Athan. answers, that in the use of the word, whether; there be a Son does not come into the question. As the idea of Father and Son does not include creation, so that of creator and creature does not include generation; and it would be as illogical to infer that there are no creatures because there is a Son as that there is no Son because there are creatures.
214 And so S. Basil, `Our faith was not in Framer and Work, but in Father and Son were we sealed through the grace in baptism.' contr. Eunom. ii. 22. And a somewhat similar passage occurs Orat. ii. §41.
215 uiopoioumeqa alhqwj. This strong term `truly' or `verily' seems taken from such passages as speak of the `grace and truth' of the Gospel, John i. 12-27. Again S. Basil says, that we are sons, kuriwj, `properly,' and prwtwj `primarily,' in opposition to tropikwj, `figuratively,' contr. Eunom. ii. 23. S. Cyril too says, that we are sons `naturally' fusikwj as well as kata xarin, vid. Suicer Thesaur. v. uioj. i. 3. Of these words, alhqwj, fusikwj, kuriwj, and prwtwj, the first two are commonly reserved for our Lord; e.g. ton alhqwj uion, Orat. ii. §37. hmeij uioi, ouk wj ekeinoj fusei kai alhqeia, iii. §19. Hilary seems to deny us the title of `proper' sons; de Trim. xii. 15; but his `proprium' is a translation of idion, not kuriwj. And when Justin says of Christ o monoj legomenoj kuriwj uioj, Apol. ii. 6. kuriwj seems to be used in reference to the word kurioj, Lord, which he has just been using, kuriologein being sometimes used by him as others in the sense of `naming as Lord,' like qeologein. vid. Tryph. 56. There is a passage in Justin's ad Groec. 21. where he (or the writer) when speaking of egw eimi o wn, uses the word in the same ambiguous sense; ouden gar onoma epi qeou kuriologeisqai dunaton, 21; as if kurioj, the Lord, by which `I am' is translated, were a sort of symbol of that proper name of God which cannot be given. But to return; the true doctrine then is, that, whereas there is a primary and secondary sense in which the word Son is used, primary when it has its formal meaning of continuation of nature, and secondary when it is used nominally, or for an external resemblance to the first meaning, it is applied to the regenerate, not in the secondary sense, but in the primary. S. Basil and S. Gregory Nyssen consider Son to be `a term of relationship according to nature' (vid. supr. §10, note 1.), also Basil in Psalm xxviii. 1. The actual presence of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate in substance (vid. Cyril, Dial 7. p. 638.) constitutes this relationship of nature; and hence after the words quoted from S. Cyril in the beginning of the note, in which he says, that we are sons, fusikwj, he proceeds, `naturally, because we are in Him, and in Him alone.' vid. Athan.'s words which follow in the text at the end of §31. And hence Nyssen lays down, as a received truth, that `to none does the term "proper," kuriwtaton, apply, but to one in whom the name responds with truth to the nature,' contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. And he also implies, p. 117, the intimate association of our sonship with Christ's, when he connects together regeneration with our Lord's eternal generation, neither being dia paqouj, or, of the will of the flesh. If it be asked, what the distinctive words are which are incommunicably the Son's, since so much is man's, it is obvious to answer, idioj uioj and monogenhj, which are in Scripture, and the symbols `of the essence,' and `one in essence,' of the Council; and this is the value of the Council's phrases, that, while they guard the Son's divinity, they allow full scope, without risk of entrenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the Christian privileges. vid. supr. §19, note.
218 And so, Orat. ii. §32, kata touj muqeuomenouj gigantaj. And so Nazianzen, Orat. 43. 26. speaking of the disorderly Bishops during the Arian ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10. Sometimes the Scripture giants are spoken of, sometimes the mythological.
220 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
2 See Epiphanius, Hoer. lxviii. x. The arrangement is recognised as one of old standing in the sixth canon of Nicaea, `Let the old customs which exist in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis remain in force, namely that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all these regions; since this is also customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise also at Antioch and in the other prefectures (it is decreed) that their prerogatives should be maintained to those churches.' The canon points to the natural explanation of the arrangement: the bishops of the capitals began from a very early date to exercise a loosely defined but gradually strengthening supervision over those of the rest of the province. In particular, they came to exercise a veto (and latterly more than a veto) upon the appointments to the provincial sees (ei tij xwrij gnwmhj, ib.). The bishops of Alexandria as well as Rome had even at this date acquired something of the rank of secular potentates (dunasteia, Socr. vii. 11, hdh palai), but not to the extent to which it went later on (ib. 7. and supr. Apol. Ar. §9).
4 kat' oikonomian, as below §24. Cf. de Decr. §25, note 5. The word oikonomia has two main senses in Athanasius, both derived from the classical sense of management or dispensation, the adapting of means toward an end. (1) As in the present passage (cf. Origen in Migne XI. p. 17 b, oikonomikwj): a use which is the lineal ancestor of the ill-sounding word `economy' as a term in casuistry; (2) as applied to the Incarnation of our Lord, regarded as the Dispensation, the Divine Method for the salvation of mankind. This use is very frequent in St. Athanasius (compare Ep. Aeg. 2. and Orat. ii. 11), and in earlier Fathers from Ignatius (Eph. 18 ekuoforhqh upo Mariaj kat' oikonomian, where Lightfoot refers to a more detailed history of the word in his unpublished note on Eph. i. 10) downwards (references in Soph. Lex. s.v.).
8 The pantelwj somewhat qualifies the repudiation. Dionysius expressly maintained three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity, in contrast to the language of Rome (de Decr. 26 note 7a) and the later use of Athanasius himself. But see the Tom. ad Antioch. of 362, below, and supra p. 90, note 2. Dionysius of Rome repudiates treij memerismenaj upostaseij, while Dionysius of Alexandria (in Bas. de Sp. S.) maintains that unless three Hypostases be recognised, the divine Triad is denied.
9 As pointed out by Newman on De Decr. 25, note 9, Triaj and Monaj are concrete, Trinitas and Unitas abstract terms; so that while Trinitas (and Monaj) lend themselves to a Sabellian, Triaj and Unitas may be pressed into an Arian sense: but each pair of terms (Greek and Latin) holds the balance evenly between the opposite misinterpretations.
14 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
15 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
1 This heading, preserved in the Evagrian version, is probably the original one. Compare the statement to the same effect in Vit. Pachom. 63. The preface to the Evagrian version is important as bearing on the question of interpolation. It runs as follows: `Evagrius, presbyter, to his dearest son Innocent, greeting in the Lord. A word-for-word translation from one language to another obscures the sense and as it were chokes the corn with luxuriant grass. For in slavishly following cases and constructions, the language scarcely explains by lengthy periphrasis what it might state by concise expression. To avoid this, I have at your request rendered the Life of the blessed Antony in such a way as to give the full sense, but cut short somewhat of the words. Let others try to catch syllables and letters; do you seek the meaning.'
2 Cf 2 Kings iii. 11: the expression merely refers to personal attendance (contrast §§47, 93). The text is uncertain, as some mss., both Greek and Latin read, `was able to learn from him who was his attendant,' &c. The question of textual evidence requires further sifting. In support of the statement in the text we may cite Ap. c. Ar. 6, where Ath. is called `one of the ascetics,' which may, but need not, refer to something of the kind.
12 IIarqenwn: the earliest use of the word in this sense. Perhaps a house occupied by Virgins is implied in Apol. c. Ar. 15. But at this time virgins generally lived with their families. See D.C.A. 2021b (the reference to Tertullian is not relevant), Eichhorn, pp. 4, sqq., 28-30.
51 This is not quite the view of Athanasius himself, who regards the air as cleared of evil spirits by the Death of Christ, de Incar. xxv. 5: but Athan. does not mean that their power over the wicked is done away; nor does Antony ascribe to them any power over the Christian, see §§24, 28, 41.
74 This materialistic view of demons may be paralleled from Origen and other fathers (D.C.B. i. 809), but is not Athanasian. But it would be congenial to the Coptic mind; compare the story told by Cassian of the Monk Serapion, who, on being convinced that `God is a Spirit,' cried out, `You have taken my God from me' (and see D.C.B. 1. p. 120).
78 Compare below, §§59, 62, for examples. This quite goes beyond any teaching of Athanasius himself; at the same time it finds a point of contact in what he says about dreams in c. Gent. 30 (manteuomenoj kai progignwskwn), and about the soul's capacity for objective thought, ib. 33, de Incar. 17. 3.
131 This was by no means universal among monks: Athan. argues to Dracontius (cc. 8, 9) against the monastic tendency to think little of the clergy. Here, he propounds the example of Antony for the imitation of the `peregrini fratres.'
140 Cf. Plat. Phoedr. 274 B: but the resemblances is not close and the relation of this passage to the Phaedrus is probably mediate. I cannot see that the doctrine referred to here is necessarily different from that of Plotinus (Enn. IV. iii. 15).
142 It is certainly startling to find Antony, ignorant of Greek and of letters, reasoning with philosophers upon the doctrines of Neoplatonism. His whole life, excepting two short visits to Alexandria, had been spent out of ear-shot of such discussions. Yet it is not easy to say exactly how much a man of strong mind and retentive memory may have picked up from the conversation of those who visited him upon subjects so widely discussed as these speculations were.
147 The above argument with the philosophers runs upon the general lines of that of Athanasius c. Gent. The point which we miss here is the Euhemerism upon which Athanasius so strongly insists. This latter view would be naturally less congenial to Antony's mind than the view that the gods were merely demons.
151 Cf. below, `what the Arians are now doing.' This incidental notice of time fixes the date of the present passage. Weingarten in vain attempts to extract some other sense from the Greek, which is plainness itself. It also fixes the date of Antony's death to within two years of the troubles in question. The Benedictines refer the troubles to the intrusion of Gregory `in 341' (really 339), and the apparently unprecedented character ascribed to the outrages by Antony is in favour of this, as well as the fact (Encyc. 3) that in 339 the heathen are said to have offered sacrifice in the churches. But the latter is only in superficial agreement with the Greek text of the present passage, which speaks of Arian sunaceij at which heathen were impressed to be present, apparently to make some show of a congregation. The Evagrian version, indeed, adds that the Gentiles on this occasion also carried on idolatrous rites in the Church and polluted the baptisteries; but Evagrius is in the habit of interpolating little details from his own knowledge or opinion (e.g. 16, `Ita exorsus,' &c., 26, `qui vinctas hominum linguas solvebat,' 58, `qui effosso pro Christo oculo sub Maximiano,' &c.), and in this case appears to borrow from Encycl. 3. Again, the writer of the Vita was not present (`the bystanders' supra; `they troubled him;' `they asked him;' ...and infr. `those with him') when the Vision took place: but when, two years later, it was interpreted by events, he was in the company of those who had been with Antony at the time (infr. `then we all understood'). This (on the assumption of Athanasian authorship) excludes the year 339, when Athenasius fled to Italy, and compels us to refer the Vision to the troubles of 356 (Apol. Fug. 6, 7. Hist. Ar. 55, 56, Ep. ad Lucif.), after which Athanasius fled to the desert and was in the company of the monks. This conclusion is in independent agreement with (1) the fact, decisive by itself, that Antony is still alive in 345, when Nestorius became Prefect of Egypt (§86, note 3), i.e. six years after the troubles of 339; (2) the evidence that Antony was still living about 353 a.d. (Epist. Ammon. de Pachom. et Theod. 20, 21, in Act. SS. Mai. tom. iii. Appendix 70 C E, Tillemont vii. 123), and (3) the statement of Jerome (Chron.) that Antony died in 356. Against it Weingarten urges the prophecy of restored peace to the Church (infr.) as pointing to a time after the overthrow of Arianism. This is of little weight, for the prophecy expresses only what must have been the hope and belief of all. The prologue, which Tillemont (viii. 227) thinks must have been written in a time of peace at Alexandria, is not sufficiently explicit on the point to weigh against the plain sense of the present passage.
163 The body of Antony was discovered `by a revelation' in 561, and translated to Alexandria. When the Saracens conquered Egypt it was transferred to Constantinople, and lastly in the tenth century was carried to Vienne by a French Seigneur. The first and last links of this history are naturally precarious. The trans. lation to Alexandria is vouched for by Victor of Tunis (Chron.) who was in the neighbourhood at the time.
164 Jerome, in his life of Paul of Thebes, relates that Antony received from Paul, and ever afterwards wore on festivals, his tunic of palm-leaves. If this `legacy more glorious than the purple of a king' (Vit. Paul. c. 13) had any existence, it would certainly not have been forgotten by Antony in disposing of his worldly goods. The silence of the Life of Antony throws discredit on Jerome's whole account of Paul.
69 Cf. Ep. ad Jov. (Letter 56, below), 2. Theod. H. E. v. 9. p. 205, l. 17. vid. Keble on Primitive Trad. p. 122. 10. `Let each boldly set clown his faith in writing, having the fear of God before his eyes.' Conc. Chalced. Sess. 1. Hard. t. 2. 273. `Give diligence without fear, favour, or dislike, to set out the faith in its purity.' ibid. p. 285.
125 This apodeiciz or declaration is ascribed to S. Alexander (as faucon would explain it, supr. introd p. 222). Cf. Ap. Ar. 23, above, 18, 19. It should be observed that an additional reason for assigning this Letter to the year 356, is its resemblance in parts to the Orations which were written not long after. [This is not a strong reason there being no roof that the Orations were written early in the exile.]
133 10 [Cf. the doxology at the end of Apol. pro Fuga, and (with a difference) that of Hist. Ar. 80, contrasting that in de Decr. 32. Dr. Bright observes that Athan. `felt himself free to use both forrest although at Antioch they became symbols respectively of the Arianisers and the Orthodox.']
134 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
135 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
1 [cf. Acts xxvi. 2.] Constantius, though here called a Christian, was not baptized till his last illness, a.d. 361, and then by the Arian Bishop of Antioch, Euzoius. At this time he was 39 years of age. Theodoret represents him making a speech to his whole army on one occasion, exhorting them to Baptism previous to going to war; and recommending all to go thence who could not make up their mind to the Sacrament. H. E. iii. I. Constantius, his grandfather,had rejected idolatry and acknowledged the One God, according to Eusebius, V. Const. i. 14, though it does not appear that he had embraced Christianity.
13 All these names of Bishops occur among the subscriptions at Sardica. supr. Ap. Ar. 50. [See also D.C B. s. vv.] Leis is Lauda, or Laus Pompeia, hodie Lodi Vecchio; Ughelli, Ital. Sacr. t. 4. p. 656.
14 Or, master of the offices; one of the seven Ministers of the Court under the Empire; `He inspected the discipline of the civil and military schools, and received appeals from all parts of the Empire.' Gibbon, ch. 17. [cf. Gwatkin, p. 285.]
15 pro tou bhlou. The Veil, which in the first instance was an appendage to the images of pagan deities, formed at this time part of the ceremonial of the imperial Court. It hung over the entrance of the Emperor's bedchamber, where he gave his audiences. It also hung before the secretarium of the Judges. vid. Holman in voc. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. i. tit. vii. 1.
17 puktia, a bound book, vid. Montf. Coll. Nov. infr. Tillemont (t. viii. p. 86.) considers that Athan, alludes in this passage to the Synopsis Scr. Sacr. which is among his works; but Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxviii. contends that a copy of the Gospels is spoken of. [cf. D.C. B. i. 651.]
19 Tillemont supposes that Constans was present at the Council of Milan , at which Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius, sent to the west with the Eusebian Creed, made their appearance to no purpose. [But this was long after the events related in the text, cf. Prolegg. ii. §6, sub. fin.]
20 [Easter 344, see Fest. Ind. xvi.] Naissus was situated in Upper Dacia, and according to some was the birthplace of Con stantine. The Bishop of the place, Gaudentius, whose name occurs among the subscriptions at Sardica, had protected S. Paul of Constantinople and incurred the anathemas of the Easterns at Philippopolis. Hil. Fragm. iii. 27.
28 Nepotian, the son of Eutropia, Constantine's sister, taken up arms against Magnentius, got possession of Rome, and enjoyed the title of Augustus for about a month. Magnentius put him to death, and his mother, and a number of his adherents, some of whom are here mentioned.
32 Sarbatius, or Servatius, and Maximus occur in the lists of Gallic subscriptions [supr. p. 127]. The former is supposed to be S. Servatius or Servatio of Tungri, concerning whom at Ariminum, vid. Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 59. vid. also Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc ii. 5. where however the Bened. Ed. prefers to read Aravatius, a Bishop, as he considers, of the fifth century.
35 1. The Rationales or Receivers, in Greek writers Catholici (logoqetai being understood, Vales. ad Euseb. vii. 10.), were the same as the Procurators (Gibbon, Hist. ch. xvii. note 148.), who succeeded the Provincial Quaestors in the early times of the Empire. They were in the department of the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, or High Treasurer of the Revenue (Gothofr. Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 327). Both Gothofr. however and Pancirolus, p. 134. Ed. 1623, place Rationales also under the Comes Rerum Privatarum. Pancirolus, p. 120. mentions the Comes Rationalis Summarum Aegypti as distinct from other functionaries. Gibbon, ch. xvii. seems to say that there were in all 29, of whom 18 were counts. 2. Stephanus, magistroj ekei. Tillemont translates, `Master of the camp of Egypt,' vol. viii. p. 137. 3. The Master of the offices or of the palace has been noticed above, p. 239, note 4. 4. agentishribouj, agentes in rebus. These were functionaries under the Master of the offices, whose business it was to announce the names of the consuls and the edicts or victories of the Empire. They at length became spies of the Court, vid. Gibbon, ch. xvii Gothofr. Cod. Th. vi. 27.
36 `Presbyterurn Eraclium mihi successorem polo. A populo acclamatum est, Deo gratias, Christo laudes; dictum est vicies terties. Exaudi Christe, Augustineo vita; dictum est sexies decies. Te patrem, te episcopum; dictum est octies.' August. Ep. 213.
38 Vid. Rom. xvi. 22. Lucian is spoken of as the amanuensis of the Confessors who wrote to S. Cyprian, Ep. 16. Ed. Ben. Jader perhaps of Ep. 80. [Epp. 23, 79, Hartel.] S. Jerome was either secretary or amanuensis to Pope Damasus, vid. Ep. ad Ageruch. (123. n. 10. Ed. Vallars.) vid. Lami de Erud. 24, Ap. p. 258.
51 S. Epiphanius mentions nine Churches in Alexandria. Hoer. 69. 2. Athan. mentions in addition that of Quirinus. Hist. Arian. §10. [See the plan of Larsow, appended to his Fest-briefe.] The Church mentioned in the text was built at the Emperor's expense; and apparently upon the Emperor's ground, as on the site was or had been a Basilica, which bore first the name of Hadrian, then of Licinius, Epiph. ibid. Hadrian had built in many cities temples without idols, which were popularly considered as intended by him for Christian worship, and went after his name. Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Sev. 43. The Church in question was built in the Coesareum. Hist. Arian. 74. There was a magnificent Temple, dedicated to Augustus, as epibathrioj, on the harbour of Alexandria, Philon. Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1013, 4. ed. 1691, and called the Coesareum. It was near the Emperor's palace, vid. Acad. des. Inscript. vol. 9. p. 416. [Vid. supr. note 5b, and cf. Apol. de Fuga 24.]
70 2 [August, 355 a.d. See Hist. Aceph. iii. Fest. Ind. xxv., xxvii.] Notaries were the immediate attendants on magistrates, whose judgments, &c., they recorded and promulgated. Their office was analogous in the Imperial Court. vid. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. VI. x. Ammian. Marcell. tom. 3. P. 464. ed. Erfurt, 1808. Pancirol. Notit. p. 143. Hofman in voc. Schari enumerates with references the civil officers, &c., to whom they were attached in Dissert. 1, de Notariis Ecclesoe, p. 49.
88 That is, the prison. `The official books,' Montfaucon (apparently) in Onomast. vid. Gothofr. Cod. Theod. ix. 3. 1. 5. However, in ix. 30. p. 243. he says, Malim pro ipsa custodia accipere. And so Du Cange in voc., and this meaning is here followed, vid. supr. Apol. contr. Arian. §8, where commentarius is translated `jailor.'
92 h tou kreittonoj gnwsij, vid. ton kreittona, infr. And so in Arius's Thalia, the Eternal Father, in contrast to the Son, is called o kreittwn, ron kreittona, de Synod. §15. So again, qeon ton [onta] sunientaj, supr. §30, and sunetwn qeou in the Thalia, Orat. i. 5. Again, sofiaj echghtaj, supr. §30 and twn sofiaj metaxontwn, kata panta sofwn in the Thalia, ibid. And twn echghtwn touj akrouj eilesqe, supr. §30, and toutwn kat' icnoj hlqon in the Thalia.
95 Egypt was divided into three Provinces till Hadrian's time, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; Hadrian made them four; Epiphanius speaks of them as seven. Hoer. 68. i. By the time of Arcadius they had become eight. vid. Orlendini Orbis Sacer et Prof. vol. i, p. 118. vid. supr. Ency. §3, n. 2, Apol. Ar. §83.
9 Vid. Hist. Arian. §4. also Theodoret Hist. i. 20. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §4.] The name of Euphration occurs de Syn. 17 as the Bishop to whom Eusebius of Caesarea wrote an heretical letter. Balaneae is on the Syrian coast. Paltus also and Antaradus are in Syria, and these persecutions took place about a.d. 338; that of Eutropius, and of Lucius his successor, about 331, shortly after the proceedings against Eustathius. Cyrus too was banished under pretence of Sabellianism about 338. For Asclepas, Theodulus, and Olympius vid. Hist. Arian. §19. and supr. Apol. Ar. 44, 45.
26 [Comp. Encyc. §4. The present passage certainly appears to put the arrival of George in the Lent immediately following the irruption of Syrianus: but see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1), note 5, below, Fest. Index,_xxix., and the explanation in Chron. Aceph. that the party of George took possession of the Churches (in June 356), eight months before George arrived in person. Cf. Introd. to Apol. Const.]
85 Vid. Acts xxiii. 11. [The reference to the Roman martyrdom of the two great Apostles should be noted. The tradition is as old as Clem. Rom.; much older than that of the Roman Episcopate of one of them.]
117 [The bracketed passage is omitted by some good witnesses to the text. The respectful tone of the `Apology to Const.' is exchanged for cold reserve in this `Apology,' and for unmeasured invective in Hist. Ar.]
123 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
124 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
11 If the common slander of the day concerning S. Helena was imputed to S. Eustathius Constantine was likely to feel it keenly. `Stabulariam,' says S. Ambrose, `hanc primo fuisse asserunt, sic cognitam Constantio.' de Ob. Theod. 42, Stabularia, i.e. an innkeeper; so Rahab is sometimes considered to be `cauponaria siva tabernaria et meretrix,' Cornel. a Lap. in Jos. ii. 1. ec omilioj gunaikoj ou semnhj oude kata nomon sunelqoushj. Zosim, Hist. ii. p. 78. Constantinus ex concubine Helena procreatus. Hieron. in Chron. Euseb. p. 773. (ed. Vallars.) Tillemont however maintains (Empereurs, t. 4. p. 613), and Gibbon fully admits (Hist. ch. 14. p. 190), the legitimacy of Constantine. The latter adds, `Eutropius (x. 2.) expresses in a few words the real truth, and the occasion of the error, "ex obscuriori matrimonio ejus filius."' [Cf. Soz. ii. 19.]
14 oson oudepw, as §32. George was pulled to pieces by the populace, a.d. 362. This was written a.d. 358, or later. [There is the common confusion in this note between Gregory and George. Greogory had died June 26, 345.]
18 monhn. vid. supr. Ap. Ar. 29, note 2. This halt or station which lay up the Nile was called Cereu (V. Ant. §86), or Chaereu, or the land or property of Chaereas, vid. Naz. Orat. 21, 29, who says it was the place where the people met Athanasius on his return from exile on Constantius's death. [The incident is related differently in Vit. Ant. ubi supra: see note there.]
8 The word Palatium sometimes stands for the space or limits set apart in cities for the Emperor, Cod. Theod. XV. i. 47. sometimes for the buildings upon it, ibid. VII. x. 2, which were one of the four public works mentioned in the Laws. ibid. XV. i. 35. and 36. None but great officers of state were admitted into it. XV. i. 47. Even the judges might not lodge in it, except there was no Praetorium, VII. x. 2. Gothofr. in VII. x. 1 enumerates (with references) the Palatia in Antioch, Daphne, Constantinople, Hereclea, Milan, Treves, &c. It was a great mark then of imperial favour that the Eastern bishops were accommodated in the Palatium at Sardica.
26 [June 26, 345. Athanasius received some at least of the letters at Aquileia, where he spent Easter, 345 (Apol. Ar. 51, Fest. Ind. xvii.). He then went to see Constans at Treveri, apparently in May, 346 (Apol. Const. 4, Gwatkin, Stud. 127, n.). This compels us to assume that the first invitation to Ath. to return must have been wrung (infr. 49, 50) from Constantius before the death of Gregory. The statement in the text is therefore so far inexact, but the lung illness of Gregory must have made his death a matter of daily expectation, cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (3) fin.]
1 On the suneisaktai, vid. [D. C. A. 1939 sqq. Bright, Notes on Canons, p. 839], Mosheim de Rebus Ante Const. p. 599, Routh, Reliqu. Sacr. t. 2. p. 606. t. 3. p. 445. Basnag. Diss. vii. 19. in Ann. Eccles. t. 2. Muratori, Anecdot. Graec. p. 218. Dodwell, Dissert. Cyrian. iii. Bevereg. in Can. Nic. 3. Suicer. Thesaur. in voc. &c. &c. It is conjectured by Beveridge, Dodwell, Van Espen, &c., that Leontius gave occasion to the first Canon of the Nicene Council, peri twn tolmwntwn eautouj ektemnein.
2 thn manian eceteinan; vid. ekteinai thn manian, §42. And so in the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo; which says that Dioscorus, kat' autou thj ampelou thn fulakhn para tou swthroj epitetrammenou thn manian eceteine, legomen dh thj shj osiothtoj. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 636. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. av. §4.]
3 By Romania is meant the Roman Empire, according to Montfaucon after Nannius. vid. Praefat. xxxiv. xxxv. And so Epiph. Hoer, lxvi, 1 fin, p. 618, and lxviii. 2 init. p. 728, Nil. Ep. i. 75. vid. Du Cange Gloss. Groec. in voc.
26 This Hilary afterwards followed Lucifer of Calaris in his schism. He is supposed to be the author of the Comments on S. Paul's Epistles attributed to S. Ambrose, who goes under the name of Amurosiaster.
15 Vid. de Decr. 2, note 6. It is remarkable, this letter having so much its own character, and being so unlike Athanasius's writings in style, that a phrase characteristic of him should here occur in it. Did Athan. translate it from Latin?
16 o alhqws #Osioj. kataskopoi, on gar episkopoi, supr. §3. infr. §§48, 76 fin. and so alhqwj Eusebie, Theod. Hist. i. 4. 'Onhsimon, ton pote soi axrhston, nuni de euxrhston Philem. 10. De Syn. 26, note 6.
14 [This may well be taken as a statement of what ought to be; but in view of the history of the fourth century it can only be called a rhetorical exaggeration. See supr. §15, Apol. Ar. 36, ekeleusan, Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1) init., and D.C.A. p. 475, with reff. there given.]
15 oij an eqelwsi, and just before wn an eqeloi. [And more strikingly just below §53 fin. a qelonsi prattei, epei kai antoj aper hqelen hkouse par autwn.] This is a very familiar phrase with Athan. i.e. wj eqelhsen, aper eqelhsan, otan qelwsin, ouj eqelhsan, &c. &c. Some instances me given supr. Apol. Ar. 2, note 3, and de Syn. 13, note 6.
19 twn ergasiwn,-trades, or workmen. vid. supr. Apol. Ar. 15 Montfaucon has a note upon the word in the Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxvi. where he corrects his Latin in loc. of the former passage very nearly in conformity to the rendering given of it above, p. 108. `In Onomastico monuimus, hic ergasiaj "officinarum operas" commodius exprimere.' And he quotes an inscription [C.I.G. i. 3924] touto to hrwon stefanoi h ergasia twn bafewn.
20 [i.e. Thursday, June 13, 356, three days after the arrival of Heraclius and Cataphronius. The church in question was apparently that of Theonas, or the Caesareum (p. 298). According to Hist. Aceph. the churches were formally handed over to the Arians on June 15, i.e. on the Saturday. The Hist. Aceph. here fits minutely the scattered notices of Athan.: see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1).]
26 Vid. Herodot. ii. 41. who says that cows and heifers were sacred to Isis. vid. Jablonski Pantheon Aeg. i. 1. §15. who says that Isis was worshipped in the shape of a cow, and therefore the cows received divine honours. Yet bulls were sacrificed to Apis, ibid. iv. 2. §9. also Schweighaeuser in loc. Herod.
37 The mines of Phaeno lie almost in a direct line between Petrae and Zoar, which is at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. They formed the place of punishment of Confessors in the Maximinian Persecution, Euseb. de Mart. Pal. 7, and in the Arian Persecution at Alexandria after Athan. Theod. H. E. iv. 19, p. 996. Phaeno was once the seat of a Bishopric, which sent a Bishop to the Councils at Ephesus, the Ecumenical, and the Latrocinium. vid. Reland. Palestine, pp. 951, 952. Montfaucon in loc. Athan. Le Quien. Or. Christ. t. 3. p. 745.
39 9Ermeian louonta touj anecodouj, Inauspicato verterat Hermantius, `qui angiportos non pervios lavabat;' Montfaucon, Coll. Nov. t. 2. p. xliii. who translates as above, yet not satisfactorily, epecially as there is no article before louonta. Tillemont says, `qui avait "quelle charge" dans la police de la ville,' understanding by anecodoi, `inclusi sive incarcerati homines;' whereas they are `ii qui ana taj ecodoujin exitibus viarum, stipem cogunt.' Montf. ibid. For the custom of washing the feet vid. Bingh. Antiqu. xii. 4. §10.
49 touj artouj [i.e. their stated allowance: see also Apol. Ar 18], the word occurs Encycl. 4, Apol. Fug. 6, supr. §§31, 54, in this sense: but Nannius, Hermant, and Tillemont, with some plausibility understand it as a Latin term naturalized, and translate `most cruel of all, with much insolence they tore the "limbs" of the dead,' alleging that merely to take away `loaves' was not so `cruel' as to take away `lives,' which the Arians had done [the parallels refute this, apart from linguistic grounds].
14 The early theory about persecution seems to have been this,-that that was a bad cause which `depended' upon it, but that, when a `cause' was good, there was nothing wrong in using force in due `subordination' to argument [so Pius IX. in Encycl. `Quanta cura,' speaks of the 'officium coercendi sancitis poenis violatores catholicae religionis]; that there was as little impropriety in the civil magistrate's inducing `individuals' by force, when they were incapable of higher motives, as by those secular blessings which follow on Christianity. Our Lord's kingdom was not of this world, that is, it did not depend on this world; but, as subduing, engrossing, and swaying this world, it at times condescended to make use of this world's weapons against itself. The simple question was `whether a cause depended on force for its existence.' S. Athanasius declared and the event proved, that Arianism was so dependent. When Emperors ceased to persecute, Arianism ceased to be; it had no life in itself. Again, all cruel persecution, or long continued, or on a large scale, was wrong, as arguing `an absence' of moral and rational grounds in the `cause' so maintained. Again, there was an evident `impropriety' in ecclesiastical functionaries using secular weapons, as there would be in their engaging in a secular pursuit, or forming secular connections; whereas the soldier might as suitably, and should as dutifully, defend religion with the sword, as the scholar with his pen. And further there was an abhorrence of cruelty natural to us, which it was a duty to cherish and maintain. All this being considered, there is no inconsistency in S. Athanasius denouncing persecution, and in Theodosius decreeing that `the heretical teachers, who usurped the sacred titles of Bishops or Presbyters,' should be `exposed to the heavy penalties of exile and confiscation.' Gibbon, Hist. ch. 27. For a list of passages from the Fathers on the subject, vid. Limborch on the Inquisition, vol. 1. Bellarmin. de Laicis, c. 21, 22, and of authors in favour of persecution, vid. Gerhard de Magistr. Polit. p. 741, &c. [But vide supr., Apol. Fug. 23: `persecution is a device of the devil;' see also Socr. vii. 3.]
50 Epictetus above, p. 226, is called upokrithj, which Montfaucon translated `stage-player.' It is a question whether more than `actor' is meant by it, alluding to the mockery of an ordination in which he seems to have taken part. Though an Asiatic apparently by birth, he was made Bishop of Civita Vecchia. We hear of him at the conference between Constantius and Liberius. Theod. H. E. ii. 13. Then he assists in the ordination of Felix. Afterwards he made a martyr of S. Ruffinian by making him run before his carriage; and he ends his historical career by taking a chief part among the Arians at Ariminum. vid. Tillem. t. vi. p. 380. &c. Ughell. Ital. t. 10. p. 56.
54 Cf. Tillemont, Mem. t. 6. p. 778. Bolland. Catal. Pontif. ch. 21. p. 390. [Döllinger, `Fables respecting the Popes;' D.C.B. ii. 480. Felix figures in the middle ages as the orthodox rival of the `Arian' Liberius.]
85 Of the two Protests referred to supr. §48, the first was omitted by the copyists, as being already contained, as Montfaucon seems to say, in the Apology against the Arians; yet if it be the one to which allusion is made in the beginning of the Protest which follows, it is not found there, nor does it appear what document of a.d. 356 could properly have a place in a set of papers which end with a.d. 350.
92 strathgou. There were two strathgoi or duumvirs at the head of the police force at Alexandria; they are mentioned in the plural in Euseb. vii. 11, where S. Dionysius speaks of their seizing him. vid. Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. in voc.
93 strathgou. There were two strathgoi or duumvirs at the head of the police force at Alexandria; they are mentioned in the plural in Euseb. vii. 11, where S. Dionysius speaks of their seizing him. vid. Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. in voc.
96 Since the Consuls came into office on the first of January, and were proclaimed in each city, it is strange that the Alexandrians here speak in February as if ignorant of their names. The phrase, however, is found elsewhere. Thus in this very year the Chron. Aceph. dates Jan. 5 as `post Consulatum Arbitionis et Loliani.' And in Socr. Hist. ii. 29, in the instance of the year 351, when there were no Consuls, and in 346, when there was a difference on the subject between the Emperors who were eventually themselves Consuls, the first months are dated in like manner from the Consuls of the foregoing year.
99 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
1 epinohsasai. This is almost a technical word, and has occurred again and again already, as descriptive of heretical teaching in opposition to the received traditionary doctrine. It is also found passim in other writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against Apollinaris; `for not originating, epinohsantej, any novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.' Hist. iii. 7. The sense of the word epinoia which will come into consideration below, is akin to this, being the view taken by the mind of an object independent of (whether or not correspondent to) the object itself. [But see Bigg. B. L. p. 168, sq.]
4 Vid. infr. §4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Praescr. 42, who warns Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of isolated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church. vid. also Vincentius, who specifies obiter Sabellius and Novation. Commonit. 2. Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies on this point, as in these two respects; (1.) they appealed to a secret tradition, unknown even to most of the Apostles, as the Gnostics, Iren. Haer. iii. 1 or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, de Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Orat. ii. §18. c. Epiph. Haer. 69. 15. Or rather they took some words of Scripture, and made their own deductions from them; viz. `Son,' `made,' `exalted,' &c. `Making their private irreligiousness as if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it.' Orat. i. §52. vid. also Epiph. Haer. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their qrullhtai fwnai, leceij, eph, rhta, sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text. e.g. infr., §22, `amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about,' &c. Also anw kai katw periferontej, de Decr. §13. tw rhtw teqrullhkasi ta pantaxou. Orat. 2. §18. to poluqrullhton sofisma, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 14. thn poluqrullhton dialektikhn, Nyssen. contr. Eun iii. p. 125. thn qrulloumenhn aporrohn, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. thn poluqrullhton fwnhn, Socr. ii. 43.
6 These Orations and Discourses seem written to shew the vital importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian character of the heresy, without reference to the word omoousion. He has [elsewhere] insisted that the enforcement of the symbol was but the rejection of the heresy, and accordingly he is here content to bring out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, if persons understood and embraced it, they would not scruple at the word. He seems to allude to what may be called the liberal or indifferent feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. §7 fin. §9. §10 init. §15 fin. §17. §21. §23. He mentions in Apollin. i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says, it was `fearful to mention.' S. Augustine tells us that this man taught that `all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth,' `which,' he adds, `is so absurd as to seem to me incredible.' Her 72. vid. also Philastr. Haer. 91.
10 He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians; vid. however next §. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title as applied to Carbolics, and again to heretics, when they are taken by Catholics as a note against them. S. Augustine says, `Arians call Catholics Athanasians or Homoüsians, not other heretics too. But ye not only by Catholics but also by heretics, those who agree with you and those who disagree, are called Pelagians; as even by heresies are Arians called Arians. But ye, and ye only, call us Traducianists, as Arians call us Homoüsians, as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees Pharisees, and as the other heretics use various titles.' Op. imp. i. 75. It may be added that the heretical name adheres, the Catholic dies away. S. Chrysostom draws a second distinction, `Are we divided from the Church? have we heresiarchs? are we called from many is there any leader to us, as to one there is Marcion, to another Manichaeus, to another Arius, to another some other author of heresy? for if we too have the name of any, still it is not those who began the heresy, but our superiors and governors of the Church. We have not "teachers upon earth,"' &c. in Act. Ap. Hom. 33 fin.
11 Vid. foregoing note. Also, `Let us become His disciples, and learn to live according to Christianity; for whoso is called by other name besides this, is not of God.' Ignat ad Magn. 10. Hegesippus speaks of `Menandrians, and Marcionites, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians,' who `each in his own way and that a different one brought in his own doctrine.' Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. `There are, and there have been, my friends, many who have taught atheistic and blasphemous words and deeds, coming in the name of Jesus; and they are called by us from the appellation of the men, whence each doctrine and opinion began. ...Some are called Marcians, others Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Saturnilians,' &c. Justin. Tryph. 35. Iren. Haer. i. 23. `When men are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or by any other name, they cease to be Christians; for they have lost Christ's Name, and clothe themselves in human and foreign titles.' Lact. Inst. iv. 30. `A. How are you a Christian, to whom it is not even granted to bear the name of Christian? for you are not called Christian but Marcionite. M. And you are called of the Catholic Church; therefore ye are not Christians either. A. Did we profess man's name, you would have spoken to the point; but if we are called from being all over the world, what is there bad in this?' Adamant. Dial. §1, p. 809. Epiph. Haer. 42. p. 366. ibid. 70. 15. vid. also Haer. 75. 6 fin. Cyril Cat. xviii. 26. `Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.' Pacian. Ep. 1. `If you ever hear those who are called Christians, named, not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some one else, say Marcionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers, Campestrians, know that it is not Christ's Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist.' Jerom. adv. Lucif. fin.
13 de Syn. 13, note 4. Manes also was called mad; `Thou must hate all heretics, but especially him who even in name is a maniac.' Cyril. Catech. vi. 20, vid. also ibid. 24 fin.-a play upon the name, vid. de Syn. 26, `Scotinus.'
15 It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of Arius. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §2.] Epiphanius's account of Arius is as follows:-`From elation of mind the old man swerved from the mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with manners like wily serpent, captivating to every guileless heart by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited in cloke and vest, he was pleasant of address, ever persuading souls and flattering; wherefore what was his very first work but to withdraw from the Church in one body as many as seven hundred women who professed virginity.?' Haer. 69. 3, cf. ib. §9 for a strange description of Arius attributed to Constantine, also printed in the collections of councils: Hard. i. 457.
18 And so godless or atheist Aetius, de Syn. 6, note 3, cf. note on de Decr. 1, for an explanation of the word. In like manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says `that the Son is a creature, who is word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,' he falls under the text, `Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.' `Such a one,' he continues, `will in no long time say, as the fool, There is no God.' In like manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit as `without (ecw) the Holy Trinity, and atheists' (Serap. iv. 6), because they really do not believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Serap. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as anqrwpouj aqeouj, who were attempting krathsai tou qeiou. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen poluqeoj aqeia. Orat. 25. 15. and he calls faith and regeneration `a denial of atheism, aqeiaj, and a confession of godhead, qeothtoj,' Orat. 23. 12. He calls Lucius, the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruelties, `this second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, thj aqeou phghj.' Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is aneou aqeoj. ibid. 12.
23 Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. katalhyij was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ideai, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none `knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,' if katalhyij be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the pericwrhsij, de Syn. 15, anepimiktoi, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the o her hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, `searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,' so the Son, as being `in the bosom of the Father,' alone `hath declared Him.' vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, 'If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour." Orat. iii. 44.
32 And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod haeretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494.
34 Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judaeis. ibid. xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord's nativity, circumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. xxxii. 6.
39 dwrodokoi, and so kerdoj thj filocrhmatiaj, infr. §53. He mentions prostasiaj filwn, §10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10. And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa caedit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod H. E. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of filocrusouj mallon h filocristouj. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Aeg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c. (2).]
41 Vid. de Decr. 1. note. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers. vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40, 42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28; Ambros. de fid. i. n. 69 and 104.
44 This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. Haer. i. 25; Epiph. Haer. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Haer. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xx. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Hoer. ii praef. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901. Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Quoest. 22. vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, cf. Depos. Ar. supr. p. 71, note 29.
61 Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word `time.' vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,-`There was,' what `when the Son was not?' or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if `when' be a word of time, He it is who was `when' He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who `was' before the Son? This was true, if `before' was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John's Gospel may be interpreted `In the Beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father `was the Word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.
67 1 Cor. i. 24. Athan. has so interpreted this text supr. de Decr. 15. It was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicaea, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid. de Syn. 18, and Orat. ii. §37.
68 2 Cor. iii. 16, 2 Cor. iii. 17. S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 4-7, that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply `Spirit' without the addition `of God' or `of the Father' or `from Me' or of the article, or of `Holy,' or `Comforter,' or `of truth,' or unless He has been spoken of just before. Accordingly this text is understood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr. Cels. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 32; Psendo-Athan. de comm. ess. 6. On the other hand, the word pneuma, 'Spirit, is used more or less distinctly for our Lord's Divine Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63, &c. [But cf. also Milligan Resurr. 238 sq.] Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the `Holy Spirit,' which came down upon S. Mary might be considered the Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, `If the Spirit of God did not descend into the womb "to partake in flesh from the womb," why did He descend at all?' de Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 26, Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren. Hoer. v. 1. Cypr. Idol Van. 6. Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. ii. 27; Athan. logoj en tw pneumati eplatte to swma. Serap. i. 31 fin. en tw logw hn to pneuma ibid. iii. 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, auton anti sporaj sullabousa ton logon, kekuhke, t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even though his date were a.d. 150), who also says plainly: Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est. Sim. v. 5, 2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of `Spirit' for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Groec. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren. Hoer. iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3, and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severion. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot. ad Marc. ii. 8; Bull, Def. F. N. i. 1, §5; Coustant. Proeef. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init.]
82 Vid. de Decr. 18, note 5. The subject is treated at length in Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 93-101. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8-11. As time measures the material creation, `ages' were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timaeus says eikwn esti cronoj tw agennatw cronw, on aiwna potagoreuomej. vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. 1 prope fin., p. 501. Naz. Or. 38. 8.
94 This was an objection urged by Eunomius, cf. de Syn. 51, note 8. It is implied also in the Apology of the former, §24, and in Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alexandria with George of Cappadocia, a.d. 356-8, and Athan. wrote these Discourses in the latter year, as the de Syn. at the end of the next. It is probable then that he is alluding to the Anomoean arguments as he heard them reported, vid. de Syn. l.c. where he says, `they say, "as you have written,"' §51. Anomoioj kat ousian is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are adelfoi, so did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third. vid. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2.
97 In other words, by the Divine gennhsij is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in the Divine Essence. Arius. not admitting this, objected at the outset of the controversy to the phrase `always Father, always Son,' Theod. H. E. i. 4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, `if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never such in act, energoj, but was argoj.' Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that 'works, erga, are made ecwqen, `from without;' but that our Lord, as S. Athanasius here says, is neither a `work' nor 'from without. And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are fathers first in posse then in act, God is dunamei te kai energeia pathr. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in aeterna, Adv. Ar. i. p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And Arius scoffs at aeigennhj and agennhtogenhj. Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had said, o swthr aei gennatai. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, anarcon kai aeigenej. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav. de Trin ii. 5. n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara, `Since the Son's generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (kuriwj) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is itself an end, teloj, and is perfect. teleion.' Opusc 26.
100 Vid. supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the objection; the Arians said, `How can God be ever perfect, who added to Himself a Son?' Athan. answers, `How can the Son not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?' vid. Greg. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the Son's perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph. Haer. 76. pp. 925, 6, that growth and consequent accession from without were essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not atelh proteron, eita teleion, wsper nomoj thj hmeteraj genesewj Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is tegwoj, because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a xarakthr, or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him perfect, without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16 fin.
108 Here is taught us the strict unity of the Divine Essence. When it is said that the First Person of the Holy Trinity communicates divinity to the Second, it is meant that that one Essence which is the Father, also is the Son. Hence the force of the word omoousion, which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was distinguished from it by the particle omou, `together,' which implied a difference as well as unity; whereas tautoousion or sunousion implied, with the Sabellians, an identity or a confusion. The Arians, on the other hand, as in the instance of Eusebius, &c., supr. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 26, note 3; considered the Father and the Son two ousiai. The Catholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Essence is both the Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not itself agennhtoj or gennhth; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph. Haer. 76. 10. Cf. de Decr. §30, Orat. iii. §36 fin., Expos. Fid. 2. vid. de Syn. 45, note 1. `Vera et aeterna substantia in se tota permanens, totam se coaeternae veritati nativitatis indulsit.' Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, `Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis naturae perfectam nativitatem.' Trin. vii. 31.
134 alogon. Vid. note on de Decr. §§1, 15, where other instances are given from Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; vid. also Orat. iv. 2, 4. Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Graec. 5. Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 10. Hipp. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat, Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145 (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 9). It must not be supposed from these instances that the Fathers meant that our Lord was literally what is called the attribute of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence, or in other words, that He was God merely viewed as He is wise; which would be a kind of Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute (vid. de Syn. 15, note), they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in nature with it, that whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son;-that the attribute was His symbol, and not His mere archetype; that our Lord was eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was, which was His title, vid. Ep. Aeg. 14, that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom,-not by which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not wise;-not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but in fact. Or, whereas the Father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the necessary result of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a radiance implies a light; or, as Petavius remarks, l.c. quoting the words which follow shortly after in the text, the eternity of the Original implies the eternity of the Image; thj upostasewj uparxoushj, pantwj euquj einai dei ton xarkthra kai thn eikona tauthj, §20. vid. also infr. §31, de Decr. §13, p. 21, §§29, 23, pp. 35, 40. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 737.
135 This was but the opposite aspect of the tenet of our Lord's consubstantiality or eternal generation. For if He came into being at the will of God, by the same will He might cease to be; but if His existence is unconditional and necessary, as God's attributes might be, then as He had no beginning, so can He have no end; for He is in, and one with, the Father, who has neither beginning nor end. On the question of the `will of God' as it affects the doctrine, vid. Orat. iii. §59, &c.
139 Athan. argues from the very name Image for our Lord's eternity. An Image, to be really such, must be an expression from the Original, not an external and detached imitation. vid. supr. note 10, infr. §26. Hence S. Basil, `He is an Image not made with the hand, or a work of art, but a living Image,' &c. vid. also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. Epiph Hoer. 76. 3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on the contrary, is an example of an external or improper image of God. Periarch. i. 2. §6. It might have been more direct to have argued from the name of Image to our Lord's consubstantiality rather than eternity, as, e.g. S. Gregory Naz. `He is Image as one in essence, omoousion, ...for this is the nature of an image, to be a copy of the archetype.' Orat. 30. 20. vid. also de Decr. §§20, 23, but for whatever reason Athan. avoids the word omoousion in these Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15.
142 omoiaj ousiaj. And so §20 init. omoion kat' ousian, and omoioj thj ousiaj, §26. omoioj kat' ousian, iii. 26. and omoioj kata thn ousian tou patroj. Ep. Aeg. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. Considering what he says in the de Syn. §38, &c., in controversy with the semi-Arians a year or two later, this use of their formula, in preference to the omoousion (vid. foregoing note), deserves our attention.
145 The objection is this, that, if our Lord be the Father's Image, He ought to resemble Him in being a Father. S. Athanasius answers that God is not as man; with us a son becomes a father because our nature is reusth, transitive and without stay, ever shifting and passing on into new forms and relations; but that God is perfect and ever the same, what He is once that He continues to be; God the Father remains Father, and God the Son remains Son. Moreover men become fathers by detachment and transmission, and what is received is handed on in a succession; whereas the Father, by imparting Himself wholly, begets the Son: and a perfect nativity finds its termination in itself. The Son has not a Son, because the Father has not a Father. Thus the Father is the only true Father, and the Son alone true Son; the Father only a Father, the Son only a Son; being really in their Persons what human fathers are but by office, character, accident, and name; vid. De Decr. 11, note 6. And since the Father is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the Son more fulfil the idea of a perfect Image than in being unchangeable too. Thus S. Cyril also, Thesaur. 10. p. 124. And this perhaps may illustrate a strong and almost startling implication of some of the Greek Fathers, that the First Person in the Holy Trinity, is not God [in virtue of His Fatherhood]. E.g. ei de qeoj o uioj, ouk epei uioj: omoiwj kai o pathr, ouk epei pathr, qeoj: all' epei ousia toiade, eij esti pathr kai o uioj qeoj. Nyssen. t. i. p. 915. vid. Petav. de Deo i. 9. §13. Should it be asked, `What is the Father if not God?' it is enough to answer, `the Father.' Men differ from each other as being individuals, but the characteristic difference between Father and Son is, not that they are individuals, but that they are Father and Son. In these extreme statements it must he ever horne in mind that we are contemplating divine things according to our notions. not in fact: i.e. speaking of the Almighty Father, as such; there being no real separation between His Person and His Substance. It may be added, that, though theologians differ in their decisions, it would appear that our Lord is not the Image of the Father's person, but of the Father's substance; in other words, not of the Father considered as Father, but considered as God That is, God the Son is like and equal to God the Father, because they are both the same God. De Syn. 49. note 4, also next note
147 kuriwj, de Decr. 11, note 6. Elsewhere Athan. says, `The Father being one and only is Father of a Son one and only; and in the instance of Godhead only have the names Father and Son stay and are ever; for of men if any one be called father, yet he has been son of another; and if he be called son, yet is he called father of another; so that in the case of men the names father and son do not properly, kuriwj, hold.' ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6. vid. also kuriwj, Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5. alhqwj, Orat. 25, 16. ontwj, Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215.
148 This miserable procedure, of making sacred and mysterious subjects a matter of popular talk and debate, which is a sure mark of heresy, had received a great stimulus about this time by the rise of the Anomoeans. Eusebius's testimony to the profaneness which attended Arianism upon its rise will be given de Syn. 2, note 1. The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alexander speaks of the interference, even judicial, in its behalf against himself, of disobedient women, di' entuxiaj gunaikariwn ataktwn a hpathsan, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, ek tou peritroxazein pasan aguian asemnwj. ap. Theod. H.E. i. 3. p. 730, also p. 747; also of the men's buffoon conversation, p. 731. Socrates says that `in the Imperial Court, the officers of the bedchamber held disputes with the women, and in the city in every house there was a war of dialectics.' Hist. ii. 2. This mania raged especially in Constantinople, and S. Gregory Naz. speaks of `Jezebels in as thick a crop as hemlock in a field.' Orat. 35. 3, cf. de Syn. 13, n. 4. He speaks of the heretics as `aiming at one thing only, how to make good or refute points of argument,' making `every market-place resound with their words, and spoiling every entertainment with their trifling and offensive talk.' Orat. 27. 2. The most remarkable testimony of the kind though not concerning Constantinople, is given by S. Gregory Nyssen, and often quoted, `Men of yesterday and the day before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and slaves that have been flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn with us and philosophical about things incomprehensible. ...With such the whole city is full; its smaller gates, forums, squares, thoroughfares; the clothes-venders, the money-lenders, the victuallers. Ask about pence, and he will discuss the Generate and Ingenerate; inquire the price of bread, he answers, Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject; say that a bath would suit you, mad he defines that the Son is out of nothing.' t. 2. p. 898.
150 This objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. o wn qeoj ton mh onta ek tou mh ontoj. Again, onta gegennhke h ouk onta. Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question poluqrullhton, contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It will be seen to be but the Arian formula of `He was not before His generation,' in another shape; being but this, that the very fact of His being begotten or a Son, implies a beginning, that is, a time when He was not: it being by the very force of the words absurd to say that `God begat Him that was,' or to deny that `God begat Him that was not.' For the symbol, ouk hn prin gennhqh, vid. Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse.
159 This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S. Athanasius, ad Serap. i. 1. vid. ii. init. ad Epict. 13 fin. ad Max. init. contr. Apoll. i. init. `I must ask another question, bolder, yet with a religious intention; be propitious, O Lord, &c.' Orat. iii. 63, cf. de Decr. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, de Syn. 51, note 4.
163 Supr. de Decr. 6. The question was, What was that sense of Son which would apply to the Divine Nature? The Catholics said that its essential meaning could apply, viz. consubstantiality, whereas the point of posteriority to the Father depended on a condition, time, which could not exist in the instance of God. ib. 10. The Arians on the other hand said, that to suppose a true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as implying division, change, &c. The Catholics replied that the notion of materiality was quite as foreign from the Divine Essence as time, and as the Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it also clear both of imperfection or extension.
164 It is from expressions such as this that the Greek Fathers have been accused of tritheism. The truth is, every illustration, as being incomplete on one or other side of it, taken by itself, tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. The truth, on the other hand, is a positive and comprehensive doctrine, and in consequence necessarily mysterious and open to misconception. vid. de Syn. 41, note 1. When Athan, implies that the Eternal Father is in the Son, though remaining what He is, as a man in his child, he is intent only upon the point of the Son's connaturality and equality, which the Arians denied. Cf. Orat. iii. §5; Ps.-Ath. Dial i. (Migne xxviii. 1144 C.). S. Cyril even seems to deny that each individual man may be considered a separate substance except as the Three Persons are such (Dial. i. p. 409); and S. Gregory Nyssen is led to say that, strictly speaking, the abstract man, which is predicated of separate individuals, is still one, and this with a view of illustrating the Divine Unity. ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449. vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9.
166 S. Athanasius's doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself all perfection, whatever is excellent in one created thing above another, is found in its perfection in Him. If then such generation as radiance from light is more perfect than that of children from parents, that belongs, and transcendently, to the All-perfect God.
167 This is a view familiar to the Fathers, viz. that in this consists our Lord's Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S Augustine says, Christum ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 120. 11. Cf. de Decr. §17. `If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring;' Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. `The Word, the genuine Son of Mind;' Clem. Protrept. p. 58. Petavius discusses this subject accurately with reference to the distinction between Divine Generation and Divine Procession. de Trin. vii. 14.
169 Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause of their opposition to the Church; and if even Arius affected it, the plea may be expected in any other. `O stultos et impios metus,' says S. Hilary, `et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.' de Trin. iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in regard to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Acta Archelai [Routh. Rell. v. 169]. August. contr. Secund. 9, contr. Faust. xi. 3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence of reverence because, as they said, the soul was necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this their main argument, o nouj amarthtikoj esti. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89; Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80. Athan., &c., call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichaan in consequence. vid. in Apoll. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, will not call our Lord man. Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, would call our Lord man, but refused to admit His human nature, and still with the same profession. Leon. Ep. 21. 1 fin. `Forbid it,' he says at Constantinople, `that I should say that the Christ was of two natures, or should discuss the nature, fusiologein, of my God.' Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act. prima conc. Chalc. t. iv. 1001 ed. Col.] A modern argument for Universal Restitution takes a like form; `Do not we shrink from the notion of another's being sentenced to eternal punishment; and are we more merciful than God?' vid. Matt. xvi. 22, Matt. xvi. 23.
172 Athan.'s argument is as follows: that, as it is of the essence of a son to be `connatural' with the father, so is it of the essence of a creature to be of `nothing,' ec ouk ontwn; therefore, while it was not impossible `from the nature of the case,' for Almighty God to be always Father, it was impossible for the same reason that He should be always a Creator. vid. infr. §58: where he takes, `They shall perish,' in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the definition of the nature of a creature. Also ii. §1, where he says, `It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, ec ouk ontwn and ouk hn prin gennhqh.' vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra, Ep. Eus. 11 note 3.
173 The word aggen[n]hton was in the philosophical schools synonymous with `God;' hence by asking whether there were two Unoriginates, the Arians implied that there were two Gods, if Christ was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, faskontej, ou legomen duo agenhta, legousi duo qeouj. Orat. iii. 16, also ii. 38. Plato used agennhton of the Supreme God [not so; he used agenhton, see note 2 on de Decr. 28]; the Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph. Hoer. 31. 10. S. Clement uses it, see de Syn. 47, note 7. [The earlier Arians apparently argued mainly, like Asterius, from agenhtoj (cr. Epiph. 64. 8), the later (kainoi, Epiph. Hoer. 73. 19) Anomoeans rather from agennhtoj]; viz. that h agennhsia is the very ousia of God, not an attribute. So Aetius in Epiph. Hoer. 76. S. Athanasius does not go into this question, but rather confines himself to the more popular form of it, viz. the Son is by His very name not agenhtoj, but genhtoj, but all genhta are creatures; which he answers, as de Decr. §28, by saying that Christianity had brought in a new idea into theology, viz. the sacred doctrine of a true Son, ek thj ousiaj. This was what the Arians had originally denied en to agennhton en de to up' autou alhqwj, kai ouk ek thj ousiaj autou gegonoj. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. H.E. i. 6. When they were urged what according to them was the middle idea to which the Son answered, if they would not accept the Catholic, they would not define but merely said, gennhma, all' ouk wj en twn gennhuatwn. [See pp. 149, 169, and the reference there to Lightfoot.]
177 The two first senses here given answer to the two first mentioned, de Decr. §28. and, as he there says, are plainly irrelevant. The third in the de Decr. which, as he there observes, is ambiguous and used for a sophistical purpose, is here divided into third and fourth, answering to the two senses which alone are assigned in the de Syn. §46 [where see note 5], and on them the question turns. This is an instance, of which many occur, how Athan. used his former writings and worked over again his former ground, and simplified or cleared what he had said. In the de Decr. after 350, we have three senses of agenhton, two irrelevant and the third ambiguous; here in Orat. i. (358), he divides the third into two; in the de Syn. (359), he rejects and omits the two first, leaving the two last, which are the critical senses.
178 These two senses of agennhton unbegotten and unmade were afterwards [but see notes on de Decr. 28] expressed by the distinction of nn and n, agennhton and agenhton. vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien's note.
184 The passage which follows is written with his de Decr. before him. At first he but uses the same topics, but presently he incorporates into this Discourse an actual portion of his former work, with only stroh alterations as an author commonly makes in transcribing. This, which is not unfrequent with Athan., shews us the care with which he made his doctrinal statements, though they seem at first sight written off. It also accounts for the diffuseness and repetition which might be imputed to his composition, what seems superfluous being often only the insertion of an extract from a former work.
188 For analogous arguments against the word agennhton, see Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 23. Epiph. Hoer. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. vi. p. 192, &c. Cyril. Dial. ii. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 283.
189 John xiv. 11; John xiv. 9; John x. 30. These three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly in Orat. iii. where he considers the doctrines of the `Image' and the perixwrhsij. vid. Index of Texts, also Epiph. Hoer. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin. Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111. [add in S. Joan, 168, 847] Potam. Ep. ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 41. et supr.
193 treptoj, not `changeable' but of a moral nature capable of improvement. Arius maintained this in the strongest terms at starting. `On being asked whether the Word of God is capable of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, "Yea, He is capable."' Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11.
210 The Arians perhaps more than other heretics were remarkable for bringing objections against the received view, rather than forming a consistent theory of their own Indeed the very vigour and success of their assault upon the truth lay in its being a mere assault, not a positive and substantive teaching. They therefore, even more than others, might fairly be urged on to the consequences of their positions. Now the text in question, as it must be interpreted if it is to serve as an objection, was an objection also to the received doctrine of the Arians. They considered that our Lord was above and before all creatures from the first, and their Creator; how then could He be exalted above all? They surely, as much as Catholics, were obliged to explain it of our Lord's manhood. They could not then use it as a weapon against the Church, until they took the ground of Paul of Samosata.
218 In this passage Athan. considers that the participation ofthe Word is deification, as communion with the Son is adoption: also that the old Saints, inasmuch as they are called `gods' and `sons,' did partake of the Divine Word and Son, or in other words were gifted with the Spirit. He asserts the same doctrine very strongly in Orat. iv. §22. On the other hand, infr. 47, he says expressly that Christ received the Spirit in Baptism `that He might give it to man.' There is no real contradiction in such statements; what was given in one way under the Law, was given in another and fuller under the Gospel.
230 Scripture is full of misteries, but they are mysteries of fact, not of words. Its dark sayings or aenigmata are such, because in the nature of things they cannot be expressed clearly. Hence contrariwise. Orat ii. §77 fin. he calls Prov. viii. 22. an enigma, with an allusion to Prov. i. 6. Sept. In like manner S. Ambrose. says, Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudinem propheticorum oenigmatum, &c. Ep. ii. 3. What is commonly called `explaining away' Scripture, is this transference of the obscurity from the subject to the words used.
234 When Scripture says that our Lord was exalted, it means in that sense in which He could be exalted; just as, in saying that a man walks or eats, we speak of him not as a spirit, but as in that system of things to which the ideas of walking and eating belong. Exaltation is not a word which can belong to God; it is unmeaning, and therefore is not applied to Him in the text in question. Thus, e.g. S. Ambrose: `Ubi humilatus, ibi obediens. Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas et in eo desinit,' &c. Ap. Dav. alt. n. 39.
240 ontwj en umin o qeoj. 1 Cor. xiv. 25. Athan. interprets en in not among; as also in 1 John iii. 24, just afterwards. Vid. en emoi. Gal. i. 24. entoj umwn, Luke xvii. 21, eskhnwsen en hmin, John i. 14, on which text Hooker says, `It pleased not the Wordor Wisdom of God to take to itself some one person among men,for then should that one have been advanced which was assumed and no more, but Wisdom, to the end she might save many, built her house of that Nature which is common unto all; she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us.' Eccl. Pol. v. 52. §3. S. Basil in his proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit has a somewhat similar passage to the text, de Sp. S. c. 24.
244 It was usual to say against the Apollinarians, that, unless our Lord took on Him our nature; as it is, He had not purified and changed it, as it is, but another nature; `The Lord came not to save Adam as free from sin, that He should become like unto him; but as, in the net of sin and now fallen, that God's mercy might raise him up with Christ.' Leont. contr. Nestor. &c. ii. p. 996. Accordingly, Athan. says elsewhere, `Had not sinlessness appeared [cf. Rom. viii. 3, pemyaj] "in the nature which had sinned," how was sin condemned in the flesh?' in Apoll. ii. 6. `It was necessary for our salvation,' says S. Cyril, `that the Word of God should become man, that human flesh "subject to corruption" and "sick with the lust of pleasures," He might make His own; and. "whereas He is life and lifegiving," He might "destroy the corruption," &c. ...For by this means, might sin in our flesh become dead.' Ep. ad Success. i. p. 138. And S. Leo, `Non alterius naturae erat ejus caro quam nostra, nec alio illi quam caeteris hominibus anima est inspirata principio, quae excelleret, non diversitate generis, sed sublimitate virtutis.' Ep. 35 fin. vid. also Ep. 28. 3. Ep. 31. 2. Ep. 165. 9. Serm. 22. 2. and 25. 5. It may be asked whether this doctrine does not interfere with that of the immaculate conception [i.e. that Christ was conceived sinless]; but that miracle was wrought in order that our Lord might not be born in original sin, and does not affect, or rather includes, His taking flesh of the substance of the Virgin, i.e. of a fallen nature. If indeed sin were `of the substance' of our fallen nature, as some heretics have said, then He could not have taken our nature without partaking our sinfulness; but if sin be, as it is, a fault of the will, then the Divine Power of the Word could sanctfy the human will, and keep it from swerving in the direction of evil. Hence `We say not that Christ by the felicity of a flesh separated from sense could not feel the desire of sin, but that by perfection of virtue, and by a flesh not begotten through concupiscence of the flesh, He had not the desire of sin;' Aug. Op. Imperf. iv. 48. On the other hand, S. Athanasius expressly calls it Manichean doctrine to consider thn fusin of the flesh amartian, kai ou thn pracin. contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin. or fusikhn einai thn amartian. ibid. i. 14 fin. His argument in the next ch. is on the ground that all natures are from God, but God made man upright nor is the author of evil (vid. also Vit. Anton. 20); `not as if,' he says, `the devil wrought in man a nature (God forbid!) for of a nature the evil cannot be maker (dhmiourgoj) as is the impiety of the Manichees, but he wrought a bias of nature by transgression, and `so death reigned over all men.' Wherefore, saith he, `the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil;' what works? that nature, which God made sinless, and the devil biassed to the transgression of God's command and the finding out of sin which is death, did God the Word raise again, so as to be secure from the devil's bias and the finding out of sin. And therefore the Lord said, "The prince of this world cometh and findeth nothing in Me."' vid. also §19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of the devil having `introduced the law of sin.' vid. also §9.
253 It was a point in controversy with the extreme Monophysites, that is, the Eutychians, whether our Lord's body was naturally subject to death, the Catholics maintaining the affirmative, as Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted that our Lord had not a human nature, by which he meant among other things that His manhood was not subject to the laws of a body, but so far as He submitted to them, He did so by an act of will in each particular case; and this, lest it should seem that He was moved by the paqh against His will akousiwj; and consequently that His manhood was not subject to death. But the Catholics maintained that He had voluntarily placed Himself under those laws, and died naturally, vid. Athan. contr. Apol. i. 17, and that after the resurrection His body became incorruptible, not according to nature, but by grace. vid. Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. Hodeg. c. 23. To express their doctrine of the uperfuej of our Lord's manhood the Eutychians made use of the Catholic expression `ut voluit.' vid. Athan. l.c. Eutyches ap. Leon. Ep. 21. `quomodo voluit et scit,' twice. vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. ii. p. 105. Leont. contr. Nest i. p. 967. Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Hoer. §8. (t. 2. p. 570.)
256 At first sight it would seem as if S. Athanasius here used ousia essence for subsistence, or person; but this is not true except with an explanation. Its direct meaning is here, as usual, essence, though indirectly it comes to imply subsistence. He is speaking of that Divine Essence which, though also the Almighty Father's, is as simply and entirely the Word's as if it were only His. Nay, even when the Essence of the Father is spoken of in a sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in the phrase ousia ec ousiaj, harsh as such expressions are, it is not accurate to say that ousia is used for subsistence or person, or that two ousiai are spoken of (vid. de Syn. 52, note 8), except, that is, by Arians, as Eusebius, supr. Ep. Eus. §6 [or by Origen, Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) a.] Just below we find fusij tou logou, §51 init.
257 This was the question which came into discussion in the Nestorian controversy, when, as it was then expressed, all that took place in respect to the Eternal Word as man, belonged to His Person, and therefore might be predicated of Him; so that it was heretical not to confess the Word's body (or the body of God in the Person of the Word), the Word's death (as Athan, in the text), the Word's exaltation, and the Word's, or God's, Mother, who was in consequence called qeotokoj, which was the expression on which the controversy mainly turned. Cf. Orat. iii. 31, a passage as precise as if it had been written after the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, though without the technical words then adopted.
262 It is here said that all things `originate' partake the Son and are `sanctified' by the Spirit. How a gennhsij or adoption through the Son is necessary for every creature in order to its consistence, life, or preservation, has been explained, p. 162, note 3. Sometimes the Son was considered as the special Principle of reason, as by Origen, ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. vid. himself. de Incarn. 11. These offices of the Son and the Spirit are contrasted by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. ton prostattonta kurion, ton dhmiourgounta logon, to stereoun pneuma, &c. c. 16. n. 38.
270 Elsewhere Athan. says that our Lord's Godhead was the immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He assumed, in Apollin. ii. 3, Orat. iv. §36. vid. Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and from the same text as Athan. Orat. x. fin. Again, `This [the Godhead] is the anointing of the manhood, not sanctifying by an energy as the other Christs [anointed] but by a presence of Him whole who anointed, alou tou xriontoj; whence it came to pass that what anointed was called man and what was anointed was made God.' Orat. xxx. 20. Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. Dei Filius, sicut pluvia in vellus, toto divinitatis unguento nostram se fudit in carnem. Chrysolog. Serm. 60. it is more common, however, to consider that the anointing was the descent of the Spirit, as Athan. says at the beginning of this section, according to Luke iv. 18; Acts x. 38.
271 Ps. xlv. 8. Our Lord's manhood is spoken of as a garment; more distinctly afterwards, `As Aaron was himself, and did not change on putting round him the high priest's garment, but remaining the same, was but clothed,' &c, Orat. ii. 8. On the Apollinarian abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc.
279 The word origin, arxh, implies the doctrine, more fully brought out in other passages of the Fathers, that our Lord has deigned to become an instrumental cause, as it may be called, of the life of each individual Christian For at first sight it may be objected to the whole course of Athan.'s argument thus;-What connection is there between the sanctification of Christ's manhood and ours? how does it prove that human nature is sanctified because a particular specimen of it was sanctified in Him? S. Chrysostom explains, Hom. in Matt. lxxxii. 5. And just before, `It sufficed not for Him to be made man, to be scourged, to be sacrificed; but He assimilates us to Him (anafurei eauton hmin), nor merely by faith, but really, has He made us His body.' Again, `That we are commingled (anakerasqwmen) into that flesh, not merely through love, but really is brought about by means of that food which He has bestowed upon us.' Hom. in Joann. 46. 3. And so S. Cyril writes against Nestorius: `Since we have proved that Christ is the Vine, and we branches as adhering to a communion with Him, not spiritual merely but bodily, why clamours he against us thus bootlessly, saying that, since we adhere to Him, not in a bodily way, but rather by faith and the affection of love according to the Law, therefore He has called, not His own flesh the vine, but rather the Godhead?' in Joann. lib. 10. Cap. 2. pp. 863, 4. And Nyssen, Orat. Catech. 37. Decoctâ quasi per ollam carnis nostrae cruditate, sanctificavit in aeternum nobis cibum carnem suam. Paulin. Ep. 23. Of course in such statements nothing material is implied; Hooker says, `The mixture of His bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of His flesh with ours they speak of, to signify what our very bodies through mystical conjunction receive from that vital efficacy which we know to be in His, and from bodily mixtures they borrow divers similitudes rather to declare the truth than the manner of coherence between His sacred and the sanctified bodies of saints.' Eccl. Pol. v. 56. §10. But without some explanation of this nature, language such as S. Athanasius's in the text seems a mere matter of words. vid. infr. §50 fin.
283 aggelwn men parabantwn, anqrwpwn de parakousantwn. vid. infr. §51. init. Cf. ad Afr. 7. vid. de Decr. 19, note 3. infr. Orat. ii. iii. Cyril. in Joann. lib. v 2. On the subject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. §16. Petav. Dogm. t. 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist. Aet. i. Diss. 7.
286 The word wherefore is here declared to denote the fitness why the Son of God should become the Son of man. His Throne, as God, is for ever; He has loved righteousness; therefore He is equal to the anointing of the Spirit, as man. And so S Cyril on the same text, as in l. c. in the foregoing note. Cf. Leon Ep. 64. 2. vid. de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. In illud Omn. 2. Cyril. in Gen. i. p. 13.
287 ensarkoj parousia. This phrase which has occurred above, §8. is very frequent with Athan. vid. also Cyril. Catech. iii. 11. xii. 15. xiv. 27, 30, Epiph. Hoer. 77. 17. The Eutychians avail themselves of it at the Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard. Conc. t. 2. pp. 164. 236.
297 Vid. de Incarn. 13. 14. vid. also Gent. 41 fin. and Nic. Def. 17, note 5. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra doctorem misit, quasi vivam legem. Lactant. Instit. iv. 25. `The Only-begotten was made man like us, ...as if lending us His own stedfastness.' Cyril. in Joann. lib. v. 2. p. 473; vid. also Thesaur. 20. p. 198. August. de Corr. et Grat. 10-12. Damasc. F. O. iv. 4. But the words of Athan. embrace too many subjects to illustrate distinctly in a note.
305 Eunomius said that our Lord was utterly separate from the Father, `by natural law,' nomw fusewj; S. Basil observes, `as if the God of all had not power over Himself, eautou kurioj, but were in bondage under the decrees of necessity.' contr. Eunom. ii. 30.
311 Instead of professing to examine Scripture or to acquiesce in what they had been taught the Arians were remarkable for insisting on certain abstract positions or inferences on which they make the whole controversy turn. Vid. Socrates' account of Arius's commencement, `If God has a Son, he must have a beginning of existences' &c. &c., and so the word agenhton.
330 The more common evasion on the part of the Jews was to interpret the prophecy of their own sufferings in captivity. It was an idea of Grotius that the prophecy received a first fulfilment in Jeremiah. vid. Justin Tryph. 72 et al., Iren. Hoer. iv. 33. Tertull. in Jud. 9, Cyprian. Testim. in Jud. ii. 13, Euseb. Dem. iii. 2, &c. [cf. Driver and Neubauer Jewish commentaries on Is. lii. and Is. liii. and Introduction to English Translation of these pp. xxxvii. sq.]
336 There is apparently much confusion in the arrangement of the paragraphs that follow; though the appearance may perhaps arise from Athan.'s incorporating some passage from a former work into his text, cf. note on §32. It is easy to suggest alterations, but not anything satisfactory. The same ideas are scattered about. Thus sugkritikwj occurs in (3) and (5). The Son's seat on the right, and Angels in ministry, (3) fin. (10) (11). `Become' interpreted as `is originated and is,' (4) and (11). The explanation of `become,' (4) (9) (11) (14). The Word's epidhmia is introduced in (7) and (8) paroudia being the more common word; epidhmia occurs Orat. ii. §67 init. Serap. i. 9. Vid. however, ¥61, notes. If a change must be suggested, it would be to transfer (4) after (8) and (10) after (3).
338 [The note, referred to above, p. 169, in which Newman defends; the treatment of genhton and gennhton as synonymous, while yet admitting teat they are expressly distinguished by Ath. in the text, is omitted for lack of space.]
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.
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.]
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.
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.
6 twn nun 'Ioudaiwn, means literally `the Jews of this day,' as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being Used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.
14 By laubanontej par' autwn to lhmma, `accepting the proposition they offers,' he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32-34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18-43. 73. 77. iii 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, toutw [tw skopw,the general drift of Scripture doctrine] wsper kanoni xrhsamenoi prosexwmen th anagnwsei thj qeopneustou grafhj, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a `good,' `pious,' `orthodox' sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58.
16 i.e. in any true sense of the word `image;' or, so that He may be accounted the aparallaktoj eikwn of the Father, vid. de Syn 23, note 1. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists. that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1.
17 For karpogonoj h ousia, de Decr. 15. n. 9. gennhtikoj, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. agonoj. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. h fusikh gonimothj, Damasc. F. O. i. 8 p. 133. akarpoj, Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Haer. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the gennhsij and the ktisij contrasted together Orat i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Oral. iv. 4 fin. ei agonoj kai anenerghtoj.
35 That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus interpreting the word `made,' doctrinal truth obliges us to do so. He considers the Regula Fidel the principle of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid. supr. §1, note 13.
45 atreptoj kai uh alloioumenoj; vid. supr. de Decr. 14. it was the tendency of Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such change actually was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first maintained in the abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature treptoj, He was in fact alloioumenoj. This was implied in the doctrine that His superhuman nature supplied the place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the semi-Arian Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who said, tou logon trophn upomemenh-kota, vid. De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue !Atreptoj.
48 This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as teritiqemenoj thn esqhta, ekalupteto, endusamenoj swma, were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Haer. v. 11. p. 422. to the word prokalumma, as applied to our Lord's manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. parapetasma is used to denote an Apolliharlan idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has parapepetasmenhn and kalumma, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros. katapetasma, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. x. 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. parapetasma, Eran. i. p. 22. and prokalumma, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and otolh, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen. Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serum. 22. p. 70. Serum. 25. p. 84.
50 The Arians considered that our Lord's Priesthood preceded His Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in this text did but confirm them in their interpretation of the words made, &c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Haer. 69, 37. Eusebius too had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei: qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei. advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. b. vid. also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. p. 193. v. 3. p. 223. contr. Marc. pp. 8 and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls the Word, plenum justitiae sacerdotalis, de fug. saec. 3. 14. S. Clement Alex. before them speaks once or twice of the logoj arxiereuj, e.g. Strom. ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Somniis p. 597. vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nestorius on the other hand maintained that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest, relying on the text which has given rise to this note; Cyril, adv. Nest. p. 64. and Augustine and Fulgentius may he taken to countenance him, de Consens. and Evang. i. 6. ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the parallel use of prwtotokoj, infr. 62-64. `As He is called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity,' says S. Cyril Alex. `so also Priest.' Glaph. ii. p. 58. and so Epiph. loc. cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between a divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be said to sustain between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly one for the sake of sinners. vid. also Huet Origenian. ii. 3. §4, 5. For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn. xii. 3. 4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]
80 ouk edoulon ton logon: though, as he said said supr. §10, the Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He says the same thing Ep. Aeg 17. So say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad Simpl. (t. 2. p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar. de Trin. xi. Ambros. 1. Epp. 46, 3.
91 In the text the Mediatorial Lordship is made an office of God the Word; still, not as God, but as man. Cf. Augustine, Trin. i. 27. 28. In like manner the Priesthood is the office of God in the form of man, supr. 8, note 4. And so again none but the Eternal Son could be prwtotokoj, yet He is so called when sent as Creator and as incarnate. infr. 64.
98 qeou dwron. And so more distinctly S. Basil, dwron tou qeou to pneuma. de Sp. S. 57, and more frequently the later Latins, as in the Hymn, `Altissimi Donum Dei;' and the earlier, e.g. Hil. de Trin. ii. 59. and August. Trin. xv. 29. v. 15, Petav. Trin. vii. 13, §20.
103 Prov. viii. 22. [This text, which had been immemorially applied to the Logoj (supr. p. 168, note 7), and which in the false rendering of the LXX. strongly favoured the Arian side], is presently explained at greater length than any other of the texts he handles, forming the chief subject of the Oration henceforth, alter an introduction which extends down to 44.
104 From the methodical manner in which the successive portions of his foregoing Oration are here referred to, it would almost seem as if he were answering in course some Arian work. vid. also supr. Orat. i. 37, 53. infr. Orat. iii. 26. He does not seem to be tracing the controversy historically.
114 uion xrhmatizein. The question between Catholics and Arians was whether our Lord was a true Son, or only called Son. 'Since they whisper something about Word and Wisdom as only names of the Son, &c." onomata monon, supr. i. 26, note 1, and de Decr. 16, note 10. And so `the title of Image is not a token of a similar substance, but His name only,' supr. 1. 21, and so infr. 38. where toij onomasi is synonymous with kat' epinoian, as Sent. D. 22. f. a. Vid. also 39. Orat. iii. 11. 18. `not named Son, but ever Son,' iv. 24. fin. Ep. Aeg. 16. `We call Him so, and mean truly what we say; they say it, but do not confess it.' Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 33. 4. vid. also noqoij wsper onomasi, Cyril. de Trin. ii. p. 418. Non haec nuda nomina, Ambros. de Fid. i. 17. Yet, since the Sabellians equally failed here, also considering the Sonship as only a notion or title, vid. Orat. iv. 2. (where in contrast, `The Father is Father, and the Son Son,' vid. supr: p. 319, note 1.) 12. 23. 25. the word `real' was used as against them, and in opposition to anupostatoj logoj by the Arians, and in consequence failed as a test of orthodox teaching; e.g. by Arius, supr. p. 97. by Euseb. in Marc. pp. 19, d. 35, b. 161, c. by Asterius, infr. 37. by Palladius and Secundus in the Council of Aquileia ap. Ambros. Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. Bened.) by Maximinus ap. August. contr. Max. i. 6.
117 ecaireton. vid. infr. Orat. iii. 3. init. iv. 28. init. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. pp. 47. b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129.. c. Theodor. H. E. p. 732. Nyss. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 133. a. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 970. Cyril. Thes. p. 160.
119 gennhqenta h poihqenta; as if they were synonymous; in opposition to which the Nicene Creed says, gennhqenta au poihqenta. In like manner Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the words, prin gennhqh htoi ktisqh, h orisqh, h qemeliwqh, Theodor. H. E. p. 750. And to Alexander, axronwj gennhqeij kai pro aiwnwn ktisqeij kai qemeliwqeij: de Syn. 16. And Eusebius to Paulinus, ktiston kai qemeliwton kai gennhon Theod. p. 752. The different words profess to be Scriptural, and to explain each other; `created' being in Prov. viii. 22. `made' in the passages considered in the last two chapters, `appointed' or `declared' in Rom. i. 4. and `founded' or `established' in Prov. viii. 23. which is discussed infr. 22, &c. vid. also 52.
127 poihtikon aition, also, infr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and contr. Gent. 9 init. No creature can create, vid. e.g. about Angels, August. de Civ. Dei xii. 24. de Trin. iii. 13-18. Damasc. F. O. ii. 3. Cyril in Julian, ii. p. 62. `Our reason rejects the idea that the Creator should be a creature, for creation is by the Creator.' Hil. Trin. xii. 5. pwj dunatai to ktizomenon ktizein\ h pwj o ktizwn ktizetai; Athan. ad Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. i. 24, 6. iii. 4, e. The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are alluded to infr. Orat. iii. 12. Epiph. Haer. 52. 53, 163, &c. Theodor. Haer. i. 1 and 3.
129 prostattomenoj kai upourgwn. It is not quite clear that Athan. accepts these words in his own person, as has been assumed de Decr. 9. note a, de Syn. 27 (3). Vid. de Decr. 7. and infr. 24. and 31, which, as far as they go, are against the use of the word. Also S. Basil objects to upourgoj contr. Eunom. ii. 21. and S. Cyril in Joan. p. 48. though S. Basil speaks of ton prostattonta kurion. i. 46, note 3. and S. Cyril of the Son's upotagh, Thesaur. p. 255. Vid. `ministering, uphretounta, to the Father of all.' Just. Tryph. p. 72. `The Word become minister, uphrethj, of the Creator,' Origen Hom. in Joan. p. 61. also Constit. Ap. viii. 12. but Pseudo-Athan. objects to uphretwn, de Comm. Essent. 30. and Athan. apparently, infr. 28. Again, `Whom did tie order, praecepit?' Iren. Haer. iii. 8. n. 3. `The Father bids, entelletai (allusion to Ps. xxxiii. 9. vid. infr. 31), the Word accomplishes. ...He who commands, keleuwn, is the Father, He who obeys, upakouwn, the Son. ...The Father willed, hqelhsen, the Son did it.' Hippol. contr. Noet. 14. on which Fabricius's note. S. Hilary speaks of the Son as `subditus per obedientiae obsequelam.' de Syn. 51. Vid. below, on §31. In note 8 there the principle is laid down for the use of these expressions. [Supr. p. 87, note 2.]
132 thn kata panta omoiothta: vid. parallel instances, de Syn. 26 (5) note 1, which add, omoioj kata panta, Orat. i. 40. kata panta kai en pasi, Ep Aeg. 17, c. tou patroj omoioj, Oral. ii. 17. Orat. iii. 20, a. `not omoioj, as the Church preaches, but wj autoi qelousi' (vid. p. 289, note 4), also de Syn. 53, note 9.
133 As Sonship is implied in `Image' (supr. §2, note 2), so it is implied in `Word' and `Wisdom.' Orat. iv. 15. Orat. iii. 29 init. de Decr. 17. And still more pointedly, Orat. iv. 24 fin. vid. also supr. i. 28, note 5. And so `Image is implied in Sonship: `being Son of God He must be like Him,' supr. 17. And so `Image' is implied in Word;' en th idia eikoni, htij edtin o logoj autou, infr. 82, d. also 34, c. On the contrary, the very root of heretical error was the denial that these titles implied each other, vid. supr. 27, de Decr. 17, 24, notes.
149 diarrhgnuwsin eautouj: also ad Adelph. 8. and vid. supr. note on de Decr. 17. vid. also diarrhgnuwntai, de Syn. 54, kai diarragoien, Marcell. ap. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 116. also p. 40 trizwsi touj odontwj, de Fug. 26. init. trizetwsan, ad Adelph. 8. Hist. Ar. 68. fin. and literally 72. a. koptousin eautouj. In illud Omnia 5.
154 monoj monon, also infr. 30. this phrase is synonymous with `not as one of the creatures,' vid. monoj upo monou, supr. p. 12. also p. 75. note 6. vid. monwj de Syn. 26, fin. note 2, though that term is somewhat otherwise explained by S. Greg. Naz. monwj oux wj ta swmata, Orat. 25, 16. Eunomius understood by monogenhj, not monoj gennhqeij but pata monou. It should be observed, however, that this is a sense in which some of the Greek Fathers understand the term, thus contrasting generation with procession. vid. Petav. Trin. vii. 11. §3.
162 Vid. ib. 8. vid. also a similar argument in Epiphanius Haer. 76. p. 951. but the arguments of Ath. in these Orations are so generally adopted by the succeeding Fathers, that it is impossible and needless to enumerate the instances of agreement.
190 wj dia xeiroj. vid. supr. p. 155, note 6 And so in Orat. iv. 26, a. de Incarn. contr. Arian. 12. a. krataia xeir tou patroj. Method. de Creat. ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Iren. Haer. iv. 20. n. 1. v. 1 fin. and. 5. n. 2. and 6. n. 1. Clement. Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog. 45. Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm cviii. 27. Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. Clement. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril. Alex. frequently, e.g. in Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur. P. 154. Pseudo-Basil. xeir dhmiourgikh, contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 582. and August. in Joann. 48, 7. though he prefers another use of the word.
193 Vid. de Decr. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Haer. iii. 8. n. 3. Origen contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12. fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routh t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. vid. supr. §22, note. Didym. de Sp. S. 36. August. de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. Petav. Trin. vi. 4.
194 boulh. And so boulhsij presently; and zwsa boulh, supr. 2. and Orat. iii. 63. fin. and so Cyril Thes. p. 54, who uses it expressly (as it is always used by implication), in contrast to the kata boulhsin of the Arians, though Athan. uses kata to boulhma, e.g. Orat. iii. 31. where vid. note; autoj tou patroj qelhma. Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the use of such words is this; that we must ever speak of the Father's will, command, &c., and the Son's fulfilment, assent, &c., as one act. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 11 and 15. infr. [Cf. p. 87. note 2.]
203 touj mnqeuomenouj gigantaj, vid. supr. de Decr. fin. Also wj touj gigantaj Orat. iii. 42. In Hist. Arian. 74. he calls Constantins a gigaj The same idea is implied in the word qeomaxoj so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this sentence.
213 The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality of attribute or relation, but the One Eternal Substance; not a part of the First Person, but whole or entire God; nor does the generation impair the Father's Substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole and entire God. Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, Each being wholly one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely separate aspects of the Same, Each being God as absolutely as if there were no other Divine Person but Himself. Such a statement indeed is not only a contradiction in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not therefore a contradiction in fact; unless indeed any one will say that human words can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one idea, the unknown and infinite God. Basil. contr. Eun. i. 10. vid. infr. §38, n. 3.
227 o thj alhqeiaj logoj elegcei. This and the like are usual forms of speech with Athan. and others. In some instances the words alhqeia, logoj, &c., are almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid. parathn alhqeian, infr. 36. and Origen de Princ. Praef. 1. and 2.
229 For this contrast between the Divine Word and the human which is Its shadow, vid. also Orat. iv. 1. circ. fin. Iren. Haer. ii. 13. n. 8. Origen. in Joan. i. p. 25. e. Euseb Demonstr v. 5. P. 230. Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil, Hom. xvi. 3. Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii p. 350. Orat. Cat. i. p. 478. Damasc. F. O. i. 6. August. in Psalm xliv. 5.
236 Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject. As, he says, we do not know how God can create out of nothing, so we are utterly ignorant of the Divine Generation. It is written, He who believes, not he who knows, has eternal life. The sun's radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no true idea of that which is above all images. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. So has S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 8. vid. also Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril, Cat. xi. 11. and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante Const. p 619. And instances in Petav. de Trin. v. 6 §2. and 3.
239 Vid. supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also presently, `He is likeness and image of the sole and true God, being Himself also,' 49. monoj en monw, Orat. iii. 21. oloj olou eikwn. Serap. i. 16, a. `The Offspring of the Ingenerate,' says S. Hilary, `is One from One, True from True, Living from Living, Perfect from Perfect, Power of Power, Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory.' de Trin. ii. 8. teleioj teleion gegennhken, pneuma pneuma. Epiph. Haer. p. 495. 'As Light from Light, and Life from Life, and Good from Good; so from Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 164. App.
240 polloi logoi, vid. de Decr. 16, n. 4. infr. 39 init. and oud ek pollwn eij, Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Aeg. 14. c. Origen in Joan. tom. ii. 3. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Marc. p. 4 fin. contr. Sabell. init. August. in Joan. Tract. i. 8. also vid. Philo's use of logoi for Angels as commented on by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called Mercury by the name of logoj. vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin, Ap. i. 21.
248 Of course this line of thought consistently followed, leads to a kind of Pantheism; for what is the Supreme Being, according to it, but an ideal standard of perfection, the sum total of all that we see excellent in the world in the highest degree, a creation of our minds, without real objective existence? The true view of our Lord's titles, on the other hand, is that He is That properly and in perfection, of which in measure and degree the creatures partake from and in Him. Vid. supr. de Decr. 17, n. 5.
249 kat' epinoian, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above, and de Syn. 15. Or. i. 9, also Orat. iv. 2, 3. de Sent. D. 2, Ep. Aeg 12, 13, 14. It denotes our idea or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus, the sun is to a savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a `rational animal,' according to a certain process of abstraction; a herb may be medicine upon one division, food in another; virtue may be called a mean; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion, to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manner, the Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded. without parts, passions, attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is infinite and incomprehensible. That is, He is kat' epinoian holy or merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as one indivisible perfection; which is too great for us to conceive as It is.
251 The Anomoean in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic that, if the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. next note.
252 On this subject rid. Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and [Marcellus] in Orat. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature as compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open to such a charge. Nor are they; though in avoiding it, they are led to enunciate the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. §33, n. 1. The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son; They do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is is oloj Qeoj. This is not ditheism or tritheism, for they are the same God; nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and substantive Persons; but it is a depth and height beyond our intellect, how what is Two in so full a sense can also in so full a sense be One, or how the Divine Nature does not come under number. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27 and 36. Thus, `being uncompounded in nature,' says Athan. `He is Father of One Only Son.' de Decr. 11. In truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, `avails especially towards the unity and simplicity of God.' vid. de Deo, ii. 4, 8.
263 Asterius held, 1. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute; or 1. that Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms, words, powers many, of which the Son was one.
265 He says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to His creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in saying that the Son was created for creation, illumination, &c.; whereas in the Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person who in the Economy of grace is creator, enlightener, &c. God is represented all-perfect but acting according to a certain divine order. This is explained just below. Here the remark is in point about the right and wrong sense of the words `commanding,' `obeying,' &c. supr. §31, note 7.
270 Vid. supr. 33, note 1. and notes on iii. 3-6. `When the Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.' ad Serap. i. 14. and vid. Hil. Trin. vii. 31. Passages like these are distinct from such as the one quoted from Athan. supr. p. 76, note 3, where it is said that in `Father' is implied `Son,' i.e. argumentatively as a correlative. vid. Sent. D. 17. de Decr. 19, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to admit in Sabell. i. ap. Sirm t. i. p. 8, a. `Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium, &c.;' for here no perixwrhsij is implied, which is the doctrine of the text, and is not the doctrine of an Arian who considered the Son an instrument. Yet Petavius observes as to the very word perix. that one of its first senses in ecclesiastical writers was this which Arians would not disclaim; its use to express the Catholic doctrine here spoken of was later. vid. de Trin. iv. 16.
276 The prima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism; rid. Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 19 and 20. Forbes Instruct. Theol. x. 2, 3, and 12. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. v. 62. §5-11. On Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski's Diss. Opusc. t. iv. p. 113. [And, in violent contrast to Athan., Siricius (bishop of Rome) letter to Himerius, a.d. 385. (Coust. 623.)]
280 aqeothtoj. vid. supr. de Decr. 1, note 1, Or. i. 4, note 1. `Atheist' or rather `godless' was the title given by pagans to those who denied, and by the Fathers to those who protessed, polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred `atheism to godliness.' vid. Suicer Thes. in voc.
284 Cf. Ep. Aeg. 19. Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs (with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Decr. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 11. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. Aeg. 7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init Orat. iii. 59. init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4. [swine, Or. ii. 1.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum bestialitatis hereticae ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompaeus of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applications infr. Orat. iii. 18.
287 kalwj anaginwskein. ...orqhn exon thn dianoian, i.e. the text admits of an interpretation consistent with the analogy of faith, and so met' eusebeiaj just below. vid. §1. n. 13. Such phrases are frequent in Athan.
288 Prov. viii. 22. Athanasius follows the Sept. rendering of the Hebrew Qanâ. by ektise. The Hebrew sense is appealed to by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. iii. 2, 3. S. Epiphanius, Hoer. 69. 25. and S. Jerome in Isai. 26. 13. Cf. Bas. c. Eun. ii. 20, and Greg. Nyss. c. Eun. 1. p. 34.
291 Here, as in so many other places, he is explaining what is obscure or latent in Scripture by means of the Regula Fidei. Cf. Vincentius, Commonit. 2. Vid. especially the first sentence of the following paragraph, ti dei noein k.t.l. vid. supr. note 1.
293 Ut intra intemerata viscera aedificante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum caro fieret. Leon. Ep. 31, 2. Didym. de Trin. iii. 3. p. 337. (ed. 1769.) August. Civ. D. xvii 20. Cyril in Joann. p. 384, 5. Max. Dial. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. ed. Schutz.) vid. supr. Or. i. 11, note 8. Hence S. Clement. Alex. o logoj eauton genna. Strom. v. 3.
296 The passage is in like manner interpreted of our Lord's human nature by Epiph. Hoer. 69, 20-25. Basil. Ep. viii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, z. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 36-49. Ambros. de Fid. i. August. de Fid. et Symb. 6.
297 He seems here to say that it is both true that `The Lord created,' and yet that the Son was not created. Creatures alone are created, and He was not a creature. Rather something belonging or relating to Him, something short of His substance or nature, was created. However, it is a question in controversy whether even His Manhood can be called a creature, though many of the Fathers (including Athan. in several places) seem so to call it. On the whole it would appear, (1.) that if `creature,' like `Son,' be a personal term, He is not a creature; but if it be a word of nature, He is a creature; (2.) that our Lord is a creature in respect to the flesh (vid. infr. 47); (3.) that since the flesh is infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural nor safe to call-Him a creature (cf. Thom. A. Sum. Th. iii. xvi. 8, `non dicimus, quod Aethiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentes') and (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is worshipped as in the Person of the Son, not by a separate act of worship. Cf. infr. Letter 60. ad Adelph. 3. Epiph. has imitated this passage, Ancor. 51. introducing the illustration of a king and his robe, &c.
298 to legomenon ktizesqai th fusei kai th ousia ktisma. also infr. 60. Without meaning that the respective terms are synonymous, is it not plain that in a later phraseology this would have been, `not simply that He is in His Person a creature,' or `that His Person is created?' Athan.'s use of the phrase ousia tou logou has already been noticed, supr. i. 45, and passages from this Oration are given in another connexion, supr. p. 70, note 15. The term is synonymous with the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the Word. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.] In the passage in the text the ousia of the Word is contrasted to the ousia of creatures; and it is observable that it is implied that our Lord has not taken on Him a created ousia. 'He said not, Athan. remarks, `I became a creature, for the creatures have a created essence;' he adds that `He created' signifies, not essence, but something taking place in Him peri ekeinon, i.e. some adjunct or accident (e.g. notes on de Decr. 22), or as he says supr. §8, envelopment or dress. And infr. §51, he contrasts the ousia and the anqrwpinon of the Word; as in Orat. i. 41. ousia and h anqrwpothj; and fusij and sarc, iii. 34. init. and logoj and sarc, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son `taking on Him the economy,' infr. 76, and of the upostasij.tou logou being one with o anqrwpoj, iv. 25, c. It is observed, §8, note, how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apollinarian and Eutychian heresies; and, considering Athan.'s most emphatic protests against their errors in his later works, as well as his strong statements in Orat. iii. there is ho hazard in this admission. His ordinary use of anqrwpoj for the manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, praef. p. xliii. who uses natura absolutely for our Lord's Divinity, as contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta.
309 Jer. xxxi. 22. vid. also supr. p. 85, where he notices that this is the version of the Septuagint, Aquila's being `The Lord created a new thing in woman.' Athan. has preserved Aquila's version in three other places, in Psalm xxx. 12. Psalm lix. 5. Psalm lxv. 18.
315 Here he says that, though our Lord's flesh is created or He is created as to the flesh, it is not right to call Him a creature. This is very much what S. Thomas says, as referred to in §45, note 1, in the words of the Schools, that Aethiops, albus secundum dentes, non est albns. But why may not our Lord be so called upon the principle of the communicatio Idiomatum (infr. note on iii. 31.) as He is said to be born of a Virgin, to have suffered, &c.? The reason is this:-birth, passion, &c., confessedly belong to His human nature, without adding `according to the flesh;' but `creature' not implying humanity. might appear a simple attribute of His Person, if used without limitation. Thus, as S. Thomas adds, though we may not absolutely say Aethiops est albus, we may say `crispus est,' or in like manner, `calvus est.' Since crispus, or calvus, can but refer to the hair. Still more does this remark apply in the case of `Sonship,' which is a personal attribute altogether; as is proved, says Petav. de Incarn. vii. 6 fin. by the instance of Adam, who was in all respects a man like Seth, yet not a son. Accordingly, we may not call our Lord, even according to the manhood, an adopted Son.
317 arxhn odwn: and so in Justin's Tryph. 61. The Bened. Ed. in loc. refers to a similar application of the word to our Lord in Tatian contr. Gent. 5. Athenag. Ap. 10. Iren. Hoer. iv. 20. n. 3. Origen. in Joan. tom. 1. 39. Tertull. adv. Prax. 6. and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 7.
323 He says that, though none could be `a beginning' of creation, who was a creature, yet still that such a title belongs not to His essence. It is the name of an office which the Eternal Word alone can fill. His Divine Sonship is both superior and necessary to that office of a `Beginning.' Hence it is both true (as he says) that `if the Word is a creature, He is not a beginning;' and yet that that `beginning' is `in the number of the creatures.' Though He becomes the `beginning,' He is not `a beginning as to His essence,' vid. supr. i. 49, and infr. §60. where he says, `He who is before all, cannot be a beginning of all, but is other than all,' which implies that the beginning of all is not other than all. vid. §8, note 4, on the Priesthood, and §16, n. 7.
332 He says in effect, `Before the generation of the works, they were not; but Christ on the contrary' (not, `was before His generation,' as Bull's hypothesis, supr. Exc. B. wonld require, but) `is from everlasting,' vid. §57, note.
352 It is the general teaching of the Fathers that our Lord would not have been incarnate had not man sinned. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §3, c.] Cf. de Incarn. 4. vid. Thomassin. at great length de Incarn. ii. 5-11. also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7-12. Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disp. x. 4 and 5.
357 Two ends of our Lord's Incarnation are here mentioned; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25. `who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.' The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of in Incarn. esp. §§4-20. and in the two books against Apollinaris. Vid. supr. §8. §9. Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. And Theodoret, Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624.) and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification, &c., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie in the intercommunion of Christ's and our persons. Serm. 63. 14. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both sacramento susceptionis and exemplo. Serm. 65, 2. and of a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacramento, aliud in exemplo. Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius.
364 The word autoj, `Himself,' is all along used, where a later writer would have said `His Person;' vid. supr. §45, n. 2; still there is more to be explained in this passage, which, taken in the letter, would speak a language very different from Athan.'s, as if the infirmities or the created nature of the Word were not more real than His imputed sinfulness. (vid. on the other hand infr. iii. 31-35). But nothing is more common in theology than comparisons which axe only parallel to a certain point as regards the matter in hand, especially since many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our Lord's real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal and Infinite Nature; and therefore His Manhood may be compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without meaning that it really was either.
369 eleuqeron to fronhma. vid. also beginning of the paragraph, where sanctification is contrasted to teaching. vid. also note on 79, infr. Contr. Apoll. i. 20. fin. ibid. ii. 6. also Orat. iii. 33, where vid. note, and 34. vid. for arxh, Orat. i. 48, note 7. Also vid. infr. Orat. iii. 56, a. iv. 33, a. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1. and 2. (101, 102. Ed. Ben.) Nyssen. ad Theoph. in Apoll. p. 696. Leo, Serm. 26, 2. Serm. 72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. 63, 6. Haec est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 17. vid. supr. i. 51, note 5. and note on 64 infr. 65 and 70. and on iii. 34.
383 In this passage `was from the beginning' is made equivalent with `was not before generation,' and both are contrasted with `without beginning' or `eternal;' vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull's explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted.
385 The technical sense of eusebeia, asebeia, pietas, impietas, for `orthodoxy, heterodoxy,' has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) `profane and old-wives fables,' and with `bodily exercise.'
395 ton en hmin uion. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and ton en autoij oikounta logon. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23-25. and de Decr. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, §56, n. 5. infr. notes on 79.
404 Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the sense of prwtotokoj thj ktisewj has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to prwtotokoj of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the `beginning of ways.'
405 Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called `first-born from the dead,' though others had been recalled to lite before Him, therefore He is called `first-born of creation,' not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29.
409 Here again, though speaking of the `first-born of creation,' Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to `first-born of the new creation or "brother" of many;' and so infr. `first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.'
410 Bp. Bull considers sugkatabasij as equivalent to a figurative gennhsij, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.'s meaning. In Bull's sense of the word, Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. Sugkatabhnai occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78-81. viz. that our Lord came `to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of His Image;' which is just what is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word sugkatabasij, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.
412 This passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is `internal' to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the `first-born,' like `beginning of ways,' is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord's essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.
420 We now come to a third and wider sense of prwtotokoj, as found (not in Rom. viii. 29, and Col. i. 18, but) in Col. i. 15, where by `creation' Athan. understands `all things visible and invisible.' As then `for the works' was just now taken to argue that `created' was used in a relative and restricted sense, the same is shewn as regards 'first-born by the words `for in Him all things were created.'
425 It would be perhaps better to translate `first-born to the creature,' to give Athan.'s idea; thj ktisewj not being a partitive genitive, or prwtotokoj a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and thj kt. a common genitive of relation, as `the king of a country,' `the owner of a house.' `First-born of creation' is like `author, type, life of creation.' Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, `for in Him all things were made,' not simply `by and for,' as at the end of the verse; or as Athan. says here, `because in Him the creation came to be.' On the distinction of dia and en, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)
426 To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf. Milton's imitation `the fairest of her daughters Eve.' Vid. as regards the very word prwtoj, John i. 15; and supr. §30, note 3, also pleisthn h emprosqen 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word `other.' (ante 'alios immanior omnes), so too in the Greek superlative, `Socrates is wisest of "other" heathen.' Athanasius then says in this passage, that `first-born of creatures' implies that our Lord was not a creature; whereas it is not said of Him `first-born of brethren,' lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born "among" brethren,' where `among' is equivalent to `other.'
431 Rom. viii. 19, Rom. viii. 21. Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is `first-born to the creation;' viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man's fall; as he says more clearly in the next section.
435 He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into his created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in other words, that he was created in Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the dia supr. 63, n. 1. vid. supr. de Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the sugkatabasij is spoken of.
438 Thus he considers that `first-born' is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation. and also connected with our Lord's office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, §8, n. 4). In each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 13, 14. Orat. i. 51. iii. 20. infr. 76. init. He came thn tou arxetupou plasin anasthsasqai eautw contr. Apoll. ii. 5. And so again, h idea oper logon eirhkasi. Clem. Strom. v. 3. idean idewn kai arxhn lekteon ton prwtotokon pashj ktisewj Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. `Whatever God was about to make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor would be in the things, were it not in the Word.' August. in Psalm xliv. 5. He elsewhere calls the Son, `ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium.' de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. infr. iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan. is discussing (Prov. viii. 22), presents a remarkable contrast to these passages, as making the Son, not the ???, but the external minister of the Father's idea. de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. §31, n. 7.
448 Athanasius here says that our Lord's body was subject to death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. And so ton anqrwpon saqrwqenta. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab aeternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust. xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetae), and held that our Lord's manhood was naturally indeed corrupt, but became from its union with the Word incorrupt from the moment of conception; and in consequence it held that our Lord did not suffer and die, except by miracle. vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis. t. i. pp. 563 4, 8.) vid. supr. i. 43 and 44, notes; also infr. 76, note. And further, note on iii. 57.
460 Cf. infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also iii. 33 init. August. Trin. xiii. 18. Id. in Psalm 129, n. 12. Leon. Serm. 28, n. 3. Basil. in Psalm 48, n. 4. Cyril. de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also Procl. Orat. i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil. contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 583.
464 Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supportedby Naz. Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876, 7. August. de Trin. xiii. 13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but S. Thomas and the schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav. Incarn. ii. 13. However, it will be observed from what follows that Athan. thought the Incarnation still absolutely essential for the renewal of human nature in holiness. Cf. de Incarn. 7. That is, we might have been pardoned, we could not have been new-made, without the Incarnation; and so supr. 67.
467 `Was it not in His power, bad He wished it, even in a day to bring on the whole rain [of the deluge]? in a day, nay in a moment?' Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to apply this principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of God's power as contrasted with His acts, Petevius brings together the statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6.
469 Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence had but an external divine assistance, not an habitual grace; this, however, is contrary to his own statements already referred to, and the general doctrine of the fathers. vid. e.g. Cyril. in Joan. v. 2. August. de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid also infr. §76, note
479 en eautw qeopoihsn. supr. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph. 4. a. Serap. i. 24, e. and §56, note 5. and iii. 33. De Decr. 14. Orat. i. 42. vid. also Orat. iii. 23. fin. 33. init. 34. fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For our becoming qeoi vid. Orat. iii. 25. qeoi kata xarin. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. qeoumeqa. Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 init. xristoforoi. ibid. qeoumeqa. iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. H.E. i. p. 846. init.
481 Vid. also Athan. in Luc. (Migne xxvii. 1393 c). This title, which is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph. Hoer. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap Cassian Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Caesarius has aeipaij. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope's letter in response. (Coust. Ep. Pont. p. 669-652.) Also Pearson On the Creed, Art. 3. [§§9, 10, p. 267 in Bohn's ed.] He replies to the argument from `until' in Matt. i. 25, by referring to Gen. xxviii 15. Deut. xxxiv. 6. 1 Sam. xv. 35. 2 Sam. vi. 23. Matt. xxviii 20. He might also have referred to Psalm cx. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 25. which are the more remarkable, because they were urged by the school of Marcellus as a proof that our Lord's kingdom would have an end, and are explained by Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29; where the true meaning of `until' (which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25), is well brought out. 'He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how shall He not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery over them?
495 qeologoumenoj. vid. de Decr. 31, n. 5. also Incarn. c. Ar. 3. 19, Serap. i. 28. 29. 31. contr. Sab. Greg. and passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, c. 124, b. &c. kuriologein, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sab. Greg. §4, f.
507 Vid. supr. pp. 74, 172, and notes. vid. also Serap. i. 32 init. iv. fin. contr. Apoll. i. 6, 8, 9, 11, 22; ii. 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-19. `The doctrine of the Church should be proved, not announced (apodeiktikwj ouk apofantikwj); therefore shew that Scripture thus teaches.' Theod. Eran. p. 199. Ambros. de Incarn. 14. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Tertull. Carn. Christ. 7. vid. also 6. Max. dial. v. 29. Heretics in particular professed to be guided by Scripture. Tertull. Proescr. 8. For Gnostics vid. Tertullian's grave sarcasm: `Utantur haeretici omnes scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo.' Carn. Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. Or. i. 1, n. 4. And so Marcellus, `We consider it unsafe to lay down doctrine concerning things which we have not learned with exactness from the divine Scriptures.' (leg. peri wn . . para twn). Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177, d. And Macedonians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. And Monophysites, `I have not learned this from Scripture; and I have a great fear of saying what it is silent about.' Theod. Eran. p. 215; also Hilar. ad Const. ii. 9. Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 13.
526 The Catholic doctrine seems to be, that Adam innocent was mortal, yet would not in fact have died; that he had no principle of eternal life within him, but was sustained continually by divine power, till such time as immortality should have been given him. vid. Incarn. 4. Cf. Augustine, de pecc. mer. i. 3. Gen. ad lit. vi. 20. Pope Pius V. condemned the assertion of Baius, Immortalitas primi hominis non erat gratiae beneficium sed naturalis conditio. His decision of course is here referred to only historically.
539 Athan. here considers wisdom as the image of the Creator in the Universe. He explains it of the Church, de Incarn. contr. Ar. 6. if it be his [but see Prolegg. ch. iii. §1 (36)]; (and so Didym. Trin. iii. 3 fin.) Cf. Jerome, in Eph. iv. 23, Eph. iv. 24. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Epiphanius says, `Scripture has nowhere confirmed this passage (Prov. viii. 22), nor has any Apostle referred it to Christ.' (vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 20.) Hoer. 69. pp. 743-45. He proceeds to shew how it may apply to Him.
554 This is drawn out somewhat differently, and very strikingly in contr. Gent. 43. The Word indeed is regarded more as the Governor than the Life of the world, but shortly before he spoke of the Word as the Principle of permanence. 41 fin.
555 to auto gar legein ouk oknhteon: where Petavius, de Trin. ii. 1. §8. ingeniously but without any authority reads ouk oknei qeon. It is quite a peculiarity of Athan. to repeat anti to apologize for doing so. The very same words occur supr. 22, c. Orat. iii. 54, a. Serap. i. 19, b. 27, e. Vid. also 2, c. 41, d. 67, a. 69, b. iii. 39 init. vid. especially supr. p. 47, note 6.
560 The whole of this passage might be illustrated at great length from the contr. Gent. and the Incarn. V. D. vid. supr. notes on 79. Cf. c. Gent. 34, and Incarn. 11, 41, 42, &c. Vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 16.
565 Here again the sugkatabasij has no reference whatever to a figurative gennhsij, as Bishop Bull contends, but to His impressing the image of Wisdom on the works, or what He above calls the Son's image, on which account He is prwtotokoj.
574 enepompeusate. `The ancients said pompeuein "to use bad language," and the coarse language of the procession, pompeia. This arose from the custom of persons in the Bacchanalian cars using bad language towards by-standers, and their retorting it.' Erasm. Adag. p. 1158. He quotes Menander,
epi twn amacwn eisi pompeiai tinej
9 Acts xvii. 28. Vid. supr. ii. 41, note 11. The doctrine of the perixwrhsij, which this objection introduces, is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism. Cf. de Syn. 15, n. 4. This is seen clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language approaches to Catholic more nearly than Arians in general. After all his strong assertions, the question recurs, is our Lord a distinct being from God, as we are, or not? he answers in the affirmative, vid. supr. p. 75, n. 7, whereas we believe that He is literally and numerically one with the Father, and therefore His Person dwells in the Father's Person by an ineffable union. And hence the language of Dionysius [of Rome] supr. de Decr. 26. `the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God,' emfiloxwrein tw qew kai endiaitasqai. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), `Filius locus eat Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.' in Ezek. iii. 12. So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are en memerismenoij topoij and the Son. Serap. iii. 4. Cf. even in the Macrostich Creed, language of this character, viz. `All the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast continually.' De Syn. 26 (7), where vid. note 3.
10 This is not inconsistent with S. Jerome as quoted in the foregoing note. Athan. merely means that such illustrations cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects. The Father is the topoj or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as oloj qeoj, we merely view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is; our mind abstracts His Essence which is the Son for the moment from Him, and regards Him merely as Father, Thus in Illud. Omn. 4, supr. p. 89. It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really and eternally distinct from each other; and Each is full of the Other, that is, their Essence is one and the same. This is insisted on by S. Cyril, in Joan. p. 28. And by S. Hilary, Trin. vii. fin. vid. also iii. 23. Cf. the quotation from S. Anselm made by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16 fin. [Cf. D.C.B. s.v. Metangismonitae.]
11 Vid. de Decr. 10, n. 4, 19, n. 3; Or. i. 15, n. 6. On the other hand Eusebius considers the Son, like a creature, ec authj thj patrikhj [not ousiaj, but] metousiaj, wsper apo phghj, ep' auton proxeomenhj plhroumenon. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which are the more observable, the nearer they approach to the language of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by way of contrast, oude kata metousian autou, all' olon idion autou gennhma. 4.
13 i.e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and does but give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses different language with the same meaning, de Trin. ii. 11. Other modes of expression for the same mystery are found infr. 3. also 6 fin. Vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1. and Didymus h patrikh qeothj. p. 82. and S. Basil, ec ou exei to einai. contr. Eunom. ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan. says that `the Son is the fulness of the Godhead.' Thus the Father is the Son's life because the Son is from Him, and the Son the Father's because the Son is in Him. All these are but different ways of signifying the perixwrhsij.
15 panta ginwskein epaggellomenoj. Gorgias, according to Cicero de fin. ii. init. was the first who ventured in public to say proballete, `give me a question.' This was the epaggelma of the o Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11.
24 Since the Father and the Son are the numerically One God, it is but expressing this in other words to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, for all They have and all They are is common to Each, excepting Their being Father and Son. A perixwrhsij of Persons is implied in the Unity of Essence. This is the connexion of the two texts so often quoted; `the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son,' because `the Son and the Father are one.' And the cause of this unity and perixwrhsij is the Divine gennhsij. Thus S. Hilary, Trin. ii. 4. vid. Or. ii. 33, n. 1.
25 eidouj. Petavius here prefers the reading idiou&Eaxute\ qeothj and to idion occur together infr. 6. and 56. eidoj occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. Aeg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§6, 16, notes.
26 In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherenee or indwelling of the Three Blessed Persons is meant `not a commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with body, nor as the union of our Lord's Godhead and humanity, but it is such that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom, essence, of the Father, should he the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and power of the Son.' de Trin. xxviii. 1. S. Cyril adopts Athan.'s language to express this doctrine in Joan. p. 105. de Trin. vi. p. 621, in Joan. p. 168. Vid. infr. tautothj ousiaj, 21. patrikh qeothj tou uiou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140.
45 Here these three texts, which so often occur together, are recognized as `three;' so are they by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. 19; and he says that Marcellus and `those who Sabellianize with him,' among whom he included Catholics, were in the practice of adducing them, qrullountej; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the perixwrhsij was the great criterion between orthodox and Arian. Many instances of the joint use of the three are given supr. i. 34, n. 7. to which may be added Orat. ii. 54 init. iii. 16 fin. 67 fin. iv. 17, a. Serap. ii. 9, c. Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. Cyril. de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168. Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. Ambros. Hexaem. 6. August. de Cons. Ev. i. 7.
47 Vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in Psalm cxviii. 25 x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on Statues, passim, fragm. in Act. Conc. vii. (t. 4, p. 89. Hard.) Socr. vi. 18. The Seventh Council speaks of the images sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of their coming in person; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. a description of the imperial statutes and their honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. xii. 12. vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197.
48 Athanasius guards against what is defective in this illustration in the next chapter, but independent of such explanation a mistake as to his meaning would be impossible; and the passage affords a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize is the unity of the Father and Son, for the Image is not a Second Emperor but the same. vid. Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who bowed before the Emperor's Statue can be supposed to have really worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme worship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose Image He is. From the custom of paying honour to the Imperial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the Eastern Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil custom, resisted. rid. Döllinger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 55. E. Tr. The Fathers, e.g. S. Jerome, set themselves against the civil custom, as idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchadnezzar's statue. vid. Hieron. in Dan. iii. 18. Incense was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards before the images of the Saints.
51 Here first the Son's eidoj is the eidoj of the Father, then the Son is the eidoj of the Father's Godhead, and then in the Son is the eidoj of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, oloj qeoj. vid. infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word opisqia (Exod. xxxiii. 23), which forms a contrast to eidoj, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3.
54 Vid. supr. de Decr. 30; Or. i 33. This is in opposition to the Arians, who said that the title Father implied priority of existence. Athan. says that the title `Maker' does, but that the title `father' does not. vid. supr. p. 76, n. 3; Or. i. 29, n. 10: ii. 41, n. 11.
59 Vid. supr. 1, note 10; ii. 41 fin. also infr. iv. 1. Pseudo-Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5-12. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. Synes. Hymn. iii. pp. 328, 9. Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. August. Ep. 170, 5. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6. and infr. note on 36 fin.
69 diabolikoi. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Decr. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Aeg. 4 and 6. In the passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; diaballwn occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius diaboloj, it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was ton diabolou propon analabwn, where the word has no article, and diabeblhmai and dieblhqhn have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians' `father the devil,' 3, c. is explained 4, b, by touj pateraj diaballontwn and thj eij ton episkopon diabolhj.
78 He says that in `I the first' the question of time does not come in, else creatures would come `second' to the Creator, as if His and their duration admitted of a common measure. `First' then does not imply succession, but is equivalent to arxh; a word which, as `Father,' does not imply that the Son is not from eternity.
80 It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, and the Son first also, for comparison or number does not enter into mystery. Since Each is oloj qeoj, Each, as contemplated by our finite reason, at the moment of contemplation excludes the Other. Though we `say' Three Persons, Person hardly denotes one abstract `idea,' certainly not as containing under it three individual subjects, but it is a `term' applied to the One God in three ways. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, that, though we use words expressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number, and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though eternally distinct from each other, can scarcely be viewed together in common, except as `One' substance, as if they could not be generalized into Three Any whatever; and as if it were, strictly speaking, incorrect to speak of `a' Person, or otherwise than of `the' Person, whether of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The question has almost been admitted by S. Austin, whether it is not possible to say that God is `One' Person (Trin. vii. 8), for He is wholly and entirely Father, and at the same time wholly and entirely Son, and wholly and entirely Holy Ghost. Some references to the Fathers shall be given on that subject, infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. §6, n. 11. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will account for such expressions as `God from God,' i.e. the One God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father); vid. supr. de Syn. 52, note 8. Again, h ousia auth thj ousiaj thj patrikhj esti gennhma. de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 and 2.
81 wj autoi felousi. vid. §8, n. 12. `not as you say, but as we will.' This is a common phrase with Athan. vid. supr. Or. i. 13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4. (vid. also Sent Dion. 4, 14). It is here contrasted to the Church's doctrine, and connected with the word idioj: for which de Syn. 3, n. 6; Or. i. 37, n. 1. Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in contrast with the euaggelikoj oroj.
82 sumfwnoj. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian sumfwnia is touched on de Syn. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned in the former of these notes, `one' is explained as oneness of will by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains John x. 30. by John xvii. 22. like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. pp. 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are collected by Maldonat. in loc.
93 Cf. Serap. i. 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. §19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21-24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. `One must not say,' he observes, `that these names properly and primarily, kuriwj kai prwtwj belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure kataxrhstikwj (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings says, "Call no one your father upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven."' He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decr. 31, n. 5), much more is He the pathr tou kata fusin uiou. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i, 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kuriwj logoj, not kuriwj uioj. ibid. ii. 10 fin. vid. supr. ii. 19, note 3.
96 And so epgazomenou tou patroj, ergazesqai kai ton uion. In illud Omn. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one kata thn dunamin, they are one also in ousia. in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hoer. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so S. Athan. triaj adiairetoj th fusei, kai mia tauthj h energeia. Serap. i. 28, f. en qelhma patroj kai uiou kai boulhma, epei kai h fusij mia. In illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentiae, de Sp. ii. 12. fin. and of S. Basil, wn mia energeia, toutwn kai ousia mia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius Trin. iv. 15.
99 Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col. 2. And Theodoret on Col. iii. 17. says, `Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.' `All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living. Word and God. ...But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.' Origen contr. Cels. v. 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.
100 Gen. xlviii. 15, Gen. xlviii. 16. vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the doctrine vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Infr. §14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, `what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in him,' i.e. sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Proescar. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.
113 thj qeotokou Mariaj. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] vid. also infr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (twn palai kai propalai) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord qeotokon, according to `the Apostolical tradition.' Hoer. iv. 12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known, writes to the former. `This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it.' Concil. Eph. part i. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. `Interpreting,' he says, `how qeotokoj is used, he discussed the question at length.' Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently over-looked, in arguing from Ephrem. ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase `Mother of God' originated in S. Leo). [See vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]
120 And so infr. 25, 36 fin. Serap. i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, d. iii. 1, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. p. 865. Damascen. F. O. i. 7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ibid. 24. Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10, e.
122 Vid. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note 5. The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and worship. vid. de Decr. 6, note 5, Or. i. 30, n. 1. But `every substance,' says S. Austin, `which is not God, is a creature, and which is not a creature, is God.' de Trin. i 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 31.
125 Vid. supr. ii. 14, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de Trin. ii. 12. §5. from the Fathers in proof of the worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as idolaters vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8. also Ep. Aeg. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init. Serap. i. 29, d. Theodoret in Rom. i. 25.
129 eidoj: also in Gen. xxxii. 30. Gen. xxxii. 31. Sept. [a substitute for Heb. `face.'] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56, n. 6. for the meaning of the word. It was just now used for `kind.' Athan. says, de Syn. ubi supr. `there is but one form of Godhead;' yet the word is used of the Son as synonymous with `image.' It would seem as if there are a certain class of words, all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more appropriate application either ordinarily or under circumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance. Thus `Being' is more descriptive of the Father as the phgh qeothtoj, and He is said to be `the Being of the Son;' yet the Son is really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words morfh and eidoj [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] are rather descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He is called `the form of the Father,' yet there is but one Form and Face of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons; while `Spirit' is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus again S. Hippolytus says ek [tou patroj] dunamij logoj, yet shortly before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, dunamin de mian, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word `Subsistence,' upostasij, which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed personally. Other words may be used correlatively of either Father or Son; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of the Father; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Others in common, as `the Father's Godhead is the Son's,' h patrikh uiou qeothj, as indeed the word ousia itself. Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or That Person only, as `Word,' `Image,' &c.
157 kata mimhsin. Clem. Alex. Poedag. i. 3. p. 102. ed. Pott. Naz. Ep. 102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) Leo in various places, supr. ii. 55, n. 1. Iren. Hoer. v. 1. August. Serm. 101, 6. August. Trin. iv. 17. also ix. 21. and Eusebius, kata thn autou mimhsin. Eccl. Theol. iii. 19, a. For inward grace as opposed to teaching, vid. supr. Orat. ii. 56, n. 5, and 79, n. 10.
171 Vid. de Decr. 11, n. 5, which is explained by the present passage. When Ath. there says, `without all in nature,' he must mean as here, `far from all things in nature.' S. Clement loc. cit. gives the same explanation, as there noticed. It is observable that the contr. Sab. Greg. 10 (which the Benedictines consider not Athan.'s) speaks as de Decr. supr. Eusebius says the same thing, de Incorpor. i. init. ap. Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros. Quomodo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c. de Fid. i. 106. and supr. §1, n. 10.
197 This Oration alone, and this entirely, treats of texts from the Gospels; hitherto from the Gospel according to St. John, and now chiefly from the first three. Hence they lead Athan. to treat more distinctly of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to anticipate a refutation of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
212 Cf. de Decr. 25, n. 4. The peculiarity of the Catholic doctrine, as contrasted with the heresies on the subject of the Trinity, is that it professes a mystery. It involves, not merely a contradiction in the terms used, which would be little, for we might solve it by assigning different senses to the same word, or by adding some limitation (e.g. if it were said that Satan was an Angel and not an Angel, or man was mortal and immortal), but an incongruity in the ideas which it introduces. To say that the Father is wholly and absolutely the one infinitely-simple God, and then that the Son is also, and yet that the Father is eternally distinct from the Son, is to propose ideas which we cannot harmonize together; and our reason is reconciled to this state of the case only by the consideration (though fully by means of it) that no idea of ours can embrace the simple truth, so that we are obliged to separate it into portions, and view it in aspects, and adumbrate it under many ideas, if we are to make any approximation towards it at all; as in mathematics we approximate to a circle by means of a polygon, great as is the dissimilarity between the two figures. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.]
213 oux aplwj aidioj, i.e. aidioj is not one of our Lord's highest titles, for things have it which the Son Himself has created, and whom of course He precedes. Instead of two aidia then, as the Arians say, there are many aidia; and our Lord's high title is not this, but that He is `the Son,' and thereby `eternal in the Father's eternity,' or there was not ever when He was not, and `Image' and `Radiance.' The same line of thought is implied throughout his proof of our Lord's eternity in Orat. i. ch. 4 6. This is worth remarking, as constituting a special distinction between ancient and modern Scripture proofs of the doctrine, and as coinciding with what was said supr. Or. ii. 1, n. 13, 44, n. 1. His mode of proof is still more brought out by what he proceeds to say about the skopoj, or general bearing or drift of the Christian faith, and its availableness as a kanwn or rule of interpretation.
219 qeotokou. vid. supr. 14, n. 3. Vid. S. Cyril's quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c.; and Cyril himself, Adv. Nest. i. p. 18. Procl. Hom. i. p. 60. Theodor. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.) Cassian. Incarn. iv. 2. Hil Trin. ii. 25. Ambros. Virgin. i. n. 47. Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Incarn. vii. 30. Jerom. in Ezek. 44 init. Capreolus of Carthage, ap. Sirm. Opp. t. i. p. 216. August. Serm. 291, 6. Hippolytus, ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 55, &c. Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. 7.
228 toutw xrwmenoj organw infr. 42. and organon proj thn energeian kai thn eklamyin thj qeothtoj. 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord's manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. sxhma organikon in Apoll. i. 2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan. e.g. infr. 35, 53. Incarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of organon must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord's Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that fanerwsij is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund. Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid. supr. Or. i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4.
235 kata to boulhma. vid. Orat. i. 63. infr. §63, notes. Cf. supr. ii. 31, n. 7, for passages in which Ps. xxxiii. 9. is taken to shew the unity of Father and Son from the instantaneousness of the accomplishment upon the willing, as well as the Son's existence before creation. Hence the Son not only works kata to boulhma, but is the boulh of the Father. ibid. note 8. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is highest, vid Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted ii. 64, n. 5. In that passage the Father's neumata are spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75, a. de Laud. Const. p. 528, Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is used of the Son's command given to the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. e.g. 42, 44, 46. S Cyril. Hier. frequently as the Arians, uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5, xi. passim, xv. 25, &c. The difference between the orthodox and Arian views on this point is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr. Eunom. i. 21.
237 toutw xrwmenoj organw infr. 42. and organon proj thn energeian kai thn eklamyin thj qeothtoj. 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord's manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. sxhma organikon in Apoll. i. 2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan. e.g. infr. 35, 53. Incarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of organon must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord's Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that fanerwsij is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund. Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid. supr. Or. i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4.
238 Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. p. 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange [of language] is called theologically the antidosij or communicatio idiwmatwn. Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon. Ep. 28, 51. Ambros. de fid. ii. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. p. 767. Cassian. Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init. Plain and easy as such statements seem, they are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.
239 qeou hn swma. also ad Adelph. 3. ad Max. 2. and so thn ptwxeusasan fusin qeou olhn genomenhn. c. Apoll. ii. 11. to paqoj tou logou. ibid. 16, c. sarc tou logou. infr. 34. swma sofiaj infr. 53. also Or. ii. 10, n. 7. paqoj Xristou tou qeou mou. Ignat. Rom. 6. o qeoj peponqen. Melit. ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 5. Dei interemptores. ibid. caro Deitatis. Leon. Serm. 65 fin. Deus mortuus et sepultus. Vigil. c. Eut. ii. p. 502. vid. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. Yet Athan. objects to the phrase, `God suffered in the flesh,' i.e. as used by the Apollinarians. vid. contr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin. [Cf. Harnack, Dogmg. ed. 1. vol. i. pp. 131, 628. notes.]
241 ouden eblapteto. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) Cf. de Incarn. 17, 54, 34.; Euseb. de Laud. Const. p. 536. and 538. also Dem. Evang. vii. p. 348. Vigil. contr. Eutych. ii. p. 503. (B. P. ed. 1624.) Anast. Hodeg. c. 12. p. 220 (ed. 1606.) also p. 222. Vid also the beautiful passage in Pseudo. Basil: Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. (t. 2. p. 596. ed. Ben.) also Rufin. in Symb. 12. Cyril. Quod unus est Christus. p. 776. Damasc. F. O. iii. 6 fin. August. Serm. 7. p. 26 init. ed. 1842. Suppl. 1.
244 John x. 37, John x. 38. vid. Incarn. 18. Cf. Leo, Serm. 54, 2. `Suscepit nos in suam proprietatem illa natura, quae nec nostris sua, nec suis nostra consmeret, &c.' Serm. 72, p. 286, vid. also Ep. 165, 6. Serm. 30, 5. Cyril Cat. iv. 9. Amphiloch. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 66. also pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 1614.
245 Cf. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28.) 4. `When He touched the leper, it was the man that was seen; but something beyond man, when He cleansed him, &c.' Ambros, Epist. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. Trin. x. 23 fin. vid. infr. 56 note, and S. Leo's extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol. Serm. 34 and 35. Paul. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe.) These are instances of what is theologically called the qeandrikh energeia [a condemned formula], i.e. the union of the energies of both Natures in one act.
247 ouk allou, alla tou kuriou: and so ouk eterou tinoj, Incarn. 18; also Orat. i. 45. supr. p. 244. and Orat. iv. 35. Cyril Thes. p. 197. and Anathem. 11. who defends the phrase against the Orientals.
251 Vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerom e, S. Leo, &c., as mentioned in Corn. a Lap. in loc. S. Jerome implies a similar gift in the case of Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep. xxiv. 2.) And so S. John Baptist, Maldon. in Luc. i. 16. It is remarkable that no ancient writer (unless indeed we except S. Austin), [Patrol. Lat. xlvii. 1144?] refers to the instance of S. Mary;-perhaps from the circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture.
252 qeotokou. For instances of this word vid. Alexandr. Ep. ad Alex. ap. Theodor. H. E. i. 4. p. 745. (al. 20). Athan. (supra); Cyril. Cat. x. 19. Julian Imper. ap. Cyril c. Jul. viii. p. 262. Amphiloch. Orat. 4. p. 41. (if Amphil.) ed. 1644. Nyssen. Ep. ad Eustath. p. 1093. Chrysost. apud. Suicer Symb. p. 240. Greg. Naz. Orat 29, 4 Ep. 181. p. 85. ed. Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril. de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil. Hom. t. 2. p. 600 ed. Ben.
254 idiopoioumenou. vid. also [Incar. 8.] infr. §38. ad Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril. in Joann. p. 151, a. For idion, which occurs so frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. And oikeiwtai. contr. Apoll. ii. 16, e. Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. p. 782, d. Concil. Eph. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b. (Hard.) Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. p. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15.
255 Vid. Or. i. §§45, 46, ii. 65, note. Vid. also iv. 33. Incarn. c. Arian. 12. contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. 6. `Since God the Word willed to annul the passions, whose end is death, and His deathless nature was not capable of them ...He is made flesh of the Virgin, in the way He knoweth, &c.' Procl. ad Armen. p. 616. also Leo. Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Serm. 26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2 p. 696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. in Joan. p. 95. Chrysol. Serm. 148.
257 qeotokou. supr. 14, n. 3. For `mater Dei' vid. before S. Leo, Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Incarn. ii. 5. vii. 25. Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 21. It is obvious that qeotokoj, though framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective against Apollinarians [?] and Eutychians, who denied that our Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Facundus Def. Trium. Cap. i. 4. Cf. Cyril. Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as the Arians, maintained the term. vid. supr. Or. ii. 8, n. 5.
259 logwqeishj thj sarkoj. This strong term is here applied to human nature generally; Damascene speaks of the logwsij of the flesh, but he means especially our Lord's flesh. F. O. iv. 18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven.) for the words qeousqai, &c. vid. supr. ii. 70, n. 1.
261 Cf. Chrysost. in Joann. Hom. 67. 1 and 2. Cyril de Rect. Fid. p. 18. `As a man He doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is not His Power (virtus) that is troubled, not His Godhead, but His soul, &c.' Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 56. vid. a beautiful passage in S. Basil's Hom. iv. 5. in which he insists on our Lord's having wept to shew us how to weep neither too much nor too little.
268 Vid. infr. 39-41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28, 3) also Hil. Trin. ix. 11 fin. `Vagit infans, sed in coelo est, &c.' ibid x. 54. Ambros. de Fid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard.
270 Thus heresies are partial views of the truth, starting from some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning and protesting against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with it. vid. supr. Or. i. 26, n. 2.
282 palin. vid. Or. i. 15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication in respect to God; though how this is, is the inscrutable Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son is in Himself, as distinct from the Father; we are but told His relation towards the Father, and thus the sole meaning we are able to attach to Person is a relation of the Son towards the Father; and distinct from and beyond that relation, He is but the One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been touched upon supr. Or. iii. 9, n. 8. In other words, there is an indestructible essential relation existing in the One Indivisible infinitely simple God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each side of that relation (what in human language we call) Two (and in like manner Three), yet without the notion of number really coming in. When we speak of `Person,' we mean nothing more than the One God in substance, viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various statements are not here intended to explain, but to bring home to the mind what it is which faith receives. We say `Father, Son, and Spirit,' but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in order to number Them, our abstraction really does hardly more than carry us back to the One Substance. Such seems the meaning of such passages as Basil. Ep. 8, 2; de Sp. S. c. 18; Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. ii. 3 fin. `In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, `first' and `second' have no place; for the Godhead is higher than number and times.' Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. August. in Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. v. 10. `Unity is not number, but is itselt the principle of all things.' Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 19. `A trine numeration then does not make number, which they rather run into, who make some difference between the Three.' Boeth. Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last remark is found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. Many of these references are taken from Thomassin de Trin. 17.
288 Petavius refers to this passage in proof that S. Athanasius did not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant, but went on to admit it in argument after having first given his own real opinion. vid. §45, n. 2.
311 John ii. 4. epeplhtte; and so epetimhse, Chrysost. in loc. Joan. and Theophyl. wj despothj epitima, Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. entrepei, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. memfetai, Alter Anon. ibid. epitima ouk atimazwn alla diorqoumenoj, Euthym. in loc. ouk epeplhcen, Pseudo-Justin. Quoest. ad Orthod. 136. It is remarkable that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord's humanity (i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a miracle), when one reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He wished, in the words ti moi kai soi, to remind S. Mary that He was the Son of God and must be `about His Father's business.' `Repeliens ejus intempestivam festinationem,' Iren. Hoer. iii. 16, n. 7. It is observable that epiplhttei and epitima are the words used by Cyril, &c. (infr. §54, note 4), for our Lord's treatment of His own sacred body. But they are very vague words, and have a strong meaning or not, as the case may be.
312 Mark xiii. 32. S. Basil takes the words oud' o uioj, ei mh o pathr, to mean, `nor does the Son know, except the Father knows,' or `nor would the Son but for, &c.' or `nor does the Son know, except as the Father knows.' `The cause of the Son's knowing is from the Father.' Ep. 236, 2. S. Gregory alludes to the same interpretation, oud' o uioj h wj oti o pathr. `Since the Father knows, therefore the Son.' Naz. Orat. 30, 16. S. Irenaeus seems to adopt the same when he says, `The Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father;' Hoer. ii. 28, n. 6. as Naz, supr. uses the words epi thn aitian anaferesqw. And so Photius distinctly, eij arxhn anaferetai. `Not the Son, but the Father, that is, whence knowledge comes to the Son as from a fountain.' Epp. p. 342. ed. 1651.
322 Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a human as well as a divine knowledge, and though that human knowledge was not only limited because human, but liable to ignorance in matters in which greater knowledge was possible; yet it is the doctrine of the [later] Church, that in fact He was not ignorant even in His human nature, according to its capacity, since it was from the first taken out of its original and natural condition, and `deified' by its union with the Word. As then (supr. ii. 45, note 1) His manhood was created, yet He may not be called a creature even in His manhood, and as (supr. ii. 14, note 5) His flesh was in its abstract nature a servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, even as regards the flesh; so, though He took on Him a soul which left to itself had been partially ignorant, as other human souls, yet as ever enjoying the beatific vision from its oneness with the Word, it never was ignorant really, but knew all things which human soul can know. vid. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses it, `Novit in natura, non ex natura humanitatis.' Epp. x. 39. However, this view of the sacred subject was received by the Church only after S. Athanasius's day, and it cannot be denied that others of the most eminent Fathers seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man, as Athan. in this passage. Of course it is not meant that our Lord's soul has the same perfect knowledge as He has as God. This was the assertion of a General of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time of the Council of Basel, when the proposition was formally condemned, animam Christi Deum videre tam clare et intense quam clare et intense Deus videt seipsum. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. P. 42. Yet Fulgentius had said, `I think that in no respect was full knowledge of the Godhead wanting to that Soul, whose Person is one with the Word: whom Wisdom so assumed that it is itself that same Wisdom.' ad Ferrand. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Yet, ad Trasmund. i. 7. he speaks of ignorance attaching to our Lord's human nature.
324 And so Athan. ad Serap. ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being asked him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had `heard from a boy from the fathers,' but which was more fitted for pious Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that `our Lord says many things to men in His human aspect; as "Give me to drink," ...yet He who asked was not flesh without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which had one.' Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest another explanation which has been mentioned §42, note 1. Cf. Cyril Trin. pp. 623, 4. vid. also Thes. p. 220. `As he submitted as man to hunger and thirst, so.... to be ignorant." p. 221. vid. also Greg. Naz. Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret expresses the same opinion very strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument where it was to his point to do so; in Anath. 4. t. v. p. 23. ed. Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont. c. Nest (Canis. i. p. 579.)
326 Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine subscribed, writes, `That I may in this respect also leave nothing to be cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered when it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man, (secundum hominem). But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I even anathematize my former opinion expressed on this point,' ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A subdivision also of the Eutychians were called by the name of Agnoetae from their holding that our Lord was ignorant of the day of judgment. `They said,' says Leontius, `that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He underwent toil.' de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela held the same doctrine according to Agobard's testimony, see §46, n. 2. Montfaucon observes on the text, that the assertion of our Lord's ignorance `seems to have been condemned in no one in ancient times, unless joined to other error.' And Petavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says, `Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now received both by custom and by the agreement of divines, is deservedly preferred to the former. For it is more agreeable to Christ's dignity, and more befitting His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is, Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who is concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that function. In consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received the countenance of some men of high eminence, was afterwards marked as a heresy.' Incarn. xi. 1. §15.
330 Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril. Thes. p. 220. Ambros. de fid. v. 197. Hence the force of the word `living' commonly joined to such words as eikwn, sfragij, boulh, energeia, when speaking of our Lord, e.g. Naz. Orat. 30, 20, c. Vid. §63, fin. note.
332 It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human; ignorance in or ex natura; or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, `How many loaves have ye?' when `He Himself knew what He would do,' or as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed, supr. ii. 55, n. 7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether only imputative, not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord's ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.'s meaning is favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a defect belongs to `that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant;' §43. that `since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say, "I know not;"' ibid. and, as here, that `as shewing His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said according to the flesh, "I know not;"' `that He might shew that as man He knows not;' §46. that `as man' (i.e. on the ground of being man, not in the capacity of man), `He knows not;' ibid. and that, `He asks about Lazarus humanly,' even when `He was on His way to raise him,' which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul's professed ignorance when he really knew, §47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so `for our profit as I think, did He this.' §§48-50. The natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words as oikonomikwj, which, in respect of this very text, is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord's Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like variety of meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril. Trin. p. 623. and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word dispensatio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. x. 8.) In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our Lord `economizes by a reigned ignorance.' §6. And S. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems to recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual state of our Lord's humanity; and so Hilary, Trin. ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin. i. 23. Pope Gregory says that the text `is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are.' Ep x. 39. And S. Ambrose de fid. v. 222. And so Caesarius, Qu. 20. and Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, however, but in controversy, is very severe on the principle of Economy. `If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth.' l. c, pp. 23, 4.
338 The mode in which Athan. here expresses himself, is as if he did not ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent ignorance, to our Lord's soul, vid. supr. 45. n. 2; not certainly in the broad sense in which heretics have done so. As Leontius, e.g. reports of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ `to be ignorant so far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who tempted Him;' contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. i. p. 579.) and Agobard of Felix the Adoptionist that he held `Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh truly to have been ignorant of the sepulchre of Lazarus, when He said to his sisters, `Where have ye laid him?' and was truly ignorant of the day of judgment; and was truly ignorant what the two disciples were saying, as they walked by the way, of what had been done at Jerusalem; and was truly ignorant whether He was more loved by Peter than by the other disciples, when He said, `Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more than these?' B. P. t. 9. p. 1177. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]
345 Cf. Jerome, `He speaks not in ecstasy, as Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla rave;' Proef. in Naum. In like manner Tertullian speaks of `amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat prophetia;' de Anim. 21. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. v. 16. Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of Maximilla's prophecies, says, `Whatever the prophets have said, they spoke with understanding, following the sense.' Hoer. 48. p. 403. In the de Syn. 4. Athan. speaks of the Montanists as making a fresh beginning of Christianity; i.e. they were the first heretics who professed to prophesy and to introduce a new or additional revelation.
347 This expression, which repeatedly occurs in this and the following sections, surely implies that there was something economical in our Lord's profession of ignorance. He said with a purpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]
356 S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory, in addition to the instances in the text, refer to `I will go down now, and see whether they have done, &c., and if not, I will know.' Gen. xviii. 21. `The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, &c.' Gen. xi. 5. `God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see, &c.' Ps. liii. 3. `It may be they will reverence My Son.' Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xx. 13. `Seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, He came, if haply He might find, &c.' Mark xi. 13. `Simon, lovest thou Me?' John xxi. 15. vid. Ambros. de Fid. v. c. 17. Chrys. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Greg. Epp. x. 39. Vid. also the instances, supr. §37. Other passages may be added, such as Gen xxii. 12. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. But the difficulty of the passage lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which the Father knows what the Son knows not.
364 It is the doctrine of the [medieval and modern] Church that Christ, as man, was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ignorance were hardly separable from sin, and were the direct consequence or accompaniment of original sin. Cf. Aug. de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. As to the limits of Christ's perfect knowledge as man, Petavius observes, that we must consider `that the soul of Christ knew all things that are or ever will be or ever have been, but not what are only in posse, not in fact.' Incarn. xi. 3, 6.
372 It is remarkable, considering the tone of his statements in the present chapter, that here and in what follows Athan. should resolve our Lord's advance in wisdom merely to its gradual manifestation through the flesh [but he says expressly `the Manhood advanced in wisdom!'] and it increases the proof that his statements are not to be taken in the letter, and as if fully brought out and settled. Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86. which is the more remarkable since he is chiefly writing against the Apollinarians, who considered a fanerwsij the great end of our Lord's coming; and Cyril. c. Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hor. v. 13.On the other hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing an wisdom as man. Hoer. 77. p. 1019-24. and S. Ambrose, Incarn. 71-14. Vid. however Ambr. de fid. as quoted supr. §45, n. 2.
396 This our Lord's suspense or permission, at His will, of the operations of His manhood is a great principle in the doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Theophylact, in Joh. xi. 34. And Cyril, fragm. in Joan. p. 685. Leon. Ep. 35, 3. Aug. in Joan. xlix 18. vid. note on §57, sub. fin. The Eutychians perverted this doctrine, as if it implied that our Lord was not subject to the laws of human nature, and that He suffered merely `by permission of the Word.' Leont. ap. Canis. t. 1. p. 563. In like manner Marcion or Manes said that His `flesh appeared from heaven in resemblance, wj hqelhsen.' Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3.
405 Vid. Matt. xxvii. 54. Vid. Or. ii. 16; 35, n. 2. Cf. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28.) 4. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 161. Ambros. Epist. i. 46. n. 7. vid. Hil. Trin. x. 48. Also vid. Athan. Sent. D. fin. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 24.
408 It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak of the nature of the Word, and of, not the nature of man as united to Him, but of flesh, humanity, &c. (vid. Or. ii. 45, n. 2.) so here, instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word's willing and human weakness, terror, &c. In another place he says still more pointedly, `The will was of the Godhead alone; since the whole nature of the Word was manifested in the second Adam's human form and visible flesh. contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Cf. S. Leo on the same passage: `The first request is one of infirmity, the second of power; the first He asked in our [character], the second in His own. ...The inferior will give way to the superior,' &c. Serm. 56, 2. vid. a similar passage in Nyssen. Antirrh. adv. Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An obvious objection may be drawn from such passages, as if the will `of the flesh' were represented as contrary (vid. foregoing note) to the will of the Word. The whole of our Lord's prayer is offered by Him as man, because it is a prayer; the first part is not from Him as man, but the second, which corrects it, from Him as God [i.e. the first part is not human as contrasted with the second]; but the former part is from the sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from His human will expressing its acquiescence in His Father's, that is, in His Divine Will. `His Will,' says S. Greg. Naz. `was not contrary to God, being all deified, qewqen olon.'
412 This might be taken as an illustration of the ut voluit supr. Or. i. 44, n. 11. And so the expressions in the Evangelists, `Into Thy hands I commend My Spirit,' `He bowed the head,' `He gave up the ghost,' are taken to imply that His death was His free act. vid. Ambros. in loc. Luc. Hieron. in loc. Matt. also Athan. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 4. It is Catholic doctrine that our Lord, as man, submitted to death of His free will, and not as obeying an express command of the Father. Cf. S. Chrysostom on John x. 18. Theophylact. in Hebr. xii. 2; Aug. de Trin. iv. 16.
417 Thus ends the exposition of texts, which forms the body of these Orations. It is remarkable that he ends as be began, with reference to the ecclesiastical scope, or Regula Fidei, which has so often come under our notice, vid. Or. ii. 35. n. 2. 44, n. 1, as if distinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not so force its meaning on the individual as to dispense with an interpreter, and as if his own deductions were not to be viewed merely in their own logical power, great as that power often is, but as under the authority of the Catholic doctrines which they subserve. Vid. Or. iii. 18, n. 3.
418 This chapter is in a very different style from the foregoing portions of this Book, and much more resembles the former two; not only in its subject and the mode of treating it, but in the words introduced, e.g. epispeirousi, epinoousi, gogguzousi, kaq' umaj, atopon, leceidion, eij twn pantwn, &c. And the references are to the former Orations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
46 Here again is the word omoousion. Contrast the language of Orât. iii. when commenting on the same text, in the same way; e.g. en th idiothti kai oikeiothti thj fusewj, kai th tautothti thj miaj qeothtoj, §4.
172 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
173 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
11 `He who speaketh of his own, ek twn idiwn, speaketh a lie.' Athan. contr. Apoll. i. fin ...The Simonists, Dositheans, &c. ...each privately (idiwj) and separately has brought in a private opinion.' Hegesippus, ap Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. Sophronius at Seleucia cried out, `If to publish day after day our own private (§) will, be a profession of faith, accuracy of truth will fail us.' Socr. ii. 40.
15 prodromoj, praecursor, is almost a received word for the predicted apostasy or apostate (vid. note on S. Cyril's Cat. xv. 9), but the distinction was not always carefully drawn between the apostate and the Antichrist. [Cf. both terms applied to Constantius, Hist. Ar. passim, and by Hilary and Lucifer.]
16 At Seleucia Acacius said, `If the Nicene faith has been altered once and many times since, no reason why we should not dictate another faith now.' Eleusius the Semi-Arian answered, `This Council is called, not to learn what it does not know, not to receive a faith which it does not possess, but walking in the faith of the fathers' (meaning the Council of the Dedication. a.d. 341. vid. infr. §22), `it swerves not from it in life or death.' On this Socrates (Hist. ii. 40) observes, `How call you those who met at Antioch Fathers, O Eleusius, you who deny their Fathers,' &c.
36 This Decree is also preserved in Hilary, who has besides preserved the `Catholic Definition' of the Council, in which it professes its adherence to the Creed of Nicaea, and, in opposition to the Sirmian Confession which the Arians had proposed, acknowledges in particular both the word and the meaning of `substance:' `substantiae nomen et rem, a multis sanctis Scripturis insinuatam mentibus nostris, obtinere debere sui firmitatem.' Fragm. vii. 3. [The decree is now re-translated from the Greek.]
38 i.e. Sep. 14, 359 (Egyptian leap-year.) Gorpiaeus was the first month of the Syro-Macedonic year among the Greeks, dating according to the era of the Seleucidae. The original transactions at Ariminum had at this time been finished as much as two months, and its deputies were waiting for Constantius at Constantinople.
41 There is little to observe of these Acacian Bishops in addition to [the names and sees in Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. 26] except that George is the Cappadocian, the notorious intruder into the see of S. Athanasius. [For his expulsion see Fest. Ind. xxx, and on the composition of the council, see Gwatkin, note G, p. 190.]
42 The Meletian schismatics of Egypt had formed an alliance with the Arians from the first. Cf. Ep. Aeg. 22. vid. also Hist. Arian. 31, 78. After Sardica the Arians attempted a coalition with the Donatists of Africa. Aug. contr. Cresc. iii. 38.
43 Acacius had written to the Semi-Arian Macedonius of Constantinople in favour of the kata panta omoion, and of the Son's being thj authj ousiaj, and this the Council was aware of. Soz. iv. 22. Acacius made answer that no one ancient or modern was ever judged by his writings. Socr. ii. 40.
44 They also confirmed the Semi-Arian Confession of the Dedication, 341. of which infr. §22. After this the Acacians drew up another Confession, which Athan. has preserved, infr. §29. in which they persist in their rejection of all but Scripture terms. This the Semi-Arian majority rejected, and proceeded to depose its authors.
48 On the word 'Areiomanitai, Gibbon observes, `The ordinary appellation with which Athanasius and his followers chose to compliment the Arians, was that of Ariomanites,' ch. xxi. note 61. Rather, the name originally was a state title, injoined by Constantine, vid. Petav. de Trin. i. 8 fin. Naz. Orat. p. 794. note e. [Petavius states this, but without proof.] Several meanings are implied in this title; the real reason for it was the fanatical fury with which it spread and maintained itself; and hence the strange paronomasia of Constantine, 'Arej areie, with an allusion to Hom. Il. v. 31. A second reason, or rather sense, of the appellation was that, denying the Word, they have forfeited the gift of reason, e.g. twn 'Areiomanitwn thn alogian. de Sent. Dion. init. 24 fin. Orat. ii. §32, iii. §63. [The note, which is here much condensed, gives profuse illustrations of this figure of speech.]
53 Cf. Orat. i. §§2-5; de Sent. D. 6; Socr. i. 9. The Arian Philostorgius tells us that `Arius wrote songs for the sea and for the mill and for the road, and then set them to suitable music,' Hist. ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athanasius should say the Egyptian Sotades, and again in Sent. D. 6. There were two Poets of the name; one a writer of the Middle Comedy, Athen. Deipn. vii. 11; but the other, who is here spoken of, was a native of Maronea in Crete, according to Suidas (in voc.), under the successors of Alexander, Athen. xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre, which was of infamous name from the subjects to which he and others applied it. vid. Suid. ibid. Horace's Ode. `Miserarum est neque amori, &c.' is a specimen of this metre, and some have called it Sotadic; but Bentley shews in loc. that Sotades wrote in the Ionic a majore. Athenaeus implies that all Ionic metres were called Sotadic, or that Sotades wrote in various Ionic metres. The Church adopted the Doric music, and forbade the Ionic and Lydian. The name `Thalia' commonly belonged to convivial songs; Martial contrasts the `lasciva Thalia' with `carmina sanctiora,' Epigr. vii. 17. vid. Thaliarchus, `the master of the feast,' Horat. Od. i. 9. [The metre of the fragments of the `Thalia' is obscure, there are no traces of the Ionic foot, but very distinct anapaestic cadences. In fact the lines resemble ill-constructed or very corrupt anapaestic tetrameters catalectic, as in a comic Parabasis. For Sotades, the Greek text here reads corruptly Sosates.]
55 That is, Wisdom, or the Son, is but the disciple of Him who is Wise, and not the attribute by which He is Wise, which is what the Sabellians said, vid. Orat. iv. §2, and what Arius imputed to the Church.
59 kata katalhyin, that is, there is nothing comprehensible in the Father for the Son to know and declare. On the other hand the doctrine of the Anomoeans was, that all men could know Almighty God perfectly.
61 What the Valentinian probolh was is described in Epiph. Haer. 31, 13 [but see D.C.B. iv. 1086 sqq.] Origen protests against the notion of probolh, Periarch. iv. p. 190, and Athanasius Expos. §1. The Arian Asterius too considers probolh to introduce the notion of teknogonia, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph. Haer. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word proballesqai. Eccl. Theol. i. 8. On the other hand Tertullian uses it with a protest against the Valentinian sense. Justin has problhqen gennhma, Tryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father proboleuj of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the word here as an argumentum ad invidiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.
63 uiopatora. The term is ascribed to Sabellius, Ammon. in Caten. Joan. i. 1. p. 14: to Sabellius and [invidiously to] Marcellus, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 5: Cf., as to Marcellus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9. also iv. 8. xi. 16; Epiph. Haer 73. 11 fin.: to Sabellians, Athan. Expos. Fid. 2. and 7, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p. 733: to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex. in Joann. p. 243: to Praxeas and Montanus, Mar. Merc. p. 128: to Sabellius, Caesar. Dial. i. p. 550: to Noetus, Damasc. Haer. 57.
65 Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here spoken of as held that our Lord's sugkatabasij to create the world was a gennhsij, and certainly such language as that of Hippol. contr. Noet. §15. favours the supposition. But one class of [Monarchians] may more probably be intended, who held that the Word became the Son upon His incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9 p. 114 b. mhd allote allhn k.t.l. Also the Macrostich says, `We anathematize those who call Him the mere Word of God, not allowing Him to be Christ and Son of God before all ages, but from the time He took on Him our flesh: such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, &c.' infr. §26. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15, says that, of those who divide the Word from the Son, some called our Lord's manhood the Son, some the two Natures together, and some said `that the Word Himself became the Son when He was made man.' It makes it more likely that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius seems to have written against him before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other of his writings borrowed from Asterius. vid. de Decret. §8.
66 Eusebius's letter to Euphration, which is mentioned just after, expresses this more distinctly-`If they coexist, how shall the Father be Father and the Son Son? or how the One first, the Other second? and the One ingenerate and the other generate?' Acta Conc. 7. p. 301. The phrase ta proj ti Bull well explains to refer to the Catholic truth that the Father or Son being named; the Other is therein implied without naming. Defens. F. N. iii. 9. §4. Hence Arius, in his Letter to Eusebius, complains that Alexander says, aei o qeoj, aei o uioj ama pathr, ama uioj. Theod. H. E. i. 4.
68 Most of these original Arians were attacked in a work of Marcellus's which Eusebius answers. `Now he replies to Asterius,' says Eusebius, `now to the great Eusebius' [of Nicomedia], `and then he turns upon that man of God, that indeed thrice blessed person Paulinus [of Tyre]. Then he goes to war with Origen. ...Next he marches out against Narcissus, and pursues the other Eusebius,' [himself]. `In a word, he counts for nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fathers, being satisfied with no one but himself.' contr. Marc. i. 4. [On Marls (who was not at Ariminum, and scarcely at Antioch in 363) see D.C.B. s.v. (2). On Theodotus see vol. i. of this series, p. 320, note 37. On Paulinus, ib. p. 369.]
71 Asterius has been mentioned above, p. 155, note 2, &c. Philostorgius speaks of him as adopting Semi-Arian terms; and Acacius H gives an extract from him containing them, ap. Epiph. Haer. 72. 6. He seems to be called many-headed with an allusion to the Hydra, and to his activity in the Arian cause and his fertility in writing. He wrote comments on Scripture. [See Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) a, sub. fin.]
72 None but the clergy might enter the Chancel, i.e. in Service time. Hence Theodosius was made to retire by S. Ambrose. Theod. v. 17. The Council of Laodicea, said to be held a.d. 372, forbids any but persons in orders, ieratikoi, to enter the Chancel and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. also 44. Conc. t. 1. pp. 788, 789. It is doubtful what orders the word ieratikoi, is intended to include. vid. Bingham, Antiqu. viii. 6. §7.
80 2nd Confession or end of Antioch, a.d. 341. This formulary is that known as the Formulary of the Dedication. It is quoted as such by Socr. ii. 39, 40. Soz. iv. 15. and infr. §29. [On its attribution to Lucian, see Prolegg. ubi supr., and Caspari Alte. u. Neue Q. p. 42 note.]
82 These strong words and those which follow, whether Lucian's or not, mark the great difference between this confession and the foregoing. The words `unalterable and unchangeable' are formal anti-Arian symbols, as the trepton alterable was one of the most characteristic parts of Arius's creed. vid. Orat. i. §35, &c.
83 On aparallaktoj eikwn kat ousian, which was synonymous with omoiusioj, vid. infr. §38. supr. p. 163, note 9. It was in order to secure the true sense of aparallakton that the Council adopted the word omoousion. 'Aparallakton is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. §20, 24. Orat. iii. §36. contr. Gent. 41. 46. fin. Philostorgius ascribing it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing it; cf. S. Alexander thn kata panta omoiothta autou ek fusewj apomacamenoj, in Theod. H.E. i. 4. Xarakthr, Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18.
84 This statement perhaps is the most Catholic in the Creed; not that the former axe not more explicit in themselves, or that in a certain true sense our Lord may not be called a Mediator before He became incarnate, but because the Arians, even Eusebius, like Philo and the Platonists, consider Him as made in the beginning the `Eternal Priest of the Father,' Demonst. v. 3. de Land. C. 3, 11, `an intermediate divine power,' §26, 27, and notes.
91 It need Scarcely be said, that `perfect from perfect' is symbol on which the Catholics laid stress. Athan. Orat. ii. 35. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 945. but it admitted of an evasion. An especial reason for insisting on it in the previous centuries had been the Sabellian doctrine, which considered the title `Word' when applied to our Lord to be adequately explained by the ordinary sense of the term, as a word spoken by us. In consequence they insisted on His to teleion, perfection, which became almost synonymous with His personality. (Thus the Apollinarians, e.g. denied that our Lord was perfect man, because His person was not human. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 2.) And Athan. condemns the notion of 'the logoj en tw qew atelhj, gennhqeij teleioj, Orat. iv. 11. The Arians then, as being the especial opponents of the Sabellians, insisted on nothing so much as our Lord's being a real, living, substantial, Word. vid. Eusebius passim. `The Father,' says Acacius against Marcellus, `begat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and perfect perfect; for there is nothing imperfect in the Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the Son's perfection is the genuine offspring of His perfection, and superperfection.' ap. Epiph. Haer. 72. 7. Teleioj then was a relative word, varying with the subject matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 138. and when the Arians said that our Lord was perfect God, they meant, `perfect, in that sense in which He is God '-i.e. as a secondary divinity.-Nay, in one point of view, holding as they did no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, they would use the term of His divine Nature more freely than the Catholics sometimes had. `Nor was the Word,' says Hippolytus, `before the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being perfect Word, Only-begotten; nor could the flesh subsist by itself without the Word, because that in the Word it has its consistence: thus then He was manifested One perfect Son of God.' contr. Noet. 15.
92 [See Prolegg.] Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him.
95 4th Confession, or 4th of Antioch, a.d. 342. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Confessions are the same, and with them agree the Creed of Philippopolis [a.d. 343, see Gwatkin, Stud. p. 119, espec. note 2].
96 These words, which answer to those [of our present `Nicene' Creed], are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus [on which see Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. 17. cont. Marc. ii. 4.
97 S. Hilary, as we have seen above, p. 78, by implication calls this the Nicene Anathema; but it omits many of the Nicene clauses, and evades our Lord's eternal existence, substituting for `once He was not,' `there was time when He was not.' It seems to have been considered sufficient for Gaul, as used now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the creed of Philippopolis.
98 Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Martyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long Confession, or Macrostich, which follows, is remarkable; [see Prolegg, ch. ii. §6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sq.]
100 It is observable that here and in the next paragraph the only reasons they give against using the only two Arian formulas which they condemns is that they are not found in Scripture. Here, in their explanation of the ec ouk ontwn, or from nothing, they do but deny it with Eusebius's evasion, supr. p. 75, note 5.
105 These strong words, qeon kata fusin teleion kai alhqh are of a different character from any which have occurred in the Arian Confessions. They can only be explained away by considering them used in contrast to the Samosatene doctrine; so that `perfect according to nature' and `true,' will not be directly connected with `God' so much as opposed to, `by advance,' `by adoption,' &c.
106 The use of the words endiaqetoj and proforikoj, mental and pronounced, to distinguish the two senses of logoj, reason and word, came from the school of the Stoics, and is found in Philo, and was under certain limitations allowed in Catholic theology, Damasc. F. O. ii. 21. To use either absolutely and to the exclusion of the other would have involved some form of Sabellianism, or Arianism as the case might be; but each might correct the defective sense of either S. Theophilus speaks of our Lord as at once e/diaqetoj and proforikoj. ad Autol. ii. 10 and 22, S. Cyril as e/diaqetoj, in Joann. p. 39. but see also Thesaur. p. 47. When the Fathers deny that our Lord is the proforikoj, they only mean that that title is not, even as far as its philosophical idea went, an adequate representative of Him, a word spoken being insubstantive, vid. Orat. ii. 35; Hil. de Syn. 46; Cvr. Catech. xi. 10; Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203; Cyril in Joann. p. 31; Iren. Haer. ii. 12. n. 5. Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15.
111 autoproswpwj and so Cyril Hier. Catech. xv. 14 and 17 (It means, `not in personation'), and Philo contrasting divine appearances with those of Angels. Leg. Alleg. iii. 62. On the other hand, Theophilus on the text, `The voice of the Lord God walking in the garden,' speaks of the Word, `assuming the person, proswpon, of the Father,' and `in the person of God,' ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not then having its theological sense.
112 omoion kata panta. Here again we have a strong Semi-Arian or almost Catholic formula introduced by the bye. Of course it admitted of evasion, but in its fulness it included `essence.' [See above §8, note 1, and Introd.]
113 See vol. i. of this series, p. 295, note 1. In the reason which the Confession alleges against that heretical doctrine it is almost implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on the Cross. They would naturally fall into this notion directly they gave up our Lord's absolute divinity. It would naturally follow that our Lord had no human soul, but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place of it :-also that His Mediatorship was no peculiarity of His Incarnation. vid. §23, note 2. §27, Anath. 12, note.
114 The Confession still insists upon the unscripturalness of the Catholic positions. On the main subject of this paragraph the qelhsei gennhqen, cf. Orat. iii. 59, &c. The doctrine of the monogenej has already partially come before us in de Decr. §§7-9. pp. 154 sq. Monwj, not as the creatures. vid. p. 75, note 6.
115 The following passage is in its very form an interpolation or appendix, while its doctrine bears distinctive characters of something higher than the old absolute separation between the Father and the Son. [Eusebius of Caes. had] considered Them as two ousiai, omoiai like, but not as omoousioi; his very explanation of the word teleioj was `independent' and `distinct.' Language then, such as that in the text, was the nearest assignable approach to the reception of the omoousion; [and in fact, to] the doctrine of the perixwrhsij, of which supr. Orat. iii.
118 Sirmium [Mitrowitz on the Save] was a city of lower Pannonia, not far from the Danube, and was the great bulwark of the Illyrian provinces of the Empire. There Vetranio assumed the purple; and there Constantius was born. The frontier war caused it to be from time to time the Imperial residence. We hear of Constantius at Sirmium in the summer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10. He also passed there the ensuing winter. ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium in triumph, and passed the winter there. xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence in the spring, remained there till the end of May, 359.
119 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §7]. The leading person in this Council was Basil of Ancyra. Basil held a disputation with Photinus. Silvanus too of Tarsus now appears for the first time: while, according to Socrates, Mark of Arethusa drew up the Anathemas; the Confession used was the same as that sent to Constans, of the Council of Philippopolis, and the Macrostich.
120 S Hilary treats their creed as a Catholic composition. de Syn. 39-63. Philastrius and Vigilius call the Council a meeting of `holy bishops' and a `Catholic Council,' de Haer. 65. in Eutych. v. init. What gave a character and weight to this Council was, that it met to set right a real evil, and was not a mere pretence with Arian objects.
124 This Anathema which has occurred in substance in the Macrostich, and again infr. Anath. 18 and 23. is a disclaimer of their in fact holding a supreme and a secondary God. In the Macrostich it is disclaimed upon a simple Arian basis. The Semi-Arians were more open to this imputation; Eusebius, as we have seen above, distinctly calling our Lord a second and another God. vid. p. 75, note 7. It will be observed that this Anathema contradicts the one which immediately follows, and the 11th, in which Christ is called God; except, on the one hand the Father and Son are One God, which was the Catholic doctrine, or, on the other, the Son is God in name only, which was the pure Arian or Anomoean.
125 The language of Catholics and heretics is very much the same on this point of the Son's ministration, with this essential difference of sense, that Catholic writers mean a ministration internal to the divine substance and an instrument connatural with the Father, and Arius meant an external and created medium of operation. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord `the All-harmonious Instrument (organon) of God.' Protrept. p. 6; Eusebius `an animated and living instrument (organon emyuxon), nay, rather divine and vivific of every substance and nature.' Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on the other hand, insists that the Arians reduced our Lord to `an inanimate instrument,' organon ayuxon, though they called Him upourgon teleiotaton, most perfect minister or underworker. adv. Eunom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he makes them say, `the nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instrument, organou, another; .... foreign then in nature is the Son from the Father, since such is an instrument from a workman.' De Sp. S. n. 6 fin. vid. also n. 4 fin. 19, and 20. And so S. Gregory, `The Father signifies, the Word accomplishes, not servilely, nor ignorantly, but with knowledge and sovereignty, and to speak more suitably, in a father's way, patrikwj. Orat. 30. 11. Cf. S. Cyril, in Joann. p. 48. Explanations such as these secure for the Catholic writers some freedom in their modes of speaking, e.g. Athan. speaks of the Son, as `enjoined and ministering,' prostattomenoj, kai upourgwn, Orat. ii. §22. Thus S. Irenaeus speaks of the Father being well-pleased and commanding, keleuontoj, and the Son doing and framing. Haer. iv. 75: S. Basil too, in the same treatise in which are some of the foregoing protests, speaks of `the Lord ordering,' prostassonta, and the word framing.' de Sp. S. n. 38, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of `Him who bids, entelletai, bidding to one who is present with Him,' Cat. xi. 16. vid. also uphretwn tm boulh, Justin. Tryph. 126, and upourgon, Theoph. ad Autol ii. 10. ecuphretwn, Clem,. Strom. vii. p. 832.
130 The 12th and 13th Anathemas are intended to meet the charge which is alluded to §26 (6), note 2, that Arianism involved the doctrine that our Lord's divine nature suffered. [But see Gwatkin, p. 147.] Athanasius brings this accusation against them Distinctly in his work against Apollinaris. contr. Apoll. i. 15. Vid. also Ambros. de Fide, iii. 31. Salig in his de Eutychianismo ant. Eutychem takes notice of none of the passages in the text.
131 This Anathema is directed against Marcellus, who held the very opinion which it denounces, that the Almighty spake with Himself. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. ii. 15. The Jews said that Almighty God spoke to the Angels. Basil. Hexaem. fin. Others that the plural was used as authorities on earth use it in way of dignity. Theod. in Gen. 19. As to the Catholic Fathers, as is well known, they interpreted the text in the sense here given. See Petav.
132 This again, in spite of the wording. which is directed against the Catholic doctrine [or Marcellus?] is a Catholic interpretation. vid. [besides Philo de Somniis. i. 12.) Justin. Tryph. 56. and 126. Iren. Haer. iv,. 10. n. 1. Tertull. de carn. Christ. 6. adv. Marc. iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iv. 5. Cyprian. adv. Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. Syn. contr. Paul. apud Routh. Rell. t. 2. p. 469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor. 29 and 39. Haer. 71. 5. Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 41. 7. These references are principally from Petavius; also from Dorscheus, who has written an elaborate commentary on this Council, &c. The Catholic doctrine is that the Son has condescended to become visible by means of material appearances. Augustine seems to have been the first who changed the mode of viewing the texts in question, and considered the divine appearance, not God the Son, but a created Angel. Vid. de Trin. ii. passim. Jansenius considers that he did so from a suggestion of S. Ambrose, that the hitherto received view had been the origo haeresis Arianae, vid. his Augustineus, lib. procem. c. 12. t. 2. p. 12.
134 It was an expedient of the later Macedonians to deny that the Holy Spirit was God because it was not usual to call Him Ingenerate. They asked the Catholics whether the Holy Spirit was Ingenerate, generate, or created, for into these three they divided all things. vid. Basil in Sabell. et Ar. Hom. xxiv. 6. But, as the Arians had first made the alternative only between Ingenerate and created, and Athan. de Decr. §28. shews that generate is a third idea really distinct from one and the other, so S. Greg. Naz. adds. processive, ekporeuton, as an intermediate idea, contrasted with Ingenerate, yet distinct from generate. Orat. xxxi. 8. In other words, Ingenerate means, not only not generate, but not from any origin. vid. August. de Trin. xv. 26.
140 It will be observed that this Confession; 1. by denying `two Gods,' and declaring that the One God is the God of Christ, implies that our Lord is not God. 2. It says that the word `substance,' and its compounds, ought not to be used as being unscriptural, mysterious, and leading to disturbance; 3. it holds that the Father is greater than the Son `in honour, dignity, and godhead;' 4. that the Son is subordinate to the Father with all other things; 5. that it is the Father's characteristic to be invisible and impassible. They also say that our Lord, hominem suscepisse per quem compassus est, a word which Phoebadius condemns in his remarks on this Confession; where, by the way, he uses the word `spiritus' in the sense of Hilary and the Ante-Nicene Fathers, in a connection which at once explains the obscure words of the supposititious Sardican Confession (vid. above, §9, note 3), and turns them into another evidence of this additional heresy involved in Arianism. `Impassibilis Deus,' says Phoebadius, `quia Deus Spiritus ... non ergo passibilis Dei Spiritus, licet in homine suo passus.' Now the Sardican Confession is thought ignorant, as well as unauthoritative, e.g. by Natalis Alex. Saec. 4. Diss. 29, because it imputes to Valens and Ursacius the following belief, which he supposes to be Patripassianism, but which exactly answers to this aspect and representation of Arianism: oti o logo= kai oti to pneuma kai estaurwqh kai esfagh kai apeqanen kai anesth. Theod. H.E. ii. 6. p. 844.
143 The Semi-Arian majority in the Council had just before been confirming the Creed of the Dedication; hence this beginning. vid. supr. §11. The present creed, as if to propitiate the Semi-Arian majority, adds an anathema upon the Anomoean as well as on the Homousion and Homoeusion.
144 These two sections seem to have been inserted by Athan. after his Letter was finished, and contain later occurrences in the history of Ariminum, than were contemplated when he wrote supr. §11. vid. note 7 in loc. It should be added that at this Council Ulfilas the Apostle of the Goths, who had hitherto followed the Council of Nicaea, conformed, and thus became the means of spreading through his countrymen the Creed of Ariminum.
146 mono= ek monou. This phrase may be considered a symptom of Anomoean influence; mono= para, or upo, mouon being one special formula adopted by Eunomius explanatory of monogenh=, * in accordance with the origmal Arian theory, mentioned de Decr. §7. supr. p. 154, that the Son was the one instrument of creation. Eunomius said that He alone was created by the Father alone; all other things being created by the Father, not alone, but through Him whom alone He had first created. vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 25. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. Acacius ap. Epiph. Haer. 72. 7. p. 839.
149 Acacius, Eudoxius, and the rest, after ratifying at Constantinople the Creed framed at Niké and subscribed at Ariminum, appear next at Antioch a year and a half later, when they throw off the mask, and, avowing the Anomoean Creed, `revert,' as S. Athanasius says, `to their first doctrines,' i.e. those with which Arius started.
150 From ec ouk ontwn, `out of nothing,' one of the original Arian positions concerning the Son. Theodoret says that they were also called Hexakionitae, from the nature of their place of meeting, Haer. iv. 3. and Du Cange confirms it so far as to show that there was a place or quarter of Constantinople Hexakionium [Cf. Soph. Lex. s.v.]
154 The subject before us, naturally rises out of what has gone before. The Anomoean creed was hopeless; but with the Semi-Arians all that remained was the adjustment of phrases. Accordingly, Athan. goes on to propose such explanations as might clear the way for a re-union of Christendom. §47, note.
170 It must not be supposed from this that he approves [as adequate] the phrase omoioj kat ousian or omoiousioj, in this Treatise, for infr. §53. he rejects it on the ground that when we speak of `like,' we imply qualities, not essence. Yet he himself frequently, uses it, as other Fathers, and Orat. i. §26. uses omoioj thj ousiaj.
176 So also de Decr. §23. p. 40. Pseudo-Ath. Hyp. Mel. et Euseb. Hil. de Syn. 89. The illustration runs into this position `Things that are like, [need] not be the same.' vid. §39. note 5. On the other hand, Athan. himself contends for the tauton th omoiwsei, `the same in likeness.' de Decr. §20.
178 Here at last Athan. alludes to the Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph. Haer. 73, 5 and 7. about which he has kept a pointed silence above, when tracing the course of the Arian confessions. That is, he treats the Semi-Arians as tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon as they break company with the Arians. The Ancyrene Council of 358 was a protest against the `blasphemia' or second Sirmian Confession
179 It is usual with the Fathers to use the two terms `Son' and `Word,' to guard and complete the ordinary sense of each other, vid. p. 157, note 6; and p. 167, note 4. The term Son, used by itself, was abused into Arianism; and the term Word into Sabellianism; again the term Son might be accused of introducing material notions, and the term Word of imperfection and transitoriness. Each of them corrected the other. Orat. i. §28. iv. §8. Euseb. contr. Marc. ii. 4. p. 54. Isid. Pel. Ep. iv. 141. So S. Cyril says that we learn `from His being called Son that He is from Him, to ec autou; from His being called Wisdom and Word, that He is in Him,' to en autw. Thesaur. iv. p. 31. However, S Athanasius observes, that properly speaking the one term implies the other, i.e. in its fulness. Orat. iii. §3. iv. §24 fin. On the other hand the heretics accused Catholics of inconsistency, or of a union of opposite errors, because they accepted all the Scripture images together. Vigilius of Thapsus, contr. Eutych. ii. init. vid. also i. init. and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225, p. 759.
184 There were three Councils held against Paul of Samosata, of the dates of 264, 269, and an intermediate year. The third is spoken of in the text, which contrary to the opinion of Pagi, S. Basnage, and Tillemont. Pearson fixes at 265 or 266.
186 This is in fact the objection which Arius urges against the Coessential, supr. §16, when he calls it the doctrine of Manichaeus and Hieracas, vid. §16, note 11. The same objection is protested against by S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. in his account of the reason of the Council's rejection of the word, S. Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a Sabellian sense, and therefore the Council rejected it. `Male homoüsion Samosatenus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt.' de Syn. 86.
187 Cf. Soz. iii. 18. The heretical party, starting with the notion in which their heresy in all its shades consisted, that the Son was a distinct being from the Father, concluded that `like in essence' was the only term which would express the relation of the Son to the Father. Here then the word `coessential' did just enable the Catholics to join issue with them, as exactly expressing what the Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no such distinction between Them as made the term `like' necessary, but that as material parent and offspring are individuals under one common species, so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one common individual essence.
189 thn thj omoiwsewj enothta: and so pp. 163, note 9, 165, 166. And Basil. tautothta thj fusewj, Ep. 8. 3: [but] tautothta thj ousiaj, Cyril in Joan. lib. iii. c. v. p. 302. [cf. tautoousion, p. 315, note 6.] It is uniformly asserted by the Catholics that the Father's godhead, qeothj, is the Son's; e.g. infr. §52; supr. p. 329 b, line 8; p 333, note 5; Orat i. 49 fin. ii. §18. §73. fin. iii. §26; iii. §5 fin. iii. §53; mian thn qeothta kai to idion thj ousiaj tou patroj. §56 supr. p. 84 fin. vid. §52. note. This is an approach to the doctrine of the Una Res, defined in the fourth Lateran Council [in 1215, see Harnack Dogmg. iii. 447, note, and on the doctrine of the Greek Fathers, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (a) b.]
193 [In this passage the difficulties and confusion which surround the terms agenhtoj and agennhtoj (supr. p. 149, &c.) come to a head. The question is (assuming, as proved by Lightfoot, the validity of the distinction of the two in Athan.) which word is to be read here. The mss. are divided throughout between the two readings, but it is clear (so Lightf. and Zahn on Ign. Eph. 7) that one word alone is in view throughout the present passage. That word, then, is pronounced by Lightf., partly on the strength of the quotation from the unnamed teachers (infr. note 7), partly on the ground of a reference to §26 (see note 10 there), to be agennhtoj. With all deference to so great an authority, I cannot hesitate to pronounce for agenhtoj. (1.) The parallelism of the two senses with the third and fourth senses of agen. Orat. i. 30. is almost decisive by itself. (2.) Ath.'s explanation of Ignatius. viz. that Christ is genhtoj on account of the flesh (he would have referred gennhtoj to His Essence, Orat. i. 56, certainly not to the flesh), while as Son and Word He is distinct from genhta and poihmata, is even more decisive. (3.) His explanation §46, sub fin. that the Son is agenhtoj. because He is aidion gennhma would lose all sense if agennhtoj. were read. As a matter of fact, agennhtoj. is the specific, agenhtoj. the generic term: the former was not applicable to the Eternal Son; the latter was, except in the first of the two senses distinguished in the text: a sense, however, more properly coming under the specific idea of agenhto. This was the ambiguity which made the similarity of the two words so dangerous a weapon in Arian hands. The above note does not of course affect the true reading of Ign. Eph. 7, as to which Lightfoot and Zahn speak with authority: but it seems clear that Athan., however mistakenly, quotes Ign. with the reading agenhtoj.]
202 By `the Son being equal to the Father,' is but meant that He is His `exact image;' it does not imply any distinction of essence. Cf. Hil. de Syn. 73. But this implies some exception, for else He would not be like or equal, but the same. ibid. 72. Hence He is the Father's image in all things except in being the Father, plhn thj agennhsiaj kai thj patrothtoj. Damasc. de Imag. iii. 18. p. 354. vid. also Basil. contr. Eun. ii. 28; Theod. Inconfus. p. 91; Basil. Ep. 38. 7 fin. [Through missing this point the] Arians asked why the Son was not the beginning of a qeogonia. Supr. p. 319 a, note 1. vid. infr. note 8.
204 Arianism was in the dilemma of denying Christ's divinity, or introducing a second God. The Arians proper went off on the former side of the alternative, the Semi-Arians on the latter; and Athan., as here addressing the Semi Arians, insists on the greatness of the latter error. This of course was the objection which attached to the words omoiousion, aparallaktoj eikwn, &c., when disjoined from the omoousion; and Eusebius's language, supr. p. 75, note 7, shews us that it is not an imaginary one.
208 Cf. p. 169, note 4a [and on ousia as a philosophical and theological term, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b. On the divergence of its theological use from its philosophical sense, see] Anastasius, Hodeg. 6. and Theorian, Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. Socr. iii. 25. Damascene, speaking of the Jacobite use of fusij and upostasij says, `Who of holy men ever thus spoke? unless ye introduce to us your S. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and prefer the idolater to the divinely inspired.' cont. Jacob. 10. p. 399. and so again Leontius, speaking of Philoponus, who from the Monophysite confusion of nature and hypostasis was led into Tritheism. `He thus argued, taking his start from Aristotelic principles; for Aristotle says that there are of individuals particular substances as well as one common.' De Sect. v. fin.
209 The argument, when drawn out, is virtually this: if, because two subjects are coessential, a third is pre-supposed of which they partake, then, since either of these two is coessential with that of which both partake, a new third must be supposed in which it and the pre-existing substance partake and thus an infinite series of things coessential must be supposed, Vid. Basil. Ep. 52. n. 2. [Cf. Aristot. Frag. 183, p. 1509 b 23.]
213 S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father kuriwj properly, supr. p. 156, note 1, 157, note 6, 171, note 5, 319, note 3), yet it comes to the same thing if we were to say that He is tropikwj and ek metaforaj, figuratively, such, contr. Eun. ii. 24; gennhsij implies two things,-passion, and relationship, oikeiwsij fusewj; accordingly we must take the latter as an indication of the divine sense of the term. Cf. also supr. p. 158, note 7, p. 322, Orat. ii. 32, iii. 18, 67, and Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 17; Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also Athan. ad Serap. i. 20. and Basil. Ep. 38. n. 5. and what is said of the office of faith in each of these.
215 enoj ontoj eidouj qeothtoj: for the word eidoj, cf. Orat iii. 16 is generally applied to the Son, as in what follows, and is synonymous [?] with hypostasis; but it is remarkable that here it is almost synonymous with ousia or fusij. Indeed in one sense nature, substance, and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i.e. as one and all denoting the Una Res, which is Almighty God. The apparent confusion is useful as reminding us of this great truth; vid. note 8, infr.
217 [fusij is here (as the apodosis of the clause shows) as well as in the next section, used as a somewhat more vague equivalent for ousia, not, as Newman contends in an omitted note. for `person,' a use which is scarcely borne out by the (no doubt somewhat fluctuating) senses of fusij in the passages quoted by him from Alexander (in Theod. H.E. i. 4, cf. Origen's use of ousia, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) a) and Cyril c. Nest. iii. p. 91. fusij and ousia are nearly equivalent in the manifesto of Basil of Ancyra, whom Ath. has in view here, see Epiph. Hoer. 73. 12-22.]
219 And so taij logomaxiaij, Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. It is used with an allusion to the fight against the Word, as xristomaxein and qeomaxein. Thus logomaxein melethsantej, kai loipon pneumatomaxountej, esontai met oligon nekroi th alogia. Serap. iv. 1.
220 Cf. Hil. de Syn. 77, and appendix, note 3, also supr. p. 303, and note. The omoousion was not imposed upon Ursacius and Valens, a.d. 347, by Pope Julius; nor in the Council of Aquileia in 381, was it offered by S. Ambrose to Palladius and Secundianus. S. Jerome's account of the apology made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of the same kind. `We thought,' they said, `the sense corresponded to the words, nor in the Church of God, where there is simplicity, and a pure confession, did we fear that one thing would be concealed in the heart, another uttered by the lips. We were deceived by our good opinion of the bad.' ad Lucif. 19.
224 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
3 The following are all the details that can be collected with regard to the bishops named in the text. Asterius (Hist. Ar. 18 note); Kymatius of Paltus in Syria Prima (Apol. Fug. 3; Hist. Ar. 5); Anatolius of Euboea (not in D.C.B.); Gaius (Apol. Fug. 7; Hist. Ar. 72, D.C.B. i. 387, No. 19??); Agathus, Hist. Ar. 72 (not in D.C.B.); Ammonius (see Hist. Ar. 72 sub.-fin.; Ap. Fug. 7, Letter 49. 7, and infr. Appendix, note 1 as to names in D.C B.); Agathodaemon (Hist. Ar. ibid.); Dracontius and Adelphius (Letters 49, 60); Hermaeon (Hermion in §10) unknown, unless the `Hermes' of Hist. Ar. 72; Marcus (2), (cf. D.C.B iii. 825 (7) for works ascribed to one or the other); Paphnutius, (Hist. Ar. 72; D. C B. iv. 184 (4)); Zoilus of Andropolis (Harduin, &c., suo jure, identify him with the bishop of the Syrian Larissa, who signs at Antioch in 363, Conc. i. 742; D.C.B. iv. 1220); Andreas, George, Lucius, Macarius, Menas, and Theodore, are unknown and not in D.C.B. The names all recur (excepting those of George, Lucius, Macarius), in §10, where the sees are specified.
8 'En rh palaia, cf. Theodt. H.E. i. 3: possibly the old Town is meant, viz. the main part of Antioch on the left bank of the Orontes, so called in distinction from the `New' town of Seleucu Callinicus which occupied the Island in the river. The `Old' Church, or Church of the Apostles, was situated in the Old Town, and was at present occupied by the orthodox party of Meletius. The old orthodox party of Paulinus had only one small church in the New Town, granted for their use out of respect for Paulinus by the Arian Bishop Euzoius (Socr. H.E. iii. 9.).
31 See Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) ad fin. This is remarkable as the first Eastern condemnation of Photinus by name from the Nicene side. He had been condemned at Sirmium in 347, and under pressure from the East apparently at Milan in 345 and 347, as well as in the Councils of Antioch in 344, and Sirmium in 351 (supr. pp. 463, 464). On the document of Paulinus, see Epiph. Hoer. lxxvii. 20, 21, also Dr. Bright's note.
33 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
34 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
39 Cf. de Syn. §31 (a chapter added after the death of Constantius). The Anomoean sect, headed by Eunomius, and deriving its intellectual impetus from Aetias, belongs to the second generation of the Arian movement (their watchword is characterised as recent in the creed of Niké, 359 a.d.), and was comparatively unfamiliar to Athanasius. Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §8.
51 Auxentius (not in D.C.B.) was a native of Cappadocia (Hist. Ar. 75), and had been ordained presbyter at Alexandria by Gregory (next note). Upon the expulsion of the somewhat weak-kneed Dionysius after the council at Milan (355) he was appointed to that see by Constantius, although according to Athanasius (ubi supr.) he knew no Latin, nor any thing else except irreligion (`a busybody rather than a Christian'). He took a leading part along with Valens and others at the Council of Ariminum (de Syn. 8, 10) and was included in the deposition of Arian leaders by that synod. Under the orthodox Valentinian he maintained his see in spite of the efforts of Philaster, Evagrius, and Eusebius of Vercellae, and in spite of the condemnations passed upon him by various Western synods (362-371, see ad Epict. 1). In 364, Hilary travelled to Milan on purpose to expose him before Valentinian. In a discussion ordered by the latter, Hilary extorted from Auxentius a confession which satisfied the Emperor, but not Hilary himself, whose persistent denunciation of its insincerity caused his dismissal from the town. Auxentius seems after this to have intrigued to obtain Illyrian signatures to the creed? (Niké or Ariminum (Hard. Conc. 1. pp. 771. 773). Upon his death (374) Ambrose was elected bishop of Milan, but was confronted by the Arian party with a rival bishop in the person of a second Auxentius, said to have been a pupil of Ulfilas.
54 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
55 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
62 Bishop of CP. 338-341. On his death Paul was restored, but Maccdonius appointed by the Arians. This was in 341-2. The final expulsion and death of Paul was about the date given in the text; but the events of several years are lumped together without clear distinction.
102 The very late Arabic Life of Ath. alone gives 47 (Migne xxv. p. ccli.), a statement which we may safely ignore in view of the general character of the document which is `crowded with incredible trivialities and follies' (Montf.), outbidding by tar the `unparalleled rubbish' (id.) of the worst of the Greek biographies (see Migne xxv. p. liv. sq.).
44 We should not have much difficulty in fixing upon many of the phrases and expressions used by S. Athan. towards the close of his Epistles, by referring to the concluding sentences in the Paschal Letters of S. Cyril, who seems herein to have closely imitated his illustrious predecessor in the Patriarchate. The Syriac translator must frequently have had before him the following expressions: arxomenoi thj agiaj tessarakosthj<\episunaptontej<\sunaptontej echj<\periluontej taj nhsteiaj<\katapauontej taj nhsteiaj<\espera baqeia sabbatou<\th epifwskoush kuriakh.
18 Syr. sxhmatisamenoj. The allusion in this sentence is evidently to the conduct of Jeroboam, as recorded 1 Kings xii. 32, 1 Kings xii. 33. The phraseology of the Syriac resembles that of the Syr. version in v. 33.
2 There is sometimes a difficulty, in the absence of independent testimony, in ascertaining the exact orthography of the proper names, from the loose manner in which they are written in the Syriac. Here, however, it is clearly Hyginus, as in Sozomen, lib. ii. c. 25, Larsow writes it Eugenius. He has also the 46th instead of the 48th of the Diocletian Aera. The word `Fabius' is not clear. In Baronii Annal. Eccles, however, we find it Ovinius.
26 Ablavius, Praefect of the East, the minister and favourite of Constantine the Great, was murdered after the death of the latter. He was consul in the preceding year. Zozimus ii. 40. (Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biography.)
10 Pseudo-Ath. in Matt. xxi. 9. (Migne xxviii. 1025), after quoting the same passage from the Epistle to the Romans, says, all epedhmhsen o Kurioj hmwn 'Ihsouj Xristoj lutroumenoj touj aixmalwtouj, kai zwopoiwn to/j teqanatwmenouj.
18 The reasoning of Athan, is to this effect. The due observance of such festival will have its effect in quickening our habitual meditation on the resurrection. The same mode ot reasoning might be applied to all the other Christian festivals.
38 The phrase `setting to rights' is used for want of one that would better express the meaning. The Syriac noun is that used to render diopQwsi= in Heb. ix, 10, from n verb `to make straight, set upright, or right.'
57 The Saturdays and Sundays during Lent were not observed as fasts, with the exception of the day before Easter-day S. Ambrose says,. Quadragesima tot's praeter Sabbatum et Dominicam jejunatur diebus. vol. i. p. 545, §34. ed Par. 1686nd;90.
1 The twentieth Letter, as far as it is extant, bears a great resemblance with this. In both, the comparison between natural and spiritual food is enlarged upon, and several of the same quotations are adduced tn them, to illustrate the character of sinners and their food, as contrasted with righteous, and the nourishment they derive from God.
21 The quotation is uncertain, but see ad Diognet. v. 9; cf. also Phil. iii. 20, with which the passage in the text is coupled, and ascribed to `the Apostle,' in the probably spurious Homily on Matt. xxi. 2 (Migne xxviii. p. 177).
66 Vid. Suicer. Thes. in. voc. apokew=, and the notes of Valesius on Euseb. Orat. in laud. Constant. ch. ix. With us Easter-week includes the six days following Easter-Sunday; with the Greeks, the ebdoma= twsxwn was applied to the preceding six days, as here.
1 The text is difficult; possibly the Syriac translator is responsible for the difficulty. But we know from Ath. (supr. p. 273) that the reappointment of Philagrius was in the express interest of the Arians: it is, therefore, probable that Theodorus was not unfavourable to Athanasius. See Prolegg. ch. 11. §6 (I), and Sievers, pp. 101, 102.
3 See Prolegg. ch. v. §3 b. The letter may have been finished (see §§3, 11) after Ath. had returned home, but the language of §1 seems to be applicable only to his residence at Treveri, and §11 may be reconciled to this supposition. In thts case (§1 sub. fin.) it was probably begun as early as the Easter of 337; cf. Letters 17 and 18.
12 Thus far Athan. has been referring to the circumstancesattending his exile for the last two years, The principal subject of the remaining t consists of the duty incumbent on us to praise and thank God for deliverance from affliction, and to exercise forgiveness towards our enemies. He several times (e.g. §§3, 10) speaks of his restoration to the Church of Alexandria.
19 Rom. xiv. 2. The sense in the list few lines, and in those that follow, is clear, though the construction appears somewhat obscure. Milks, herbs, and meat are severally mentioned in connection with the different advances made in the Christian course. The translation of Larsow is less satisfactory.
21 Matt. xiii. 8. In the Syriac text, as published by Mr. Cureton, as well as in the German translation by Larsow, there, is a hiatus, here, the next two or three pages, as far as the words `He wept,' (§5 init.) being wanting. Two more leaves were afterwards discovered among the fragments in the British Museum by the learned Editor. One of tavern belongs to this part; the other to the eleventh Letter.