Athanasius 10000

Introduction de Sententia Dionysii

The following tract, like the last, is a letter to a person engaged in discussion with Arians, who were openly finding fault with the Definition of Nicaea, and especially with the word Co-essential (§19). Montfaucon suggests that both epistles were addressed to the same person, the de Decretis (§25) having as it were challenged the Arians to cite passages from Dionysius on behalf of their own doctrine, whereupon their opponent came back to Athanasius with a request for further help. But the language of the first sentence of our present tract seems to imply that Athanasius had not previously heard of the discussions in question. However, slender as such grounds are, the tract furnishes no more decisive indication of date. (On certain expressions which might seem to carry the date back to the lifetime of Arius, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §7).

Dionysius ‘the Great,’ Bishop of Alexandria 233–265, was a pupil of Origen (Eus). H. E. 6,29), and equally distinguished as a ruler of the Church and as a theologian. In all the controversies of his age (the lapsed, rebaptism, Easter, Paul of Samosata, Sabellianism, the authorship of the Apocalypse) his influence made itself felt, and his writings were very numerous (Westcott in D.C. B. 1,p. 851 sq.; a good account of Dionysius in vol. I. of this series, p. 281 note). The most celebrated controversy in which he was involved was that which, a century later, gave rise to the tract before us.

About the period when personal attacks on the Nicene leaders began to be exchanged for overt objections to the Nicene Definitions, the claim was freely made that ‘the fathers’ had been condemned by the latter: in other words, that they had held with the Arians (see (below §I, aei men profasei" … nun de kai diaballein tou" patera" tetolmhkasi). Accordingly we find Athanasius at about the same date, viz. early in the sole reign of Constantius, vindicating on the one hand the work of the Council, on the other the orthodox reputation of Dionysius. The Arians found material for their appeal to the latter in a letter addressed by him to certain bishops in Pentapolis, called Ammon and Euphranor. Whether or no Sabellius had been a native of that province, at any rate his doctrine was at that time so popular there ‘that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the Churches.’ Exercising the right of supervision over those districts which had already become vested by prescription in the Alexandrian See, Dionysius wrote to Ammon, Bishop of Berenice, (Euseb). H. E. 7,26, who enumerates three several letters to Ammon, Telesphorus, and Euphranor, and a fourth to Ammon and Euporus: he also refers to his letters to Dionysius of Rome: Montfaucon is therefore scarcely fair in charging Eusebius with suppressing the episode ‘ne verbum quidem de hac historia fecerit!’) insisting on the distinctness of the Son from the Father. In doing so he used strong expressions akin to the language of Origen on the subordination of the Son. These expressions were at once objected to by certain orthodox churchmen (§13, it is not clear whether they belonged to Pentapolis or Alexandria), who without consulting Dionysius went to Rome (about 260), and spoke against him in the presence of his namesake, the Roman Bishop. The latter, true to the traditions of his See since the time of Callistus (see (Hipp). Philos IX. vii). diqeoi este), while steering clear of Sabellianism, was especially jealous of error in the opposite direction. Accordingly he assembled a synod (de Synod.44), and drew up a letter to Alexandria, in which he rebuked firstly the Sabellians, but secondly and more fully those who separate the Godhead or speak of the Son as a work, including under this category certain unnamed catechists and teachers of Alexandria (De Decr. 26). At the same time he wrote personally to Dionysius, informing him that he was accused of maintaining the opinions in question. In answer to this letter, Dionysius of Alexandria drew up a treatise in four books, entitled ‘Refutation and Defence,’ and addressed to his namesake of Rome, in which he explained his language, and stated his belief in a manner which put an end to the controversy. He had been charged with maintaining that the. Son was made, that He was not eternal ouk aei hn o qeo" pathr, ouk aei hn o uiov, … ouk hn prin gennhqh, all hn pote ote ouk hn k.t.l. §14), that he denied the co-essentiality (ojmoouvion) of the Son, and separated Him from the Father (§16, 18, cf.Him from the Father (§16, 18, cf. §4, xevnon kat ousian k.t.l). In his Refutation and Defence, Dionysius admits the use of these expressions, withdraws the first (§15, line 1) and admits the propriety of the ojmoouvsion, although he himself prefers Scriptural language (§. 18. The section shews the unfixed use of the word. Dionysius had formerly used ousia in the sense of prwth ousia, nearly as equivalent to upostasi": but now he clearly takes it as deutera ousia,indicative not of Person but of Nature). That the Son was made, he explains as an inadequate formula, the word being applicable (in one of its many senses) to the relation of son to father (§20. The defence of Athanasius, that Dionysius referred to the Human Nature of Christ, is scarcely tenable. It is not supported by what Dionysius himself says, rather the contrary: and if his language did not refer to the Trinity, where would be its relevancy against Sabellianism?). The words hn ote ouk hn, and ouk hn prin gennhqh, he does not explain, but professes his belief in the eternal union of the Word with the Father (§§24, 25). Lastly, he repudiates the charge of dividing the Holy Trinity, or of mentioning Father and Son as though separate Beings: When I mention the Father, I have already mentioned the Son, before I pronounce His Name (§17, the closing words of the section are a complete formula of agreement with all that his Roman namesake could possibly require of him).

That Dionysius in his ‘Refutation and Defence’ merely restated, and did not (kat oikonomian) alter, his theological position is open to no doubt. Athanasius, not the Arians, had the right to claim him as his own. He is clearly speaking optima fide when he deprecates the pressing of statements in which he had given expression to one side only, and that the less essential side, of his convictions. At the same time we cannot but see that the Arians had good prima facie ground for their appeal. Here were their special formulae, those anathematised at Nicaea, hn pote ote oujk hn and the rest, adopted, and the omoouvsion implicitly rejected, by the most renowned bishop Alexandria had yet had. (Newman, in de Decr. 26, note 7, fails to appreciate the reference to the language of Dion. Alex). Moreover it is only fair to admit that not only in language, but in thought also, Athanasius had advanced upon his predecessors of the Alexandrian School. The rude shock of Arianism had shewn him and the other Nicene leaders the necessity of greater consistency than had characterised the theology of Origen and his school, a consistency to be gained only by breaking with one side of it altogether. While on the one hand Origen held fast to the Godhead of the Logos (kat ousian esti qeo"), and to His co-eternity with the Father (aei gennatai o swthr upo tou patro", and see de Decr. §27); he had yet, using ousia in its ‘first’ sense, spoken of Him as etero" kat ousian tou patro" (de Orat. 15), and placed him, after the manner of Philo, as an intermediary between God and the Universe. He had spoken of the unity of the Father and the Son as moral (Cels. 8,12, th omonoia kai th sumfwnia), insisted upon the uperoch of the Father (i.e. ‘subordination’ of the Son), and spoken (De Orat) as though the highest worship of all were to be reserved for the Father (Jerome ascribes still stronger language to him). Yet there is no real doubt that, as regards the core of the question, Athanasius and not his opponents is the true successor of Origen. The essential difference between Athanasius and the ‘Conservatives’ of the period following the great council consisted in the fact that the former saw clearly what the latter failed to realise, namely the insufficiency of the formulae of the third century to meet the problem of the fourth. We may then, without disparagement to Dionysius, admit that he was not absolutely consistent in his language; that he failed to distinguish the ambiguities which beset the words ousia, upostasi", and even poiein and genesqai, and that he used language (ouk hn prin gennhqh and the like) which we, with our minds cleared by the Arian controversy, cannot reconcile with the more deliberate and guarded statements of the ‘Refutation and Defence220 .’

The controversy of the two Dionysii has another interesting side, as hearing upon the means then employed for dealing with questions affecting the Church as a whole,—and in particular upon the position of the Roman Church as the natural referee in such questions. (Cf. Prolegg. ch. 4,§4). This is not the place for a general discussion of the question, or for an attempt to trace its history previous to the case before us. But it should be noted, firstly, that when the Pentapolite (?) opponents of Dionysius desire a lever against him, their first resource is not a council of local bishops, but the Roman Church: secondly, that the Roman bishop takes up the case, and writes to his Alexandrian namesake for an explanation: thirdly, that the explanation asked for is promptly given. Unfortunately the fragment of the Roman letter preserved to us by Athenasius tells us nothing of the form of the intervention, whether it was the request of one co-trustee to another for an explanation of the latter’s action in a matter concerning their common trust, or whether it was coupled with any assumption of jurisdiction at all like that involved in the letter of the Bishop of Alexandria to those of Libya. At any rate, the latter alternative has no positive evidence in our documents; and the fragments of the Refutation and Defence ‘shew the most complete and resolute independence. There is nothing in the narrative of Athanasius which implies that the Alexandrine Bishop recognised or that the Roman Bishop claimed any dogmatic authority as belonging to the Imperial See.’ The letter of Dionysius of Rome is certainly highly characteristic of the indifference to theological reasoning and the close adherence to the rule of faith as the authoritative solution of all questions of doctrine which marks the genius of Rome as contrasted with that of Alexandria (see (Gore, The Church and the Ministry, ch. 1,sub fin.,and Harnack, Dg. 1,686, who observes upon the striking family likeness between this letter and that of Leo to Flavian, and of Agatho to the Sixth Ecumenical Council). Lastly, the Roman Church, which never troubled about a precedent adverse to her imperial instinct, never forgot one which favoured it. The intervention of Dionysius was treasured up in her memory, and, when the time came, fully exploited (supr. p. 113, note 3, where the note distinguishes somewhat too carefully between the ‘Pope’ of Rome and the ‘Bishop,’ papa", of Alexandria).

The tract of Athanasius, with his extracts in de decr. and de Syn., tell us all that we know of the history of this important controversy. Dionysius had previously (Eus). H. E. 7,6) had some correspondence with Xystus, the previous Bishop of Rome, on the subject of the Sabellian teaching current in the Pentapolis. He was in fact during his episcopate in constant communication with Rome and with the other important churches of the Christian World. His letters are much used in the sixth and seventh books of the History of Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for most of our knowledge of his writings.

The general arrangement of the tract is as follows :—

§1–4 are prefatory, the fourth section broadly indicates the line of the defence. §§5–12 deal with the incriminated passages: Athan. gives the history of them, and lays stress on their incomplete presentation of the belief of Dionysius, as having been written for a special purpose,—as may also be said of much of the language of the Apostles. But even in themselves the expressions of Dionysius are orthodox, referring (as Athenasius claims) to Christ as man. In §§13–23 he turns to the Refutation and Defence, from which he makes copious extracts, bringing out the diametrical opposition between Dionysius and the Arians. In §§24, 25 the anti-Arian doctrine of Dionysius is summed up, and §26 recapitulates the main points of §§5–12. He concludes (§27) by claiming a verdict upon the evidence, and urging upon the Arians the alternative of abandoning their error, or of being left with the devil as their only partisan.

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,” eusebeia", 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 asebh", as being without devotion, the Son eusebhz, devout, as paying devotion to the Father.” Socr). Hist. 2,43. Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with alhqw" eusebia. Theod. Hist. 1,4.
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. 1,6. 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. 5,i. Aub., Naz. Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the Arians, vid. infra, §4. &c). Orat. 2,40. 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.
4 (
Ps 2,1,
5 epiceirhma. and so Orat. 1,§44. init. but infra. §25). epiceirhmata means more definitely reasonings or argumentations.
6 alogia"; 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. 1,§35. fin. §40. init. §62). Orat. 2,§7. init. Hence he so often calls the Arians “mad” and “deranged;” e.g. “not aware how ‘mad’ their ‘reason’ is.” Orat. i. §37.
7 (Jn 6,30,
8 Jn 11,47.
9 Jn 10,33.
10 (Mt 4,23,
11 Or ungodliness, aqeothto". Thus Aetius was called o aqeo", the ungodly). de Synod. §6; and Axius complains that Alexander had expelled him and his from Alexandria, w" anqrwpou" aqeou". Theodor. Hist. 1,4. “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 Da 6,11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius at heist, for his treatment of Hosius; oute ton qeon fobhqei" o aqeo"). 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.]
12 A reference to Pr 18,1. which runs in the LXX. “a man seeketh occasions, when desirous of separating himself from friends.”
13 Apparently an allusion to Jn 18,12. Elsewhere, he speaks of “the chief captain” and “the governor,” with an allusion to . &c). Hist. Arian. §66. fin. vid. also §2). Apol. contr. Arian. §8. also §10. and 45). Orat. 2,§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.
14 diaqesi". vid. also Hist. Arian. §45). Orat. 2,§4. where Parker maintains without reason that it should be translated, “external condition.” vid. also Theod). Hist. 1,4. init.
15 epispeiranto" tou diabolou, the allusion is to Mt 13,25, and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism. He draws it out at length, Orat. 2,§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. 4,40. n. 3. using it of such as lead to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. 5,10. 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.
18 Vid). Orat. 3,§28.
19 qeomacein, qeomacoi. vid. Ac 5,39 Ac 23,9. are of very frequent use in Athan. as is cristomacoi, in speaking of the Arians, vid). infra passim. also antimacomenoi tw owthri, Ep. Encycl. §5. And in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. 1,6. p. 10. b.c.p. 12. p. 13. Theod). Hist. 1,3. p. 729. And so qeomaco" glwssa, Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,27. fin). cristomacwn). Ep. 236. init. vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. 19 e. p. 24 e).). qeomaco" glwssa, is used of other heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz). Orat. 45. §8.
20 i.e. “convicted themselves,” infr. §18. init). eautwn aei kathgoroi, ad). Ep. Aeg. §6. i.e. by their variations, vid. Tt 3,11). autokatakrito".
21 genhtwn.
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. 2,§8 (2) b.]
23 propinonte" vid). de Syn. §14.
24 (Jc 1,8).
25 Hermas, Mand. ix., who is speaking immediately, as S. James, of wavering in prayer.
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. 1,2. vid. also Theod). Graec. Affect. 1,p. 707. &c. August). Civ. Dei, 18,41. and Vincentius’s celebrated Commonitorium passim.
27 (1Jn 2,7,
28 (1Tm 3,8,
29 (Ga 1,8-9,
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. 3,§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. 1,3, p. 731. ‘satanical,’ ibid. p. 741. vid. also Socr. 1,9. p. 30 fin. Hilar). contr. Const. 17).
31 katacrhstikw". 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. 2,23. and by Cyril, Dial. 2,t. 5,i. pp. 432, 3.
32 Vid). Ep. Aeg. 12). Orat. i. §5. 6. de Synod. 15, 16. Athanas. seems to have had in mind Socr. 1,6. p. 10, 11, or the like.
33 Vid. Orat. 1,§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. 2,§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 (fanerw"), that the Father’s substance was unlike, anomoio", the Son’s. ibid. 1,1. 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.
34 (Dt 13,18 Dt 14,1,
35 Jn 1,12.
36 Theod). Hist. 1,3.
37 This is celebrated as an explanation of the Anomoeans. vid. Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,20, 21. though Athan. speaks of it as belonging to the elder Arians. vid. Socr). Hist. 1,6.
38 i.e. what is your authority? is it not a novel, and therefore a wrong doctrine? vid. infr. §13). ad Serap. 1,3. Also Orat. 1,§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. 2,§34. and Socr. 1,6. p. 11 c.
39 (Is 40,28,
40 Is 40,29.
41 (
42 Vid. infr. §17 Orat. 2,§31. 71. Irenaeus calls the Son and Holy Spirit the Hands of God). Haer. iv, praef. vid. also Hilar). de Trin. 7,22. This image is in contrast to that of instrument, organon, which the Arians would use of the Son. vid Socr. 1,6. p. 11, as implying He was external to God, whereas the word Hand implies His consubstantiality with the Father.
43 (Is 66,2,
44 maqwn edidasken, implying the traditional nature of the teaching. And so S. Paul himself, 1Co 15,3, vid. for an illustration, supr. §5. init. also note 2.
45 (1Co 8,6,
46 (Jr 1,5,
47 Orat. 2,§24. fin.
48 Vid. infr. 20). Orat. i §31. ii. §§24, 28. 37. 40. 3,§§2. 60). de Synod §§18. 19). [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3(2)a.]
49 Vid. also infr. §20). de Synod. §17.
50 Vid. infr. §24). Orat. 1,§15. fin. 2,§29. Epiph). Haer. 76. p. 951.
51 (Jr 1,5,
52 (Is 66,2,
53 Is 44,2.
54 (Ps 119,73,
55 (Is 49,5).
56 (Ps 148,5,
57 In like manner, ‘Men were made through the Word, when the Father Himself willed.’ Orat. 1,63. ‘The Word forms matter as injoined by, and ministering to, God.’ prostattomeno" kai utournwn. ibid. 2,§22). contr. Gent. 46. vid. note on Orat. ii. 22.
58 ad Serap. 1,3.
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. Augustin 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.
60 (Is 1,2,
61 ‘To say God is wholly partaken, is the same as saying that God begets.Orat. 1,§16. And in like manner, our inferior participation involves such sonship as is vouchsafed to us.
62 And so in Orat. 2,§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.’ 2,20. And so Gregory Nyssen contr. Eunom. 3,p. 132 D. Epiph). Haer. 76. p. 970.
63 (Mt 25,21 Mt 25,23 Mt 25,34.
64 i.e. since it is impossible they can persist in evasions so manifest as these, nothing is left but to take the other sense of the word.
65 Paul of Samosata [see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2)a.]
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. 2,p. 91. Again S. Basil says, that Father is ‘a term of relationship,’ oikeiwsew". contr). Eunom. 2,24. init. And hence he remarks, that we too are properly, kuriw", sons of God, as becoming related to Him through works of the Spirit. 2,23. 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. 2,22. 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.
67 vid. Eusebius, in his Letter, supr. p. 73 sq.: also Socr). Hist. i 8. Epiphan). Haer. 69. n 8 and 15.
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.
69 vid). Orat. 3,§35, and Isa. i. 22.
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, 3,8. 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. 1,§21. fin. ‘It belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly (kuriw") Father, and the Son properly (kuriw") 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. 1,p. 24). Thesaur. 32. p. 281. and Damascene de Fid. Orth. 1,8. The same parallel, as existing between creation and generation is insisted on by Isidor. Pel). Ep. 3,355. Basil contr. Eun. 4,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 148,5, 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. 3,p. 420–422.
72 Vid). de Synod. §51). Orat. i. §15, 16. reusth. vid). Orat. 1,§28. Bas. in Eun. 2,23). 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 4,init. p. 505 E. speaks of the qrulloumeh, and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Athan. disclaims it, Expos. §1). Orat. 1,§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, 1,2. It is derived from Sg 7,25.
74 (Mt 3,17,
75 The title ‘Word’ implies the ineffable mode of the Son’s generation, as distinct from material parallels, vid. Gregory Nyssen, contr. Eunom. 3,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, 4,1. 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. 5,p. 35).
77 (Mt 11,27,
78 (He 1,3,
79 (Ps 36,9,
80 (Ba 3,12,
81 (Jr 2,13, . infr. passim. All these titles, ‘Word, Wisdom, Light’ &c., serve to guard the title ‘Son’ from any notions of parts or dimensions, ‘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. 1,§28.
82 Ad Serap. 20.
83 (Jn 14,6,
84 Jn 14,9.
85 (Pr 8,22, and cf). Orat. ii. throughout
86 Eusebius of Nicomedia quotes it in his Letter to Paulinus, ap. Theodor). Hist. 1,5. And Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstr. Evang. 5,1.
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.’
88 Serap. 2, 6). Sent. Dion §4.
89 (Gn 1,1,
90 (Ps 110,3,
91 (Ps 2,7,
92 (Pr 8,25,
93 (Jn 1,3,
94 Jn 1,18.
95 peribombousin. So in ad Afros. 5. init. And Sent. D. §19). periercontai peribombounte". And Gregory Nyssen). contr. Eun. 8,p. 234 C). w" an tou" apeirou" tai" platwnikai" kallifwniai peribombhseien. vid. also periercontai w" oi kanqaroi). Orat 3,fin).
96 proswpa. vid). Orat. 1,§54. 2,§8). Sent. D. 4. not persons, but characters; which must also be considered the meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. 2,2. 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.
97 (He 2,15,
98 (Pr 8,22,
99 Sent. D. 9). Orat. 3, §§26–41.
100 [See de Incar. §54. 3, and note.]
101 Orat. 2, §70.
102 Cf). Orat. 2,6). [See also de Incar. §17.]
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. 2,§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.’
104 (1Co 1,24,
105 (Jn 1,14,
106 Vid. supr. §12.
107 Vid. supr. §1. note 2, bis.
108 alogo", asofo". Vid. infr., §26. This is a frequent argument in the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Son or substantial Word (logo"), is as great a sacrilege as to deny His Reason, logo", from which the Son receives His name. Thus Orat 1,§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 3,63. 4,12). Serap. 2,2.
109 Vid. above, §1, note 6.
110 These were among the original positions of the Arians; for the former, see above, note 1; the latter is one of those specified in the Nicene Anathema.
111 And so phgh xhra). Serap. ii. 2). Orat. 1,§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 (karpogono"), 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 qeothto", Pseudo-Dion). Div. Nom. c. 2). phgh ekprhgh", 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 (sfragi") 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. 1,6. Theod). H.E.i. 3, and infr. Orat. ii.37, 38.
113 (Jn 10,30,
114 beltiousqai.
115 Vid). de Syn. §15.
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. 12,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. 5,i. p. 679.
117 ‘If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea (carakthra) of Christianity, they would not have said that the Lord of glory was a creature.’ Ad Serap. 2,7. 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. 2,§2. ’How is them Word and Wisdom, unless He be a proper offspring of His substance? ii. §22. Vid. also Orat. 1,§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. 7,11. August. in Joan. 48,6. and in Psalm. 44,5. Psalm (xlv). 5).
119 (Is 48,13,
120 (Is 51,16,
121 (Ps 104,24,
122 (Pr 3,19,
123 (Jn 1,1-3.
124 (He 1,1-2,
125 (1Co 8,6,
126 (.
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.’
128 diarragwsin, and so Serap. 2,fin). diarrhgnuwntai). de Syn. 34). diarrhgnuwsin eautou"). Orat. 2,§23). sparattetwsan eautou"). Orat. 2,§64). trizetw tou" odonta"). Sent. D. 16.
129 [Prolegg. ch. 2,§6(2).]
130 supr. §7, note 2
131 ex ouk ontwn.
132 (He 11,3,
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. 1,2. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages thus considered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. 11,3. and God is the King of the ages, Tim. 1. 17. or is before all ages, as being eternal, or proaiwnio". 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. 2,1, 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 3,addresses the Almighty as aiwnotoke, parent of the ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Ciera. Alex). Hymn. Poed. 3,fin. or, the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion). de Div. Nom. 5. p. 580. or again, aiwnio". 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 (aiwnio") 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. 12,34.
134 Herm). Mand. 1. vid). ad Afr. 5.
135 [Letter 39, and Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.] He calls it elsewhere a most profitable book). Incarn. 3.
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 agenhto", 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.
137 Vid. §10, note 3.
138 vid). ad. Afr. 5.
139 (1Co 8,6,
140 (2Co 5,17,
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. 1,56. 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 ex ousia", 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 gennhto" and genhto".]
142 Cf). de Syn. §35).
143 (1Co 8,6,
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, agenho", 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. 1,14.
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. 1,9. 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.
146 aparallakton.
147 (1Co 11,7,
148 (2Co 4,11,
149 (Ac 17,28,
150 Rm 8,35, who shall separate.
151 (Jl 2,25,
152 (Ex 12,41,
153 (Ps 46,7,
154 vid. supr. §8, note 3.
155 (Pr 12,20,
156 vid). ad Afros. 5, 6). ad Serap. 2,5. 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 3,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 enwsi" th" monadikh" ousia", ‘the union of the single essence,’ vid. Le Quien in Damasc). Fid. Orth. 1,8. 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 aparallakto" unvarying[or rather exact] image, vid. beginning of §20. which had been used by the Catholics (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod). Hist. 1,3. p. 740). as by the Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words katAE ousian, or ‘according to substance.’ Even this strong phrase, however, katAE ousian aparallakto" eikwn, or aparallaktw" omoio", 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, 3,c. 5,p. 302). [See below de Syn. 15, note 2.]
158 (Gn 5,3,
159 vid. Euseb.’s Letter, supr.
160 gennhma, offspring; this word is of very frequent occurrence in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. 4,3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. 2,6–8. 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. 3,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. 4,2. Pseudo-Basil). adv. Eunom. 4,p. 280. fin.
161 (Ps 45,1,
162 Ps 110,3.
163 (Jn 8,42,
164 Jn 6,46.
165 Jn 10,30 Jn 14,10.
166 Jn 1,18.
167 sumbebhko". Cf). Orat. 4,2. also Orat. 1,36. 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 ontw" on, and His unity of nature, to monofue", as in the number of episumbebhkota autw. Eusebius uses the word sumbebhko" in the same way [but see Orat. 4,2, note 8], Demonstr). Evang. 4,3. 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. 5,6. 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. 1,7–11. and especially 2,3. 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.
169 (Ex 3,14-15,
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. 1,10 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. 7,6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, ‘Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is essence and being.’ Praep). Evang. 11,10.
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. 4,§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.
172 vid). de Syn. §41).
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.
175 Vid. §10 init. note 4.
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. 4,9. 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. 1,2. n. 4.
179 From Wisdom 7,25. and so Origen, Periarch. 1,2. n. 5. and 9. and Athan). de Sent. Dionys. 15.
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 exetasa". And so §27. of Origen, xhtwn kai gumnazwn. Constantine too, writing to Alexander and Arius, speaks of altercation, fusikh" tino" gumnasia" eneka. Socr. 1,7. In somewhat a similar way, Athanasius speaks of Dionysius writing katAE 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. 1,8. 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. 3,§15. vid. also 4,§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 trei" arcikai upostasei", 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, memerismena", 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 trei" upostasei" memerismena", Expos). Fid. §2. In S. Greg. Naz. we find ameristoz en memerismenoiz h qeothz). Orat. 31. 14. Elsewhere for mem. he substitutes aperrhgmena"). Orat. 20. 6). apexenwmena" allhlwn kai diespasmena"). Orat. 23. 6. as infr). xena" allhlwn pantapasi kecwrismena". The passage in the text comes into question in the controversy about the ex upostasew" h ousia" of the Nicene Creed, of which infr. on the Creed itself in Eusebius’s Letter.
185 emfilocwrein.
186 The word tria", usually translated Trinity, is first used by Theophilus, ad Autol. 2,15. 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; tria" 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 tria" 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 mona" taught the doctrine of ‘a one’ or a numerical unity. ‘Singularitatem hanc dico (says S. Ambrose), quod Graece monoth" dicitur; singularitas ad personam pertinet, unitas ad naturam.’ de Fid. 5,1. 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.
187 (Pr 8,22,
188 (Dt 32,6,
189 (Col 1,15, and Ps 110,3,
190 (Pr 8,25,
191 gegennhsqai.
192 gegonenai.
193 gegonenai.
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 ex 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, Pr 8,22. 3. The same texts were used by the Carbolics, which occur in the Arian controversy. e.g. Dt 32,6. against Pr 8,22. and such as Ps 110,3. Pr 8,25. and the two Jn 10,30 Jn 14,10. 4. The same Catholic symbols and statements are found, e.g. ‘begotten not made,’ ‘one in essence,’ ‘Trinity,’ adiaireton, anarcon, aeigene", ‘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.]
195 filoponou, and so Serap. 4,9). [This place is referred to by Socr. vi. 13.]
196 a men w" zhtwn kai gumnazwn ergaye, tauta mh w" autou fronounto" decesqw ti", alla twn pro" erin filoneikountwn en tw zhtein, adew" orizwn apofainetai, touto tou filoponou to fronhma esti.  Jalla. Certe legendum allAE a, idque omnino exigit sensus. Montfaucon. Rather for adew" read a de w", and put the stop at zhtein instead of decesqw ti".
197 Supr. §5).
198 vid. supr. §4). Orat. 1,§7). Ad Afros. 2, twice. Apol). contr. Arian. 7). ad Ep. Aeg. 5. Epiph. Hoer 70. 9. Euseb). Vit. Const. 3,6. 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 eggrafw" ezeteqh with reference to them. Thus Damasus, Theod). H. E. 5,10. 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. (eggrafw", however, sometimes relates to the act of subscribing; Phot). ibid. or to Scripture, Clement). Strom. 1,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. 7,7)., and ‘He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.’ Pr 22,28 Ex 21,17. 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. 5,p. 452). [t. 4,1453 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. 5,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. 3,14. 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.
200 Supr. §21. init.
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. 1,56.]
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 2,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. 4,c. 16. vid. Porphyry in Cyril). contr. Julian. 8,t. ult. p. 271. vid. ibid. 1,p. 32). Plot. 3 Ennnead. 5,2 and 3. Athan.’s testimony that the Platonists considered their three upostasei" all unoriginate is perhaps a singular one. In 5 Ennead. iv. 1. Plotinus says what seems contrary to it, h de arch agennhto", speaking of his tagaqon. Yet Plato, quoted by Theodoret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of eite archn eite arca".
203 epei malistai, oti malista, Orat. 1. §36). de Syn. §21. fin). otan malista, Apol. ad Const. 23). kai malista, de Syn. §42, 54.
204 Cf. §18, n. 8.
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. 2,50. 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. 1,§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. 2,§28. An apparent allusion to the punishment of blasphemy and idolatry under the Jewish Law. vid). [Ex. xix. 13. and] reference to Ex 21,17, 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.
209 The whole of this passage is repeated in Orat. i 32. &c. vid. for this particular argument, Basil also, contr. Eunom. 1,16).
210 i.e. of hosts.
211 (Jn 14,9-10,
212 Jn 10,30.
213 (Mt 6,9,
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. 2,22. And a somewhat similar passage occurs Orat. ii. §41.
215 uiopoioumeqa alhqw". 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, kuriw", ‘properly,’ and prwtw" ‘primarily,’ in opposition to tropikw", ‘figuratively,’ contr. Eunom. 2,23. S. Cyril too says, that we are sons ‘naturally’ fusikw" as well as kata carin, vid. Suicer Thesaur. 5,uio". 1,3. Of these words, alhqw", fusikw", kuriw", and prwtw", the first two are commonly reserved for our Lord; e.g). ton alhqw" uion, Orat. 2,§37). hmei" uioi, ouk w" ekeino" fusei kai alhqeia, 3,§19. Hilary seems to deny us the title of ‘proper’ sons; de Trim. 12,15; but his ‘proprium’ is a translation of idion, not kuriw". And when Justin says of Christ o mono" legomeno" kuriw" uio", Apol. 2,6). kuriw" seems to be used in reference to the word kurio", 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 kurio", 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 28,1. 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, fusikw", 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. 3,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 paqou", 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, idio" uio" and monogenh", 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).
216 (Ga 4,6,
217 Cf). contr. Gent. init). Incarn. 57). ad Ep. Aeg. 4. Vit. Ant. 16. And passim in Athan.
218 And so, Orat. 2,§32, kata tou" muqeuomenou" giganta". And so Nazianzen, Orat. 43. 26. speaking of the disorderly Bishops during the Arian ascendancy. Also Socr. 5, 10. Sometimes the Scripture giants are spoken of, sometimes the mythological.
219 (Jr 13,23).
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)).

Athanasius 10000