Athanasius 18000
18000
The word ‘tome’ (tomo") means either a section, or, in the case of such a document as that before us, a concise statement. It is commonly applied to synodical letters (cf. the ‘Tome’ of Leo, a.d. 450, to Flavian).
Upon the accession of Julian (November, 361) the Homoean ascendancy which had marked the last six years of Constantius collapsed. A few weeks after his accession (Feb. 362) an edict recalled all the exiled Bishops. On Feb. 21 Athanasius re-appeared in Alexandria. He was joined there by Lucifer of Cagliari and Eusebius of Vercellae, who were in exile in Upper Egypt. Once more free, he took up the work of peace which had busied him in the last years of his exile (see (Prolegg. ch. 2,§9). With a heathen once more on the throne of the Caesars, there was everything to sober Christian party spirit, and to promise success to the council which met under Athanasius during the ensuing summer. Among the twenty-one bishops who formed the assembly the most notable are Eusebius of Vercellae, Asterius of Petra, and Dracontius of Lesser Hermopolis and Adelphius of Onuphis, the friends and correspondents of Athanasius. The rest, with the exception of Anatolius of Euboea, were all from Egypt and Marmarica, and (probably three only) from S.W. Asia. The council (Newman, Arians, 5,i.; Gwatkin, Stud. p. 205, Krüger, Lucif. 45–53, was occupied with four problems: (1) The terms on which communion should be vouchsafed to those Arians who desired to re-unite (§§3, 8). They were to be asked for nothing beyond the Nicene test, and an express anathema against Arianism, including the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a Creature. The latter point had been rising into prominence of late, and had called forth from Athanasius his four Discourses to Serapion of Thmuis. The emphatic way in which the point is pressed in §3, implies that an attempt was being made in some quarter to subscribe the Nicene Creed, while maintaining the Arian position with regard to the Holy Spirit. The language of §3 cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis (Gwatkin, Studies, 233), that no formal requirement was made by this council on the subject. The person aimed at was possibly Acacius, who (Serap. 4,7) had treated the subject with levity, and yet was now disposed to come to terms (as he did a year later, Socr. 3,25). It is true that we find the names of Macedonius and his followers (N.B. not Eleusius) in the number of the 59 who betook themselves to Liberius (Socr. 4,12), and neither in their letter nor in his reply is there any allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; and that Basil (Ep 204), with the sanction of Athanasius (cf. below, Letters 62, 63), did not press the test upon those who were otherwise orthodox. But the council of 362 has Syrian circumstances specially in view; and however we may explain it, its language is too clear to be mistaken. (On the general subject, cf). Letter 55). (2) The Arian Christology also occupied the council (§7). The integrity of Christ’s human nature on the one hand, its perfect Union with the Word on the other, are clearly emphasised. This question had begun to come into prominent discussion in several parts of the Christian world (e.g. at Corinth, see infr. Letter 59), and was soon to give rise to the system of Apollinarius, who, however, it is interesting to note, was a party, by his legates, to the present decision. (3) The state of the Church at Antioch was the most practical problem before the council. Meletius was returning to the presidency of the main body of the Antiochene church, whose chief place of worship was the ‘Palaea’ (§3). Since the deposition of Eustathius (c. 330), the intransigent or ‘protestant’ body had been without a bishop, and were headed by the respected presbyter Paulinus. Small in numbers, and dependent for a church upon the good will of the Arians, they were yet strong in the unsullied orthodoxy of their antecedents, in the sympathy of the West and of Athanasius himself, who had given offence at Antioch in 346 by worshipping with them alone. Clearly the right course was that they should reunite with the main body under Meletius, and this was what the council recommended (§3), although, perhaps in deference to the more uncompromising spirits, the union is treated (ib. and 4) as a return of the larger body to the smaller, instead of vice versa. (For the sequel, see Prolegg). ubi supra.) (4) With the rivalry of parties at Antioch, a weighty question of theological terminology was indirectly involved. The word vupvotasis" had been used in the Nicene anathema as a synonym of oujsiva (see (Excursus A, pp. 77 sqq. above), and in this sense it was commonly used by Athanasius in agreement with the New Testament use of the word (Westcott on He 1,3), with Dionysius of Rome, and with the West, to whom ujpovstasis" was etymologically identified with ‘Substantia’ their (perhaps imperfect) equivalent for oujsiva. On the other hand, the general tendency of Eastern Theology had been to use ujpovstasi" in the sense of Subject or Person, for which purpose it expressed the idea of individual essence less ambiguously than provswpon. This was the use of the word adopted by Origen, Dionysius Alex. (supr. de Sent. Dionys.), Alexander of Alexandria (in his letter Thdt. H.E. 1,4. p. 16, 1,19), and by Athanasius himself in an earlier work (p. 90, supr.) At Antioch the Eustathians appear to have followed the Nicene and Western usage, using the word to emphasise the Individual Unity of God as against Arian or Subordinationist views, while the Meletians protested against the Marcellian monarchianism by insisting on three Hypostases in the Godhead. The contradiction was mainly verbal, the two parties being substantially at one as to the doctrine, but varying in its expression. Hence the wise and charitable decision of the council, which came naturally from one who, like Athanasius, could use either expression, though he had come to prefer the Western to the Eastern use224 .
The Tome was carried to Antioch by the five bishops named at the beginning of §1, and there subscribed by Paulinus and Karterius of Antaradus. As to its effect among the friends of Meletius our information is only inferential (see (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 208). On the supposed disciplinary legislation of this council in relation to the Syntagma Doctrinoe, see Prolegg. ch. 2,§§9.
N.B. The translation of the present tract as well as that of the ad Afros and of Letters 56, 59, 60, 61, was made independently of that by Dr. Bright in his Later Treatises of S. Athanasius (see (Prolegg. ch. i. §2), but has been carefully collated with it, and in not a few cases improved by its aid. For a fuller commentary on these pieces than has been possible in this volume, the reader is referred to Dr. Bright’s work).
1 [On the Prefects, see Gibbon, ch. xvii., and Gwatkin, pp. 272–281.]
2 [Cf). Hist. Ar. 74, D.C.B. ii. 661.] At a later date he approached very nearly to Catholicism.
3 [See Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (1), and, on the Arian leaders at this time, §8 (2).]
4 Cf). de Decr. §2.
5 Infr. §12, note.
6 Cf. Ammianus, Hist. 21,16. Eusebius). Vit. Const. 2,61).
7 Cf). Orat. 2,§34. And Hilary de Syn. 91; ad Const. 2,7.
8 Cf. Hil). ad Const. 2,4, 5.
9 Cf. Tertull). de Praescr. 37; Hil). de Trin. 6,21; Vincent. Lir). Commonit. 24; Jerom). in Lucif. 27; August). de Bapt. contr. Don. 3,3.
10 [Cf). Hist. Ar. §52 66, 76, 44, and Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (2), c. 2, and §6 (1).]
11 ‘He who speaketh of his own, ek twn idiwn, speaketh a lie.’ Athan). contr. Apoll. 1,fin …The Simonists, Dositheans, &c. …each privately (idiw") and separately has brought in a private opinion.’ Hegesippus, ap Euseb). Hist. 4,22. 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. 2,40.
12 Vid). supr. Orat. 3,§47.
13 Cf. Tertull. Praescr. 29; Vincent, Comm. 24; Greg. Naz). ad Cledon Ep. 102, p. 97.
14 Cf. D.C.A. 1,588 sqq).
15 prodromo", praecursor, is almost a received word for the predicted apostasy or apostate (vid. note on S. Cyril’s Cat. 15,9), 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. 2,40) observes, ‘How call you those who met at Antioch Fathers, O Eleusius, you who deny their Fathers,’ &c.
17 oligoi tine", says Pope Julius, supr. p. 118, cf). tine", p. 225.
18 Infr. §9, note.
19 Ad Ep. Aeg. 10.
20 Vid). de Decr. init. and §4. We shall have abundant instances of the Arian changes as this Treatise proceeds. Cf. Hilary contr. Constant. 23. Vincent). Comm. 20.
21 Vid). de Decr. 1. note.
22 Vid). de Decr. 32, note.
23 Cf. the opinion of Nectarius and Sisinnius. Socr. 5,10.
24 [On Demophilus and Gaius see D.C.B. i. 812, 387 (20); on Auxentius, ad Afr. note Q.]
25 [See Prolegg. ch. 2,§8 (2), and Introd. to this Tract.]
26 8th Confession, or 3rd Sirmian, of 359, vid. §29, infr.
27 May 22, 359, Whitsun-Eve.
28 On the last clause, see Prolegg). ubi supra.
29 [Cf). Tom. ad. Ant. 5, Soz. iii. 12.]
30 Cf. Socr. 2,39; Soz. 4,10; Theod). H.E. 2,19; Niceph. 1,40. The Latin original is preserved by Hilary, Fragm. viii., but the Greek is followed here, as stated supr. Introd.
31 The Hilarian Latin is much briefer here).
32 347.
33 The whole passage is either much expanded by Athan., or much condensed by Hilary.
34 Auxentius, omitted in Hilary’s copy. A few words are wanting in the Latin in the commencement of one of the sentences which follow). [See above, note 3.]
35 The Greek here mistranslates ‘credulitatem’ as though it were ‘crudelitatem.’ The original sense is the heathen are kept back from believing.
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. 7,3). [The decree is now re-translated from the Greek.]
37 [On the subsequent events at Ariminum, see Prolegg). ubi supra.]
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.
39 [Of Tripolis, D.C.B. 3,688 (3).]
40 [‘Theodosius’ infr.]
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. 3,38.
43 Acacius had written to the Semi-Arian Macedonius of Constantinople in favour of the kata panta omoion, and of the Son’s being th" auth" ousia", and this the Council was aware of. Soz. 4,22. Acacius made answer that no one ancient or modern was ever judged by his writings. Socr. 2,40.
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.
45 Pork contractor to the troops, upodekthn, Hist. Arian. 75. vid. Naz). Orat. 21. 16.
46 [Cf). supr. pp. 237, 267.]
47 Supr. §5, note 1.
48 On the word AEAreiomanitai, Gibbon observes, ‘The ordinary appellation with which Athanasius and his followers chose to compliment the Arians, was that of Ariomanites,’ ch. 21,note 61. Rather, the name originally was a state title, injoined by Constantine, vid. Petav). de Trin. 1,8 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, AEAre" areie, with an allusion to Hom). Il. 5,31. A second reason, or rather sense, of the appellation was that, denying the Word, they have forfeited the gift of reason, e.g). twn AEAreiomanitwn thn alogian). de Sent. Dion. init. 24 fin). Orat. 2,§32, 3,§63). [The note, which is here much condensed, gives profuse illustrations of this figure of speech.]
49 Vid). supr. pp. 152, 74.
50 w" hqelhsen. vid. also de Decr. §3). w" hqelhsan). ad Ep. Aeg. 5.
51 §5, note 1).
52 Ad Ep. Aeg. 6.
53 Cf). Orat. 1,§§2–5; de Sent. D. 6; Socr. 1,9. 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. 2,2. 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. 7,11; 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. 14,4. 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. 1,9). [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.]
54 This passage ought to have been added supr. p. 163, note 8, as containing a more direct denial of the omoousion.
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. 4,§2, and what Arius imputed to the Church.
56 anepimiktoi, that is, he denied the pericwrhsi", vid). supr. Orat. iii. 3, &c.
57 [Jn 1,18, best mss., and cf. Hort, Two Diss. p. 26).
58 epinoiai", that is, our Lord’s titles are but names, or figures, not properly belonging to Him, but [cf. Bigg). B.L. p. 168 sq.]
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.
60 [The ordinary title of eminent bishops, especially of the bishop of Alexandria.]
61 What the Valentinian probolh was is described in Epiph). Haer. 31, 13 [but see D.C.B. 4,1086 sqq.] Origen protests against the notion of probolh, Periarch. 4,p. 190, and Athanasius Expos. §1. The Arian Asterius too considers probolh to introduce the notion of teknogonia, Euseb). contr. Marc. 1,4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph). Haer. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word proballesqai). (Qo Theol. 1,8. 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 proboleu" of the Holy Spirit). Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the word here as an argumentum ad invidiam. Hil). de Trin. 6,9.
62 The Manichees adopting a material notion of the divine substance, considered that it was divisible, and that a portion of it was absorbed by the power of darkness.
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. 2,5: Cf., as to Marcellus, Cyr. Hier). Catech. 15,9. also iv. 8. 11,16; Epiph). Haer 73. 11 fin.: to Sabellians, Athan). Expos. Fid. 2. and 7, and Greg. Nyssen). contr. Eun. 12,p. 733: to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex). in Joann. p. 243: to Praxeas and Montanus, Mar. Merc. p. 128: to Sabellius, Caesar). Dial. 1,p. 550: to Noetus, Damasc). Haer. 57.
64 [On Hieracas, see D.C.B. 3,24; also Epiph). Haer. 67; Hil). Trin. 6,12.]
65 Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here spoken of as held that our Lord’s sugkatabasi" to create the world was a gennhsi", 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). (Qo Theol. 1,1). contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also (Qo Theol. 2,9 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. 4,15, 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 pro" 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. 3,9. §4. Hence Arius, in his Letter to Eusebius, complains that Alexander says, aei o qeo", aei o uio" ama pathr, ama uio". Theod). H. E. 1,4.
67 hkw, and so Chrys). Hom. 3). Hebr. init. Epiph). Haer. 73. 31, and 36.
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. 1,4). [On Marls (who was not at Ariminum, and scarcely at Antioch in 363) see D.C.B). s.v. (2). On Theodotus see vol. 1,of this series, p. 320, note 37. On Paulinus, ib. p. 369.]
69 [Of Balaneae, see Ap. Fug. 3; Hist. Ar. 5.]
70 Quoted, among other passages from Eusebius, in the 7th General Council, Act. 6. p. 409). [Mansi. 13,701 D]. ‘The Son Himself is God, but not Very God.’ [But see Prolegg). ubi supr. note 5].
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. 2,§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. 5,17. 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. 8,6. §7).
73 Ep. Aeg. 13.
74 Vid). infr. §32.
75 [On Artemas or Artemon and Theodotus, see Prolegg. 2,§3 (2) a.]
76 [See Apol. Ar. 84; Hist. Ar. 1; Prolegg. 2,§5. The first part of the letter will be found supr. Apol. Ar. p. 144.]
77 This is supposed to be the same Confession which is preserved by Socr. 1,26. and Soz. 2,27. and was presented to Constantine by Arius in 330).
78 [Prolegg. ch. 2,§6(2).]
79 1st Confession or 1st of Antioch, a.d. 341). [See Socr. 2,10.]
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. 4,15. and infr. §29). [On its attribution to Lucian, see Prolegg). ubi supr., and Caspari Alte. u. Neue Q. p. 42 note.]
81 Vid. roth Confession, infr. §30.
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. 1,§35, &c.
83 On aparallakto" eikwn kat ousian, which was synonymous with omoiusio", 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. AEAparallakton is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan). de Decr. §20, 24). Orat. 3,§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 fusew" apomaxameno", in Theod). H.E. 1,4). Carakthr, Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. Basil). contr. Eunom. 1,18.
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. 5,3). de Land. C. 3, 11, ‘an intermediate divine power,’ §26, 27, and notes.
85 On this phrase, which is justified by S. Hilary, de Syn. 32, and is protested against in the Sardican Confession, Theod. H.E. 2,6 [see Prolegg). ubi supr.]
86 The whole of these anathemas are [a compromise]. The Council anathematizes ‘every heretical heterodoxy;’ not, as Athanasius observes, supr., §7, the Arian.
87 Our Lord was, as they held, before time, but still created.
88 This emphatic mention of Scripture is also virtually an Arian evasion, admitting of a silent reference to themselves as interpreters of Scripture.
89 On this Creed see Prolegg). ubi supr.
90 3rd Confession or 3rd of Antioch, a.d. 341.
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. 1,2). And Athan. condemns the notion of ’the logo" en tw qew atelh", gennhqei" teleio", Orat. 4,11. 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). Teleio" then was a relative word, varying with the subject matter, vid). Damasc. F. O. 1,8. 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.
93 a.d. 341.
94 [Cf. Prolegg. 2,§6 (3) init.]
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. 2,§3 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Qo Theol. iii. 8. 17). cont. Marc. 2,4.
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. 2,§6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sq.]
99 5th Confession or Macrostich, a.d. 344). [Published by the Council which deposed Stephen and elected Leontius bishop of Antioch.]
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 ex ouk ontwn, or from nothing, they do but deny it with Eusebius’s evasion, supr. p. 75, note 5.
101 They argue after the usual Arian manner, that the term ‘Son’ essentially implies beginning, and excludes the title ‘co-unoriginate;’ but see supr. §16, note 1, and p. 154, note 5.
102 [The four lines which follow are cited by Lightfoot, Ign. p. 91. ed. 2, as from de Syn. §3.]
103 Cf. §28, end.
104 ek prokoph", de Decr. §10, note 10.
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 endiaqeto" and proforiko", mental and pronounced, to distinguish the two senses of logo", 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. 2,21. 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 evdiaqeto" and proforiko"). ad Autol. 2,10 and 22, S. Cyril as evdiaqeto", in Joann. p. 39. but see also Thesaur. p. 47. When the Fathers deny that our Lord is the proforiko", 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. 2,35; Hil). de Syn. 46; Cvr). Catech. 11,10; Damas). Ep. 2,p. 203; Cyril in Joann. p. 31; Iren. Haer. 2,12. n. 5. Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one and then the other). (Qo Theol. 2,15.
107 This passage seems taken from Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus’s own words. S. Cyril speaks of his doctrine in like terms). Catech. 15,27.
108 i.e. Photinus). [A note illustrating the frequency of similar nicknames is omitted. On Photinus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3). ad fin.]
109 Cf. Euseb). contr. Marc. i. 2.
110 Cf. §27, notes.
111 autoproswpw" and so Cyril Hier). Catech. 15,14 and 17 (It means, ‘not in personation’), and Philo contrasting divine appearances with those of Angels). Leg. Alleg. 3,62. 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. 2,22. 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. 1,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. 3,59, &c. The doctrine of the monogene" has already partially come before us in de Decr. §§7–9. pp. 154 sq. Monw", 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 teleio" 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 pericwrhsi", of which supr. Orat. iii.
116 De Decr. §8.
117 De Decr. §26.
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. 16,10. He also passed there the ensuing winter. ibid. 17,12. In October, 358, after the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium in triumph, and passed the winter there. 17,13 fin. and with a short absence in the spring, remained there till the end of May, 359.
119 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. 2,§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, Marc 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. 5,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.
121 6th Confession, or 1st Sirmian, a.d. 351.
122 (Ep 3,15,
123 Vid. p. 77, sqq.
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 emyucon), 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 ayucon, though they called Him upourgon teleiotaton, most perfect minister or underworker). adv. Eunom. 2,21. 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, patrikw". 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,’ prostattomeno", kai upourgwn, Orat. 2,§22. Thus S. Irenaeus speaks of the Father being well-pleased and commanding, keleuonto", and the Son doing and framing). Haer. 4,75: 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. 11,16. vid. also uphretwn tm boulh, Justin). Tryph. 126, and upourgon, Theoph). ad Autol 2,10). exuphretwn, Clem,). Strom. 7,p. 832.
126 §26, n. 7.
127 Orat. 4,§13.
128 §26, n. 4.
129 §26 (2) n. (2).
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. 1,15. 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). (Qo Theol. 2,15. 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. 1,12). Justin. Tryph. 56. and 126. Iren). Haer. iv,. 10. n. 1. Tertull). de carn. Christ. 6). adv. Marc. 3,9). adv. Prax. 16. Novat). de Trin. 18. Origen). in Gn Hom. 4,5. 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 Gn 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. 2,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 Augustinus, lib. procem. c. 12. t. 2. p. 12.
133 This and the following Canon are Catholic in their main doctrine, and might be illustrated, if necessary, as the foregoing.
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. 24,6. 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. 31,8. In other words, Ingenerate means, not only not generate, but not from any origin. vid. August). de Trin. xv. 26.
135 Supra (16).
136 §26 (7)).
137 [The ‘blasphemia’ of Potamius, bishop of Lisbon; see Prolegg. ch. 2,§8 (2), Hil). de Syn. 11; Socr. 2,30].
138 7th Confession, or 2nd Sirmian, a.d. 357.
139 kefalaion. vid). de Decr. §31. p. 56; Orat. 1,§34; Epiph). Haer. 73. 11.
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. 2,6. p. 844.
141 Socrates[wrongly] connects this with the ‘blasphemia.’ Hist. 2,30.
142 9th Confession, at Seleucia a.d. 359.
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.
145 10th Confession at Nike and Constantinople, a.d. 359, 360.
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. 2,21. Acacius ap. Epiph). Haer. 72. 7. p. 839.
147 Here as before, instead of speaking of Arianism, the Confession anathematizes all heresies, vid. supr. §23, n. 4.
148 11th Confession at Antioch, a.d. 361). [Socr. 2,45. The occasion was the installation of Euzoius in place of Meletius.]
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 ex 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. 4,3. 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.]
151 This passage shews that Athanasius did not insert these sections till two years after the composition of the work itself; for Constantine died a.d. 361.
152 Euzoius, now Arian Bishop of Antioch, was excommunicated with Arius in Egypt and at Nicaea, and was restored with him to the Church at the Council of Jerusalem.
153 upekrinanto). Hypocrites is almost a title of the Arians (with an apparent allusion to 1Tm 4,2, Socr. 1,p. 1Tm 5, Orat. 1,§8)).
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.
155 Vid). Orat. 1,8; 4,23.
156 wra. vid). Orat. 1,§15; 4,§10; Serap. 2,1). kairo` de Decr. §15. init.
157 ‘The Apostle’ is a common title of S. Paul in antiquity. Cf. August). ad Bonifac. 3,3).
158 Cf). de Decr. 22, note 1.
159 De Decr. 24, note 9.
160 Vid). supr. Orat. 1,§15; de Decr. §22, note 1.
161 De Decr. 29, note 7.
162 Democritus, or Epicurus.
163 Anaxagoras.
164 De Decr. §19).
165 De Decr. 18, note 8.
166 [Prolegg. ch. 2,§8 (1).]
167 Supr. p. 73.
168 Supr. §29.
169 Supr. §8.
170 It must not be supposed from this that he approves [as adequate] the phrase omoio" kat ousian or omoiousio", 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. 1,§26. uses omoio" th" ousia".
171 [Prolegg. ch. 2,§8 (2) a.]
172 Vid. p. 162, note 8. Cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 24. vid. also Hil). contr. Constant. 16. August). Ep. 238. n. 4–6. Cyril). Dial. 1,p. 391. Petavius refers to other passages). de Trin. 5,5. §6.
173 §8).
174 [See Prolegg. ch. 2,§8 (2) c.]
175 [Ath. is referring to the Council of Ancyra, 358.]
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.
177 Vid. Socr. 3,25. p. 204. a.b). Una substantia religiose praedicabitur quae ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturae similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. Hil). de Syn. 67.
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. 4,§8. Euseb). contr. Marc. 2,4. 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 ex 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. 3,§3. 4,§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. 2,init. vid. also 1,init. and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225, p. 759.
180 De Decr. §10.
181 Vid. Epiph). Haer. 73. 3, &c).
182 §54, note 2.
183 Vid. Hilar). de Syn. 81 init.; Epiph). Haer. 73. 12.
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.
185 Vid. p. 167, and a different translation, p. 183
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. 1,19. 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. 3,18. 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.
188 §49.
189 thn th" omoiwsew" enothta: and so pp. 163, note 9, 165, 166. And Basil). tautothta th" fusew", Ep. 8. 3: [but] tautothta th" ousia", Cyril in Joan. lib. 3,c. 5,p. 302). [cf). tautoousion, p. 315, note 6.] It is uniformly asserted by the Catholics that the Father’s godhead, qeoth", is the Son’s; e.g). infr. §52; supr. p. 329 b, line 8; p 333, note 5; Orat 1,49 fin. 2,§18. §73. fin. 3,§26; 3,§5 fin. 3,§53; mian thn qeothta kai to idion th" ousia" tou patro". §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. 3,447, note, and on the doctrine of the Greek Fathers, Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (a) b.]
190 Vid. Epiph). Haer. 73. 9 fin.
191 §23, note 3.
192 epiteicisma ; in like manner sundesmon pistew". Epiph). Ancor. 6; cf). Haer. 69. 70; Ambros). de Fid. 3,15).
193 [In this passage the difficulties and confusion which surround the terms agenhto" and agennhto" (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 agennhto". With all deference to so great an authority, I cannot hesitate to pronounce for agenhto". (1). The parallelism of the two senses with the third and fourth senses of agen). Orat. 1,30. is almost decisive by itself. (2). Ath.’s explanation of Ignatius. viz. that Christ is genhto" on account of the flesh (he would have referred gennhto" to His Essence, Orat. 1,56, 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 agenhto". because He is aidion gennhma would lose all sense if agennhto". were read. As a matter of fact, agennhto". is the specific, agenhto". 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 agenhto".]
194 Ign). ad Eph. [Lightf). Ign. p. 90, Zahn Patr. Apost. 2,p. 338.]
195 Not known, but cf. Clement). Strom. vi. 7. p. 769). en men to agennhton, o pantokratwr qeo", en de kai to progennhqen di ou ta panta egeneto, kai cwri" autou egeneto oude en.
196 [On the subject of the rejection of the omoousion at this Council of Antioch, see Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (2) b.]
197 De Decr. §1).
198 §51, note.
199 §23, note 3, yet vid. Hipp). contr. Noet. 7.
200 kinhsei vid. Cyril). contr. Jul. 8,p. 274. Greg. Nyss). de Hom. Op. p. 87.
201 §45.
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 th" agennhsia" kai th" patrothto". Damasc). de Imag. 3,18. p. 354. vid. also Basil). contr. Eun. 2,28; 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.
203 Vid). Orat. 3,§4).
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, aparallakto" 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.
205 De Decr. §10. p. 15, note 4.
206 eqeopoihse Orat. 2,§70). de Decr. §14.
207 Cf). supr. p. 314, note 1, Cyr). Thesaur. pp. 22, 23.
208 Cf. p. 169, note 4a [and on ousia as a philosophical and theological term, Prolegg. ch. 2,§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. 3,25. Damascene, speaking of the Jacobite use of fusi" and upostasi" 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. 5,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.]
210 Orat. 1,§28.
211 Vid). de Decr. §11, note 6: also Cyril, Thesaur. 4,p. 29: Basil). contr. Eun. 2,23: Hil). de Syn. 17.
212 Naz). Orat. 28. 2.
213 S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father kuriw" 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 tropikw" and ek metafora", figuratively, such, contr. Eun. 2,24; gennhsi" implies two things,—passion, and relationship, oikeiwsi" fusew"; 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. 2,32, 3,18, 67, and Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,17; Hil). de Trin. 4,2. Vid. also Athan). ad Serap. 1,20. and Basil). Ep. 38. n. 5. and what is said of the office of faith in each of these.
214 Supr. p. 167. note 7, and p. 307.
215 eno" onto" eidou" qeothto": for the word eido", 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 fusi". 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.
216 De Decr. §31.
217 [fusi" 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 fusi" in the passages quoted by him from Alexander (in Theod). H.E. i. 4, cf. Origen’s use of ousia, Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (2) a) and Cyril c. Nest. iii. p. 91). fusi" and ousia are nearly equivalent in the manifesto of Basil of Ancyra, whom Ath. has in view here, see Epiph). Hoer. 73. 12–22.]
218 p. 171, note 6.
219 And so tai" logomaciai", Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. It is used with an allusion to the fight against the Word, as cristomacein and qeomacein. Thus logomacein melethsante", kai loipon pneumatomacounte", esontai met oligon nekroi th alogia). Serap. 4,1.
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.
221 §11, note 7.
222 §12, note 2.
223 These two Letters are both in Socr. ii. 37. And the latter is in Theod). H. E. 2,15. p. 878. in a different version from the Latin original).
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)).
Athanasius 18000