Skip to content

Four Discourses Against the Arians. Discourse I

Discourse III (part 1 of 4)

Page 112 of 172

Chapter XXIII.—Texts Explained; Seventhly, Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.

1. The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, When the impious cometh into a depth of evils, he despiseth2786 ;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having a whore's forehead,' they refuse to be ashamed2787 ' before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, The Lord created me2788 ,' and Made better than the Angels2789 ,' and First-born2790 ,' and Faithful to Him that made Him2791 ' have a right sense2792 , and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor understanding what they read, as if in vomit from the depth of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, I in the Father and the Father in Me2793 ;' saying, How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?' or How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?' or What wonder, if the Son is in the Father,' considering it is written even of us, In Him we live and move and have our being2794 ?' And this state of mind is consistent with their perverseness, who think God to be material, and understand not what is True Father' and True Son,' nor Light Invisible' and Eternal,' and Its Radiance Invisible,' nor Invisible Subsistence,' and Immaterial Expression' and Immaterial Image.' For did they know, they would not dishonour and ridicule the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, pervert good words. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate process of persuasion; but since they have endeavoured to profane even this passage to their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their perverseness and to shew the mind of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, I in the Father and the Father in Me,' They are not therefore, as these suppose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son2795 , and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect (for this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of irreligion), for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness of Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking of Him things originate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father's own Offspring2796 . Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, In Him we live and move and have our being;' for, He as being from the Fount2797 of the Father is the Life, in which all things are both quickened and consist; for the Life does not live in life2798 , else it would not be Life, but rather He gives life to all things.

2. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the retained pleader2799 for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far, he writes as follows; It is very plain that He has said, that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for this reason, that neither the word on which He was discoursing is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor the works belong to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power.' Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been excused from his age; but when one who bears the title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge2800 , is the writer, what a serious condemnation does he deserve! And does he not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle2801 , as being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he says nor whereof he affirms2802 ? For what the Son has said as proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father's Essence, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them; and he says, lawless2803 man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a son2804 the Son was made a son, and the Word received a word's authority; and, far from granting that He spoke this as a Son, He ranks Him with all things made as having learned it as they have. For if the Son said, I am in the Father and the Father in Me,' because His discourses were not His own words but the Father's, and so of His works, then,—since David says, I will hear what the Lord God shall say in me2805 ,' and again Solomon2806 , My words are spoken by God,' and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, Thus saith the Lord,' and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own but God's who gave the power, Elijah for instance and Elisha invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Elisha saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, that thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel2807 ,' and Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own power they did miracles but in the Lord's grace—it is plain that, according to Asterius such a statement must be common to all, so that each of them is able to say, I in the Father and the Father in me;' and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many.

3. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, I in the Father and the Father in Me,' but rather, I too am in the Father, and the Father is in Me too,' that He may have nothing of His own and by prerogative2808 , relatively to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that He is genuine Son from the Father, they belie Him who is such, whom alone it befits to say, I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father's essence2809 , as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoso thus contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father's Essence, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Form2810 and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son2811 .

4. On this account and reasonably, having said before, I and the Father are One,' He added, I in the Father and the Father in Me,2812 ' by way of shewing the identity2813 of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not2814 as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father2815 ; but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike2816 its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father's, is the Son's2817 . Wherefore neither is the Son another God, for He was not procured from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father's2818 ; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights2819 , but sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father2820 :—for instance2821 , that He is God, And the Word was God2822 ;' Almighty, Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty2823 ;' Lord, One Lord Jesus Christ2824 ;' that He is Light, I am the Light2825 ;' that He wipes out sins, that ye may know,' He says, that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins2826 ;' and so with other attributes. For all things,' says the Son Himself, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine2827 ;' and again, And Mine are Thine.'

5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? and why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, I and the Father are One,' He adds, that ye may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me2828 .' Moreover, He has added this again, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father2829 ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three2830 passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father;' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact2831 ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image2832 . And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou holdest in me2833 .' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.

6. And this is what is said, Who being in the form of God2834 ,' and the Father in Me.' Nor is this Form2835 of the Godhead partial merely, but the fulness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He thought it not a prize to be equal to God;' and again since the Godhead and the Form of the Son is none other's than the Father's2836 , this is what He says, I in the Father.' Thus God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself2837 ;' for the propriety of the Father's Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought are the Father's works, for the Son is the Form of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works. And thus he who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father's Godhead is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father's Form which is in Him shews in Him the Father; and thus the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and Godhead which is from the Father in the Son, shews the Son in the Father, and His inseparability from Him; and whoso hears and beholds that what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, not as accruing to His Essence by grace or participation, but because the very Being of the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, will fitly understand the words, as I said before, I in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and I and the Father are One2838 .' For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's. Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. For, a son not being, one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not of necessity intimate the things which have come to be; for a maker is before his works2839 . But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's existence. Therefore also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father: for he believes in what is proper to the Father's Essence; and thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honours the Son, in the Son worships and honours the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one2840 the honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one God and none other than He. Accordingly when the Father is called the only God, and we read that there is one God2841 , and I am,' and beside Me there is no God,' and I the first and I the last2842 ,' this has a fit meaning. For God is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial of the Son2843 , perish the thought; for He is in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being whole and full God2844 . This then is not said on His account, but to deny that there is other such as the Father and His Word.

Chapter XXIV.—Texts Explained; Eighthly, . and the Like. Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. One' is used in contrast to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin.

7. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet is clear and manifest to all; but since the irreligious men, alleging such passages also, dishonour the Lord and reproach us, saying, Behold God is said to be One and Only and First; how say ye that the Son is God? for if He were God, He had not said, "I Alone," nor "God is One2845 ;"' it is necessary to declare the sense of these phrases in addition, as far as we can, that all may know from this also that the Arians are really contending with God2846 . If there then is rivalry of the Son towards the Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonijah and Absalom2847 , so also the Father looks upon the Son, then let Him utter and urge such words against Himself, lest He the Son, calling Himself God, make any to revolt from the Father. But if he who knows the Son, on the contrary, knows the Father, the Son Himself revealing Him to him, and in the Word he shall rather see the Father, as has been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified not Himself but the Father, saying to one who came to Him, Why callest thou Me good? none is good save One, that is, God2848 ;' and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord2849 ;' and saying to the multitudes, I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me2850 ;' and teaching the disciples, My Father is greater than I,' and He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me2851 ;' if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty2852 , that one must need take such a view of such passages? and on the other hand, if the Son is the Father's Word, who is so wild, besides these Christ-opposers, as to think that God has thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own Word? This is not the mind of Christians; perish the thought; for not with reference to the Son is it thus written, but for the denial of those falsely called gods, invented by men.

8. And this account of the meaning of such passages is satisfactory; for since those who are devoted to gods falsely so called, revolt from the True God, therefore God, being good and careful for mankind, recalling the wanderers, says, I am Only God,' and I Am,' and Besides Me there is no God,' and the like; that He may condemn things which are not, and may convert all men to Himself. And as, supposing in the daytime when the sun was shining, a man were rudely to paint a piece of wood, which had not even the appearance of light, and call that image the cause of light, and if the sun with regard to it were to say, I alone am the light of the day, and there is no other light of the day but I,' he would say this, with regard, not to his own radiance, but to the error arising from the wooden image and the dissimilitude of that vain representation; so it is with I am,' and I am Only God,' and There is none other besides Me,' viz. that He may make men renounce falsely called gods, and that they may recognise Him the true God instead. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His own Word, unless forsooth the modern2853 Jews add this too, that He has not said this through His Word; but so hath He spoken, though they rave, these followers of the devil2854 . For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this was what was heard; nor is there a thing which God says or does, but He says and does it in the Word. Not then with reference to Him is this said, O Christ's enemies, but to things foreign to Him and not from2855 Him. For according to the aforesaid illustration, if the sun had spoken those words, he would have been setting right the error and have so spoken, not as having his radiance without him, but in the radiance shewing his own light. Therefore not for the denial of the Son, nor with reference to Him, are such passages, but to the overthrow of falsehood. Accordingly God spoke not such words to Adam at the beginning, though His Word was with Him, by whom all things came to be; for there was no need, before idols came in; but when men made insurrection against the truth and named for themselves gods such as they would2856 , then it was that need arose of such words, for the denial of gods that were not. Nay I would add, that they were said even in anticipation of the folly of these Christ-opposers2857 , that they might know, that whatsoever god they devise external to the Father's Essence, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the Only and First.

9. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is said not to the denial of Him who said, I am the Truth2858 ,' but of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself added at once, And Jesus Christ whom Thou didst send2859 .' Now had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and ranked Himself with His Creator (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?); but as it is, by adding Himself to the Father, He has shewn that He is of the Father's nature; and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had learned2860 , so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the True God and eternal life2861 .' And when the Prophet says concerning the creation, That stretcheth forth the heavens alone2862 ,' and when God says, I only stretch out the heavens,' it is made plain to every one, that in the Only is signified also the Word of the Only, in whom all things were made,' and without whom was made not one thing.' Therefore, if they were made through the Word, and yet He says, I Only,' and together with that Only is understood the Son, through whom the heavens were made, so also then, if it be said, One God,' and I Only,' and I the First,' in that One and Only and First is understood the Word coexisting, as in the Light the Radiance. And this can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all other things subsisted out of nothing through the Son, and are greatly different in nature; but the Son Himself is natural and true Offspring from the Father; and thus the very passage which these insensates have thought fit to adduce, I the First,' in defence of their heresy, doth rather expose their perverse spirit. For God says, I the First and I the Last;' if then, as though ranked with the things after Him, He is said to be first of them, so that they come next to Him, then certainly you will have shewn that He Himself precedes the works in time only2863 ; which, to go no further, is extreme irreligion; but if it is in order to prove that He is not from any, nor any before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables, that He has said I the First,' it is plain also, that when the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and adoption of all things2864 through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First2865 , as Image of the First, and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship.

Chapter XXV.—Texts Explained; Ninthly, ; , &c. Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one as we are one with Christ, is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. Force of in us;' force of as;' confirmed by S. John. In what sense we are in God' and His sons.'

10. However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise one,' or like,' as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it2866 . For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant2867 with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this2868 . Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows forthwith2869 that the Angels2870 too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning2871 ?' But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Saviour's command, being merciful as their Father which is in heaven2872 ,' and observing the exhortation, Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us2873 ;' many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ2874 . And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, I and the Father are One,' or, I in the Father, and the Father in Me2875 ;' but it is said of all of them, Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods2876 ?' and of Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Image2877 , and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but for that Image and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation.

11. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shown to have anything beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father's doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father2878 , but the doctrines and teaching are the Father's. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image, or rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? for Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like Him in essence2879 .' Having then such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker2880 , and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son2881 , as He promised when He said, I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with him2882 ;' for in the Image is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance is the Light. Therefore also, as we said just now, when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, writing, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and as the sun's illumination is effected through the radiance; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, in saying, Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you2883 ,' he has guarded the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, May they direct,' as if a double grace were given from two Sources, This and That, but May He direct,' to shew that the Father gives it through the Son;—at which these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might.

12. For if there were no unity, nor the Word the own Offspring of the Father's Essence, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were divided in nature from the Father, it were sufficient that the Father alone should give, since none of originate things is a partner with his Maker in His givings; but, as it is, such a mode of giving shews the oneness of the Father and the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels2884 , or from any other creature, nor would any one say, May God and the Angel give thee;' but from Father and the Son, because of Their oneness and the oneness of Their giving. For through the Son is given what is given; and there is nothing but the Father operates it through the Son; for thus is grace secure to him who receives it. And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless the lads2885 ,' yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, Who delivered me from all evil,' he shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will, God doth deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father's Angel of great Counsel2886 ,' he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me2887 ' (for that was God, as he says himself, I have seen God face to face'), Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph. It is proper then to an Angel to minister at the command of God, and often does he go forth to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the way; but these are not his doings, but of God who commanded and sent him, whose also it is to deliver, whom He will deliver. Therefore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, And behold I am with thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou2888 goest;' and it was no other than God whom he had seen, who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering him not to speak evil words to Jacob; and none other than God did he himself beseech, saying, Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him2889 ;' for in conversation too with his wives he said, God hath not suffered Laban to injure me.'

13. Therefore it was none other than God Himself that David too besought concerning his deliverance, When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, and He heard me; deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue2890 .' To Him also giving thanks he spoke the words of the Song in the seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying, I will love Thee, O Lord my strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defence and deliverer2891 .' And Paul, after enduring many persecutions, to none other than God gave thanks, saying, Out of them all the Lord delivered me; and He will deliver in Whom we trust2892 .' And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father2893 .' But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God's Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ2894 .' For thus the blessing was secure, because of the Son's indivisibility from the Father, and for that the grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it, through the Son is the gift; and though the Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies it through and in the Son; for I thank my God,' says the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus2895 .' And this one may see in the instance of light and radiance; for what the light enlightens, that the radiance irradiates; and what the radiance irradiates, from the light is its enlightenment. So also when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for He is the Father's radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one.

14. But this is not so with things originate and creatures; for when the Father works, it is not that any Angel works, or any other creature; for none of these is an efficient cause2896 , but they are of things which come to be; and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is written, are ministering spirits sent forth to minister2897 ,' and are heralds of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God2898 . And he who beholds a vision of Angels, knows that he has seen the Angel and not God. For Zacharias saw an Angel; and Isaiah saw the Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an Angel; but Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld an Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw God; for greatly, or rather wholly, do things by nature originate differ from God the Creator. But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush; for the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob2899 ,' yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him2900 . For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spake by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. And he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than Angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun.

15. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods2901 . For, as the illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manichæus; since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the radiance; and so we know of but one origin; and the All-framing Word we profess to have no other manner of godhead, than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism2902 , because they idly talk of the Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; or saying that He is God2903 , because it is so written, but not proper to the Father's Essence, they will introduce many because of their difference of kind (unless forsooth they shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things else, is called God; though, if this be their sentiment, their irreligion is the same, since they consider the Word as one among all things). But let this never even come into our mind. For there is but one form2904 of Godhead, which is also in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word2905 . For thus we confess God to be one through the Triad, and we say that it is much more religious than the godhead of the heretics with its many kinds2906 , and many parts, to entertain a belief of the One Godhead in a Triad.

16. For if it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a work out of nothing, either He is not True God because He is Himself one of the creatures, or if they name Him God from regard for the Scriptures, they must of necessity say that there are two Gods2907 , one Creator, the other creature, and must serve two Lords, one Unoriginate, and the other originate and a creature; and must have two faiths, one in the True God, and the other in one who is made and fashioned by themselves and called God. And it follows of necessity in so great blindness, that, when they worship the Unoriginate, they renounce the originate, and when they come to the creature, they turn from the Creator. For they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are foreign and distinct2908 . And with such sentiments, they will certainly be going on to more gods, for this will be the essay2909 of those who revolt from the One God. Wherefore then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? for they too, as these, worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all2910 , and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold a like sentiment with them. For their subtle saying which they are accustomed to urge, We say not two Unoriginates2911 ,' they plainly say to deceive the simple; for in their very professing We say not two Unoriginates,' they imply two Gods, and these with different natures, one originate and one Unoriginate. And though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate and many originate, but these one Unoriginate and one originate, this is no difference from them; for the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and again the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature with this one, for both he and they are creatures. Unhappy are they, and the more for that their hurt is from thinking against Christ; for they have fallen from the truth, and are greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow2912 with the Gentiles, hateful2913 as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many deities. For there is One God, and not many, and One is His Word, and not many; for the Word is God, and He alone has the Form2914 of the Father. Being then such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words, The Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me; ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and ye have not His Word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not2915 .' Suitably has He joined the Word' to the Form,' to shew that the Word of God is Himself Image and Expression and Form of His Father; and that the Jews who did not receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God. This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture witnesses, saying, And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him2916 .' And This it was who said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,' and, I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and, I and the Father are one2917 ;' for thus God is One, and one the faith in the Father and Son; for, though the Word be God, the Lord our God is one Lord; for the Son is proper to that One, and inseparable according to the propriety and peculiarity of His Essence.

Notes

  1. 2786

    , LXX.

  2. 2787

    .

  3. 2788

    Supr. ch. xix.

  4. 2789

    Ch. xiii.

  5. 2790

    Ch. xxi.

  6. 2791

    Ch. xiv.

  7. 2792

    ii. 44, n. 1.

  8. 2793

    .

  9. 2794

    . Vid. supr. ii. 41, note 11. The doctrine of the perichoresis, which this objection introduces, is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism. Cf. de Syn. 15, n. 4. This is seen clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language approaches to Catholic more nearly than Arians in general. After all his strong assertions, the question recurs, is our Lord a distinct being from God, as we are, or not? he answers in the affirmative, vid. supr. p. 75, n. 7, whereas we believe that He is literally and numerically one with the Father, and therefore His Person dwells in the Father's Person by an ineffable union. And hence the language of Dionysius [of Rome] supr. de Decr. 26. the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God,' emphilochorein to theo kai endiaitasthai. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), Filius locus est Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.' in . So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are en memerismenois topois and the Son. Serap. iii. 4. Cf. even in the Macrostich Creed, language of this character, viz. All the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast continually.' De Syn. 26 (7), where vid. note 3.

  10. 2795

    This is not inconsistent with S. Jerome as quoted in the foregoing note. Athan. merely means that such illustrations cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects. The Father is the topos or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as holos theos, we merely view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is; our mind abstracts His Essence which is the Son for the moment from Him, and regards Him merely as Father. Thus in Illud. Omn. 4, supr. p. 89. It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really and eternally distinct from each other; and Each is full of the Other, that is, their Essence is one and the same. This is insisted on by S. Cyril, in Joan. p. 28. And by S. Hilary, Trin. vii. fin. vid. also iii. 23. Cf. the quotation from S. Anselm made by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16 fin. [Cf. D.C.B. s.v. Metangismonitae.]

  11. 2796

    Vid. de Decr. 10, n. 4, 19, n. 3; Or. i. 15, n. 6. On the other hand Eusebius considers the Son, like a creature, ex autes tes patrikes [not ousias, but] metousias, hosper apo peges, ep' auton procheomenes pleroumenon. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which are the more observable, the nearer they approach to the language of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by way of contrast, oude kata metousian autou, all' holon idion autou gennema. 4.

  12. 2797

    De Decr. 15, n. 9.

  13. 2798

    i.e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and does but give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses different language with the same meaning, de Trin. ii. 11. Other modes of expression for the same mystery are found infr. 3. also 6 fin. Vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1. and Didymus he patrike theotes. p. 82. and S. Basil, ex hou echei to einai. contr. Eunom. ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan. says that the Son is the fulness of the Godhead.' Thus the Father is the Son's life because the Son is from Him, and the Son the Father's because the Son is in Him. All these are but different ways of signifying the perichoresis

  14. 2799

    sunegorou, infr. §60.

  15. 2800

    panta ginoskein epangellomenos. Gorgias, according to Cicero de fin. ii. init. was the first who ventured in public to say proballete, give me a question.' This was the epangelma of the Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11.

  16. 2801

    .

  17. 2802

    .

  18. 2803

    paranomos. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. Ep. Æg. 16, d. Vid. anomos. .

  19. 2804

    en hui& 254;, but en to hui& 254;. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. vid. Or. ii. 22, note 2.

  20. 2805

    , LXX.

  21. 2806

    , or x. 24?

  22. 2807

    , .

  23. 2808

    Or. ii. 19, n. 6.

  24. 2809

    Since the Father and the Son are the numerically One God, it is but expressing this in other words to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, for all They have and all They are is common to Each, excepting Their being Father and Son. A perichoresis of Persons is implied in the Unity of Essence. This is the connexion of the two texts so often quoted; the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son,' because the Son and the Father are one.' And the cause of this unity and perichoresis is the Divine gennesis. Thus S. Hilary, Trin. ii. 4. vid. Or. ii. 33, n. 1.

  25. 2810

    eidous. Petavius here prefers the reading idiou; theotes and to hidion occur together infr. 6. and 56. eidos occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. Æg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§6, 16, notes.

  26. 2811

    In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherence or indwelling of the Three Blessed Persons is meant not a commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with body, nor as the union of our Lord's Godhead and humanity, but it is such that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom, essence, of the Father, should be the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and power of the Son.' de Trin. xxviii. 1. S. Cyril adopts Athan.'s language to express this doctrine in Joan. p. 105. de Trin. vi. p. 621, in Joan. p. 168. Vid. infr. tautotes ousias, 21. patrike theotes tou huiou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140.

  27. 2812

    .

  28. 2813

    De Syn. 45, n. 1.

  29. 2814

    Infr. Orat. iv. 9.

  30. 2815

    Infr. 11.

  31. 2816

    anomoion; and so anomoios kata panta. Orat. i. 6. kat' ousian. 17. Orat. ii. 43. tes ousias. infr. 14. vid. anomoiotes. infr. 8, c.

  32. 2817

    Cf. in illud. Omn. 4. As the Father is I am (ho on) so His Word is I Am and God over all.' Serap. i. 28, a; ib. ii. 2.

  33. 2818

    Cf. i. 6.

  34. 2819

    Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. 1.

  35. 2820

    Ib. 49, n. 4.

  36. 2821

    Parallel to de Syn. 49.

  37. 2822

    .

  38. 2823

    .

  39. 2824

    .

  40. 2825

    .

  41. 2826

    .

  42. 2827

    ; .

  43. 2828

    , ; .

  44. 2829

    Ib. xiv. 9.

  45. 2830

    Here these three texts, which so often occur together, are recognized as three;' so are they by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. 19; and he says that Marcellus and those who Sabellianize with him,' among whom he included Catholics, were in the practice of adducing them, thrullountes; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the perichoresis was the great criterion between orthodox and Arian. Many instances of the joint use of the three are given supr. i. 34, n. 7. to which may be added Orat. ii. 54 init. iii. 16 fin. 67 fin. iv. 17, a. Serap. ii. 9, c. Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. Cyril. de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168. Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. Ambros. Hexaem. 6. August. de Cons. Ev. i. 7.

  46. 2831

    aparallaktos, de Syn. 23, n. 1.

  47. 2832

    Vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on Statues, passim, fragm. in Act. Conc. vii. (t. 4, p. 89. Hard.) Socr. vi. 18. The Seventh Council speaks of the images sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of their coming in person; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. a description of the imperial statutes and their honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. xii. 12. vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197.

  48. 2833

    Athanasius guards against what is defective in this illustration in the next chapter, but independent of such explanation a mistake as to his meaning would be impossible; and the passage affords a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize is the unity of the Father and Son, for the Image is not a Second Emperor but the same. vid. Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who bowed before the Emperor's Statue can be supposed to have really worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme worship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose Image He is. From the custom of paying honour to the Imperial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the Eastern Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil custom, resisted. vid. Döllinger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 55. E. Tr. The Fathers, e.g. S. Jerome, set themselves against the civil custom, as idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchadnezzar's statue. vid. Hieron. in . Incense was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards before the images of the Saints.

  49. 2834

    .

  50. 2835

    eidos, vid. infr. 16, note.

  51. 2836

    Here first the Son's eidos is the eidos of the Father, then the Son is the eidos of the Father's Godhead, and then in the Son is the eidos of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, holos theos. vid. infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word opisthia (), which forms a contrast to eidos, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3.

  52. 2837

    .

  53. 2838

    ; .

  54. 2839

    Vid. supr. de Decr. 30; Or. i. 33. This is in opposition to the Arians, who said that the title Father implied priority of existence. Athan. says that the title Maker' does, but that the title father' does not. vid. supr. p. 76, n. 3; Or. i. 29, n. 10: ii. 41, n. 11.

  55. 2840

    Athan. de Incarn. c. Ar. 19, c. vid. Ambros. de fid. iii. cap. 12, 13. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 64.

  56. 2841

    .

  57. 2842

    ; , LXX.; Is. xliv. 6

  58. 2843

    De Decr. 19, n. 6.

  59. 2844

    Vid. supr. 1, note 10; ii. 41 fin. also infr. iv. 1. Pseudo-Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5-12. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. Synes. Hymn. iii. pp. 328, 9. Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. August. Ep. 170, 5. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6. and infr. note on 36 fin.

  60. 2845

    ; , &c.

  61. 2846

    theomachoi. vid. .

  62. 2847

    ; .

  63. 2848

    , and vid. Basil. Ep. 236, 1.

  64. 2849

    .

  65. 2850

    ; .

  66. 2851

    , cf. xiii. 20.

  67. 2852

    §58, note.

  68. 2853

    hoi nun, cf. Or. ii. 1, note 6, and Hist. Ar. 61, fin.

  69. 2854

    diabolikoi. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Decr. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Æg. 4 and 6. In the passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; diaballon occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius diabolos, it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was ton diabolou propon analabon, where the word has no article, and diabeblemai and dieblethen have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians' father the devil,' 3, c. is explained 4, b. by tous pateras diaballonton and tes eis ton episkopon diaboles.

  70. 2855

    para, vid. §24 end, and

  71. 2856

    ohus ethelon, infr. §10, n. 1.

  72. 2857

    Who worship one whom they themselves call a creature, vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8, ii. 14, n. 7, 21, n. 2, and below, §16 notes.

  73. 2858

    .

  74. 2859

    Ib. xvii. 3.

  75. 2860

    mathon edidaxe, de Decr. 7, n. 8; Or. ii. 1, note 6^a.

  76. 2861

    .

  77. 2862

    .

  78. 2863

    He says that in I the first' the question of time does not come in, else creatures would come second' to the Creator, as if His and their duration admitted of a common measure. First' then does not imply succession, but is equivalent to arche; a word which, as Father,' does not imply that the Son is not from eternity.

  79. 2864

    ii. 62, n. 2.

  80. 2865

    It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, and the Son first also, for comparison or number does not enter into mystery. Since Each is holos theos, Each, as contemplated by our finite reason, at the moment of contemplation excludes the Other. Though we say' Three Persons, Person hardly denotes one abstract idea,' certainly not as containing under it three individual subjects, but it is a term' applied to the One God in three ways. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, that, though we use words expressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number, and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though eternally distinct from each other, can scarcely be viewed together in common, except as One' substance, as if they could not be generalized into Three Any whatever; and as if it were, strictly speaking, incorrect to speak of a' Person, or otherwise than of the' Person, whether of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The question has almost been admitted by S. Austin, whether it is not possible to say that God is One' Person (Trin. vii. 8), for He is wholly and entirely Father, and at the same time wholly and entirely Son, and wholly and entirely Holy Ghost. Some references to the Fathers shall be given on that subject, infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. §6, n. 11. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will account for such expressions as God from God,' i.e. the One God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father); vid. supr. de Syn. 52, note 8. Again, he ousia haute tes ousias tes patrikes esti gennema. de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 and 2.

  81. 2866

    hos autoi thelousi. vid. §8, n. 12. not as you say, but as we will.' This is a common phrase with Athan. vid. supr. Or. i. 13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4, 14). It is here contrasted to the Church's doctrine, and connected with the word idios; for which de Syn. 3, n. 6; Or. i. 37, n. 1. Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in contrast with the euangelikos horos.

  82. 2867

    sumphonos. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian sumphonia is touched on de Syn. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned in the former of these notes, one' is explained as oneness of will by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains . by xvii. 22. like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. pp. 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are collected by Maldonat. in loc.

  83. 2868

    Asterius, §2, init.

  84. 2869

    hora. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 4. also Orat. ii. 6, b. iv. 19, c. d. Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 47, b. p. 91, b. Cyril. Dial. p. 456. Thesaur. p. 255 fin.

  85. 2870

    This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril. de Trin. i. p. 407.

  86. 2871

    Is. xiv. 12.

  87. 2872

    (cf. Tisch. in loc.)

  88. 2873

    , .

  89. 2874

    .

  90. 2875

    ; .

  91. 2876

    Vid. ; .

  92. 2877

    Aug. de Trin. vii. fin.

  93. 2878

    Cf. Serap. i. 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. §19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21-24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. One must not say,' he observes, that these names properly and primarily, kurios kai protos belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure katachrestikos (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings says, "Call no one your father upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven."' He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decr. 31, n. 5), much more is He the pater tou kata phusin huiou. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kurios logos, not kurios hui& 231;s. ibid. ii. 10 fin. vid. supr. ii. 19, note 3.

  94. 2879

    kat' ousian homoios, Or. i. 21, n. 8.

  95. 2880

    Supr. §6.

  96. 2881

    And so ergazomenou tou patros, ergazesthai kai ton hui& 231;n. In illud Omn. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one kata ten dunamin, they are one also in ousia. in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hær. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so S. Athan. trias adiairetos te phusei, kai mia tautes he energeia. Serap. i. 28, f. hen thelema patros kai huiou kai boulema, epei kai he phusis mia. In illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentiæ, de Sp. ii. 12. fin. and of S. Basil, on mia energeia, touton kai ousia mia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius Trin. iv. 15.

  97. 2882

    .

  98. 2883

    .

  99. 2884

    Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on And Theodoret on . says, Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.' All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living Word and God....But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.' Origen contr. Cels. v. 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.

  100. 2885

    , . vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the doctrine vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Infr. §14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in him,' i.e. sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Præscr. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.

  101. 2886

    Is. ix. 6, LXX.

  102. 2887

    , .

  103. 2888

    , LXX.

  104. 2889

    Ib. xxxi. 7; xxxii. 11.

  105. 2890

    , .

  106. 2891

    , .

  107. 2892

    Vid. ; .

  108. 2893

    , , LXX.

  109. 2894

    , &c.

  110. 2895

    .

  111. 2896

    Or. ii. 21, n. 2.

  112. 2897

    .

  113. 2898

    tes theotokou Marias. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] vid. also infr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (ton palai kai propalai) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord theotokon, according to the Apostolical tradition.' Hær. iv. 12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known, writes to the former. This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it.' Concil. Eph. part i. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. Interpreting,' he says, how theotokos is used, he discussed the question at length.' Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently overlooked, in arguing from Ephrem. ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase Mother of God' originated in S. Leo). [See vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]

  114. 2899

    Vid. .

  115. 2900

    §12, note 2.

  116. 2901

    Serap. i. 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. Hom. 24 init. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. 3. p. 481.

  117. 2902

    Infr. §64. Ep. Æg. 14.

  118. 2903

    Infr. §16, notes.

  119. 2904

    eidos.

  120. 2905

    And so infr. 25, 36 fin. Serap. i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, d. iii. 1, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. p. 865. Damascen. F. O. i. 7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ibid. 24. Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10, e.

  121. 2906

    polueidous

  122. 2907

    Vid. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note 5. The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and worship. vid. de Decr. 6, note 5, Or. i. 30, n. 1. But every substance,' says S. Austin, which is not God, is a creature, and which is not a creature, is God.' de Trin. i. 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 31.

  123. 2908

    §11, n. 4.

  124. 2909

    epicheirema, de Decr. 1, note.

  125. 2910

    Vid. supr. ii. 14, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de Trin. ii. 12. §5. from the Fathers in proof of the worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as idolaters vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8. also Ep. Æg. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init. Serap. i. 29, d. Theodoret in .

  126. 2911

    Or. i. 30, n. 1.

  127. 2912

    sunkuliontai, vid. Orat. i. 23. ii. 1 init.; Decr. 9 fin.; Gent. 19, c. cf. .

  128. 2913

    theostugeis, infr. Letter 54. 1 fin.

  129. 2914

    eidos; also in , . Sept. [a substitute for Heb. face.'] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56, n. 6. for the meaning of the word. It was just now used for kind.' Athan. says, de Syn. ubi supr. there is but one form of Godhead;' yet the word is used of the Son as synonymous with image.' It would seem as if there are a certain class of words, all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more appropriate application either ordinarily or under circumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance. Thus Being' is more descriptive of the Father as the pege theotetos, and He is said to be the Being of the Son;' yet the Son is really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words morphe and eidos [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] are rather descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He is called the form of the Father,' yet there is but one Form and Face of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons; while Spirit' is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus again S. Hippolytus says ek [tou patros] dunamis logos, yet shortly before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, dunamin de mian, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word Subsistence,' hupostasis, which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed personally. Other words may be used correlatively of either Father or Son; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of the Father; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Others in common, as the Father's Godhead is the Son's,' he patrike huiou theotes, as indeed the word ousia itself. Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or That Person only, as Word,' Image,' &c.

  130. 2915

    .

  131. 2916

    , LXX.

  132. 2917

    , ; .

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1890–1900). Public domain. Text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.