Early Church Fathers
83 John xiv. 6.
84 Ib. 9.
85 Prov. viii. 22, and cf. Orat. ii. throughout
86 Eusebius of Nicomedia quotes it in his Letter to Paulinus, ap. Theodor. Hist. i. 5. And Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstr. Evang. v. 1.
87 i.e. `Granting that the prima facie impression of this teat is in favour of our Lord's being a creature, yet so many arguments have been already brought, and may be added, against His creation, that we must interpret this text By them. It cannot mean that our Lord was simply created, because we have already shewn that He is not external to His Father.'
88 Serap. 2, 6. Sent. Dion §4.
89 Gen. i. 1.
90 Ps. cx. 3.
91 Ps. ii. 7.
92 Prov. viii. 25.
93 John i. 3.
94 Ib. 18.
95 peribombousin. So in ad Afros. 5. init. And Sent. D. §19. perierxontai peribombountej. And Gregory Nyssen. contr. Eun. viii. p. 234 C. wj an touj apeirouj taij platwnikaij kallifwniai peribombhseien. vid. also perierxontai wj oi kanqaroi. Orat iii. fin.
96 proswpa. vid. Orat. i. §54. ii. §8. Sent. D. 4. not persons, but characters; which must also be considered the meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. ii. 2. and 10; though it there approximates (even in phrase, ouk en diairesei proswpwn) to its ecclesiastical use, which seems to have been later. Yet persona occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27; it may be questioned, however, whether in any genuine Greek treatise till the Apollinarians.
97 Heb. ii. 15.
98 Prov. viii. 22.
99 Sent. D. 9. Orat. 3, §§26-41.
100 [See de Incar. §54. 3, and note.]
101 Orat. 2, §70.
102 Cf. Orat. ii. 6. [See also de Incar. §17.]
103 The main argument of the Arians was that our lord was a Son, and therefore was not eternal, but of a substance which had a beginning. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3(2) a.] Accordingly Athanasius says, `Having argued with them as to the meaning of their own selected term "Son," let us go on to others, which on the very face make for us, such as Word, Wisdom, &c.'
104 1 Cor. i. 24.
105 John i. 14.
106 Vid. supr. §12.
107 Vid. supr. §1. note 2, bis.
108 alogoj, asofoj. Vid. infr., §26. This is a frequent argument in the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Son or substantial Word (logoj), is as great a sacrilege as to deny His Reason, logoj, from which the Son receives His name. Thus Orat i. §14. fin. Athan. says, `imputing to God's nature an absence of His Word (alogian or irrationality), they are most irreligious.' Vid. §19. fin. 24. Elsewhere, he says. `Is a man not mad himself, who even entertains the thought that God is word-less and wisdom-less? for such illustrations and such images Scripture hath proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend concerning God, we might even from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as is attainable.' Orat. ii 32. vid also iii. 63. iv. 12. Serap. ii. 2.
109 Vid. above, §1, note 6.
110 These were among the original positions of the Arians; for the former, see above, note 1; the latter is one of those specified in the Nicene Anathema.
111 And so phgh chra. Serap. ii. 2. Orat. i. §14 fin. also it. §2, where Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty God is Father, cannot really believe in Him as a Creator. If the divine substance be not fruitful (karpogonoj), but barren, as they say, as a light which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to maintain that He possesses the creative energy?' Vid. also phgh qeothtoj, Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. phgh ekprhghj, of the Son, Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And Cyril, `If thou take from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the generative power (karpogonon) of the divine nature so that It no longer is perfect. This then is a token of its perfection, and the Son who went forth from Him apart from time, is a pledge (sfragij) to the Father that He is perfect.' Thesaur. p. 37.
112 Arius said, as the Eunomians after him, that the Son was not really, but only called, Words and Wisdom, which were simply attributes of God, and the prototypes of the Son. Vid. Socr. i. 6. Theod. H.E.i. 3, and infr. Orat. ii.37, 38.
113 John x. 30.
115 Vid. de Syn. §15.
116 As the Arians took the title Son in that part of its earthly sense in which it did not apply to our Lord, so they misinterpreted the title Word also; which denoted the Son's immateriality and indivisible presence in the Father, but did not express His perfecttion. Vid. Orat. it. §34-36. contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. Aeg. 16. Epiph. Haer. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p. 349. Origen (in a passage, however, of questionable doctrine), says, `As there are gods many, but to us one God the Father, and many lords, but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so there are many words, but we pray that in us may exist the Word that was in the beginning, with God, and was God.' In Joan. tom. it. 3. `Many things, it is acknowledged, does the Father speak to the Son,' say the Semiarians at Ancyra, `but the words which God speaks to the Son, are not sons. They are not substances of God, but vocal energies; but the Son, though a Word, is not such, but, being a Son, is a substance.' Epiph. Haer. 73. 12. The Semiarians are speaking against Sabellianism, which took the same ground here as Arianism; so did the heresy of the Samosatene, who according to Epiphanius, considered our Lord as the internal Word, or thought. Haer. 65. The term word in this inferior sense is often in Greek rhma. Epiph. supr. and Cyril, de Incarn. Unig. init. t. v. i. p. 679.
117 `If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea (xarakthra) of Christianity, they would not have said that the Lord of glory was a creature.' Ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. §2, he says, Arians are not Christians because they are Arians, for Christians axe called, not from Arius, but from Christ, who is their only Master. Vid. also de Syn. §38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Afros. 4. Their cruelty and cooperation with the heathen populace was another reason. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. 12.
118 All the titles of the Son of God are consistent with each other, and variously represent one and the same Person. `Son' and `Word,' denote His derivation; `Word' and `Image,' His Similitude; `Word' and `Wisdom,' His immateriality; `Wisdom' and `Hand,' His coexistence. `If He is not Son, neither is He Image' Orat. ii. §2. 'How is them Word and Wisdom, unless He be a proper offspring of His substance? ii. §22. Vid. also Orat. i. §20. 21. and at great length Orat. iv. §20, &c. vid. also Naz. Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August. in Joan. xlviii. 6. and in Psalm. xliv. 5. Psalm (xlv.) 5.
119 Is. xlviii. 13.
120 Is li. 16.
121 Ps. civ. 24.
122 Prov. iii. 19.
123 John i. 1-3.
124 Heb. i. 1, Heb. i. 2.
125 1 Cor. viii. 6.
126 Col. i. 12-17.
127 Vid. a beautiful passage, contr. Gent. 42, &c. Again, of men, de Incarn. 3. 3; also Orat. ii. 78. where he speaks of Wisdom as being infused into the world on its creation, that it might possess `a type and semblance of its Image.'
128 diarragwsin, and so Serap. ii. fin. diarrhgnuwntai. de Syn. 34. diarrhgnuwsin eautouj. Orat. ii. §23. sparattetwsan eautouj. Orat. ii. §64. trizetw touj odontaj. Sent. D. 16.
129 [Prolegg. ch. ii. §6(2).]
130 supr. §7, note 2
131 ec ouk ontwn.
132 Heb. xi. 3.
133 By aiwn, age, seems to be meant duration, or the measure of duration, before or independent of the existence of motion, which is in measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are creatures, so are the ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an age has a sort of positive existence, though not an ousia or substance, and means the same as `world,' or an existing system of things viewed apart from time and motion. Vid. Theod. in Hebr. i. 2. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages thus considered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3. and God is the King of the ages, Tim. 1. 17. or is before all ages, as being eternal, or proaiwnioj. However, sometimes the word is synonymous with eternity; `as time is to things which are under time, so ages to things which are everlasting.' Damasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, and `ages of ages' stands for eternity; and then the `ages' or measures of duration may be supposed to stand for the ideai or ideas in the Divine Mind, which seems to have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses the Almighty as aiwnotoke, parent of the ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Ciera. Alex. Hymn. Poed. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. 5. p. 580. or again, aiwnioj. Theodoret sums up what has been said thus: `Age is not any subsisting substance, but is an interval indicative of time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate with creation, now with human life.' Hoer. v. 6. If then, as Athan. says in the text, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is independent of duration altogether; He does not come to be in time, but is above and beyond it, or eternal. Elsewhere he says, 'The words addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, `Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages,' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured by ages, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were madness to say, "There was once when the Everlasting (aiwnioj) was not." Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander; `Is it not unreasonable that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to all of which belongs `was not,' should be said not to be? for, if so, that interval in which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the Father, precedes that Wisdom of God which framed all things.' Theod. Hist. i. 4. vid also Basil de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34.
134 Herm. Mand. 1. vid. ad Afr. 5.
135 [Letter 39, and Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.] He calls it elsewhere a most profitable book. Incarn. 3.
136 Athan. here retorts, as it was obvious to do, the charge brought against the Council which gave occasion for this Treatise. If the Council went beyond Scripture in the use of the word `essence' (which however can hardly be granted), who made this necessary, but they who had already introduced the phrases, `the Son was out of nothing,' &c., &c.? `Of the essence,' and `one in essence,' were directly intended to contradict and supplant the Arian unscriptural innovations, as he says below, §20. fin. 21. init. vid. also ad Afros. 6. de Synod. §36, 37. He observes in like manner that the Arian agenhtoj, though allowable as uses by religious men, de Syn. §40. was unscriptural, Orat. i. §30, 34. Also Epiph. Hoer. 76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. Incarn. 80.
137 Vid. §10, note 3.
138 vid. ad. Afr. 5.
139 1 Cor. viii. 6.
140 2 Cor. v. 17.
141 Hence it stands in the Creed, `from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father.' vid. Eusebius's Letter, infr. According to the received doctrine of the Church all rational beings, and in one sense all beings whatever, are `from God,' over and above the fact of their creation; and of this truth the Arians made use to deny our Lord's proper divinity. Athan. lays down elsewhere that nothing remains in consistence and life, except from a participation of the Word, which is to be considered a gift from Him, additional to that of creation, and separable in idea from it; vid. above, §17, note contr. Gent. 42. de Incarn. 5. Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of God and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs so frequently in the Arian controversy, in the number, not only of the creatures, but of things generate, gennhta. This was the sense in which the Arians said that our Lord was Son of God; whereas, as Athan. says, `things originate, being works, cannot be called generate, except so far as, after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also; not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit.' Orat. i. 56. The question then was, as to the distinction of the Son's divine generation over that of holy men; and the Catholics answered that He was ec ousiaj, from the essence of God; not by participation of grace, not by resemblance, not in a limited sense, but really and simply, and therefore by an internal divine act. vid. below, §22. and infr. §31. [The above note has been modified so as to eliminate the erroneous identification of gennhtoj and genhtoj.]
142 Cf. de Syn. §35.
143 1 Cor. viii. 6.
144 When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed to God, or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or the Father the only God, or God is said to be unoriginate, agenhoj, this is not in contrast to the Son, but to all things which are distinct from God vid. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13. Cyril. Thesaur. p 142. `The words "one" and "only" ascribed to God in Scripture,' says S. Basil, `are not used in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to those who are not God, and falsely called so.' Ep. 8. n. 3. Oil the other hand, when the Father is mentioned, the other Divine Persons are implied in Him, `The Blessed and Holy Trinity,' says S. Athan. `is indivisible and one in itself; and when the Father is mentioned, His Word is added, and the Spirit in the Son; and if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.' ad Serap. i. 14.
145 Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, `"I am," to on, is really proper to God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught before Him, nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be.' Naz. Orat. 30. 18 fin. Also Cyril Dial. i.p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 9. and the Seminarians at Ancyra, Epiph H§r. 73. 12 init. By the `essence,' however, or, `substance' of God, the Council did not mean any thing distinct from God, vid. note 3 infr. but God Himself viewed in His self-existing nature (vid. Tert. in Hermog, 3.), nay, it expressly meant to negative the contrary notion of the Arians, that our Lord was from something distinct from God, and in consequence of created substance. moreover the term expresses the idea of God positively, in contradistinction to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense, eternal, &c. Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any thing distinct from God as those epithets do.
147 1 Cor. xi. 7.
148 2 Cor. iv. 11.
149 Acts xvii. 28.
150 Rom viii. 35, who shall separate.
151 Joel ii. 25.
152 Ex. xii. 41.
153 Ps. xlvi. 7.
154 vid. supr. §8, note 3.
155 Prov. xii. 20.
156 vid. ad Afros. 5, 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, `If we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He is one in essence, omoousion,' determined the Council on the adoption of the term. de Fid iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed `of the essence,' in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Axius, however, had disclaimed omoousion already Epiph. Hoe. 69. 7. It was a word of old usage in the Church, as Eusebius of Caesarea confesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13 fin. has the translation `unius substantiae:' (vid. Lucifer de non Parc. p. 218.) as he has `de substantia Paris,' in Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theognostus and the two Dionysii, infr. §25, 26. And before them Clement had spoken of the enwsij thj monadikhj ousiaj, `the union of the single essence,' vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has `per substantiae communionem,' de Trinit. 31.
157 The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and tile image of the Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original, differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed the strong word aparallaktoj unvarying[or rather exact] image, vid. beginning of §20. which had been used by the Catholics (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words kat' ousian, or `according to substance.' Even this strong phrase, however, kat' ousian aparallaktoj eikwn, or aparallaktwj omoioj, did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. that `like' applies to qualities rather than to essence §53. Also Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. `while in itself,' says the same Father `it is frequently used of faint similitudes and falling very far short of the original.' Ep. 9. n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word omoousion as implying, as the text expresses it, `the same in likeness,' tauton th omoiwsei, that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. the passage about gold and brass, §23 below, Cyril in Joan. 1, iii. c. v. p. 302. [See below de Syn. 15, note 2.]
158 Gen. v. 3.
159 vid. Euseb.'s Letter, supr.
160 gennhma, offspring; this word is of very frequent occurrence in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6-8. explicitly disavows the word, as an unscriptural invention of Eunomius. `That the Father begat we are taught in many places: that the Son is offspring we never heard up to this day, for Scripture says, "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given."' c. 7. He goes on to say that `it is fearful to give Him names of our own to whom God has given a name which is above every name;' and observes that offspring is not the word which even a human father would apply to his son, as for instance we read, `Child, (teknon,) go into the vineyard,' and `Who art thou, my son?' moreover that fruits of the earth are called offspring (`I will not drink of the offspring of this vine'), rarely animated things, except indeed in such instances as, `O generation (offspring) of vipers.' Nyssen defends his brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p 105. In the Arian formula `an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,' it is synonymous with `work' or `creature.' On the other hand Epiphanius uses it, e.g. Hoer. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.
161 Ps. xlv. 1.
162 Ib. cx. 3.
163 John viii. 42.
164 Ib. vi. 46.
165 Ib. x. 30, and xiv. 10.
166 Ib. i. 18.