Click to View

Early Church Fathers
Click to ViewMaster Index
Click to ViewPower Search

 Click to View

52 Ad Ep. Aeg. 6.

53 Cf. Orat. i. §§2-5; de Sent. D. 6; Socr. i. 9. The Arian Philostorgius tells us that `Arius wrote songs for the sea and for the mill and for the road, and then set them to suitable music,' Hist. ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athanasius should say the Egyptian Sotades, and again in Sent. D. 6. There were two Poets of the name; one a writer of the Middle Comedy, Athen. Deipn. vii. 11; but the other, who is here spoken of, was a native of Maronea in Crete, according to Suidas (in voc.), under the successors of Alexander, Athen. xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre, which was of infamous name from the subjects to which he and others applied it. vid. Suid. ibid. Horace's Ode. `Miserarum est neque amori, &c.' is a specimen of this metre, and some have called it Sotadic; but Bentley shews in loc. that Sotades wrote in the Ionic a majore. Athenaeus implies that all Ionic metres were called Sotadic, or that Sotades wrote in various Ionic metres. The Church adopted the Doric music, and forbade the Ionic and Lydian. The name `Thalia' commonly belonged to convivial songs; Martial contrasts the `lasciva Thalia' with `carmina sanctiora,' Epigr. vii. 17. vid. Thaliarchus, `the master of the feast,' Horat. Od. i. 9. [The metre of the fragments of the `Thalia' is obscure, there are no traces of the Ionic foot, but very distinct anapaestic cadences. In fact the lines resemble ill-constructed or very corrupt anapaestic tetrameters catalectic, as in a comic Parabasis. For Sotades, the Greek text here reads corruptly Sosates.]

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. iv. §2, and what Arius imputed to the Church.

56 anepimiktoi, that is, he denied the perixwrhsij, vid. supr. Orat. iii. 3, &c.

57 [John i. 18, best mss., and cf. Hort, Two Diss. p. 26.

58 epinoiaij, 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. iv. 1086 sqq.] Origen protests against the notion of probolh, Periarch. iv. p. 190, and Athanasius Expos. §1. The Arian Asterius too considers probolh to introduce the notion of teknogonia, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph. Haer. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word proballesqai. Eccl. Theol. i. 8. On the other hand Tertullian uses it with a protest against the Valentinian sense. Justin has problhqen gennhma, Tryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father proboleuj of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the word here as an argumentum ad invidiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.

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. ii. 5: Cf., as to Marcellus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9. also iv. 8. xi. 16; Epiph. Haer 73. 11 fin.: to Sabellians, Athan. Expos. Fid. 2. and 7, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p. 733: to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex. in Joann. p. 243: to Praxeas and Montanus, Mar. Merc. p. 128: to Sabellius, Caesar. Dial. i. p. 550: to Noetus, Damasc. Haer. 57.

64 [On Hieracas, see D.C.B. iii. 24; also Epiph. Haer. 67; Hil. Trin. vi. 12.]

65 Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here spoken of as held that our Lord's sugkatabasij to create the world was a gennhsij, and certainly such language as that of Hippol. contr. Noet. §15. favours the supposition. But one class of [Monarchians] may more probably be intended, who held that the Word became the Son upon His incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9 p. 114 b. mhd allote allhn k.t.l. Also the Macrostich says, `We anathematize those who call Him the mere Word of God, not allowing Him to be Christ and Son of God before all ages, but from the time He took on Him our flesh: such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, &c.' infr. §26. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15, says that, of those who divide the Word from the Son, some called our Lord's manhood the Son, some the two Natures together, and some said `that the Word Himself became the Son when He was made man.' It makes it more likely that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius seems to have written against him before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other of his writings borrowed from Asterius. vid. de Decret. §8.

66 Eusebius's letter to Euphration, which is mentioned just after, expresses this more distinctly-`If they coexist, how shall the Father be Father and the Son Son? or how the One first, the Other second? and the One ingenerate and the other generate?' Acta Conc. 7. p. 301. The phrase ta proj ti Bull well explains to refer to the Catholic truth that the Father or Son being named; the Other is therein implied without naming. Defens. F. N. iii. 9. §4. Hence Arius, in his Letter to Eusebius, complains that Alexander says, aei o qeoj, aei o uioj ama pathr, ama uioj. Theod. H. E. i. 4.

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. i. 4. [On Marls (who was not at Ariminum, and scarcely at Antioch in 363) see D.C.B. s.v. (2). On Theodotus see vol. i. of this series, p. 320, note 37. On Paulinus, ib. p. 369.]

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. xiii. 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. ii. §3 (2) a, sub. fin.]

72 None but the clergy might enter the Chancel, i.e. in Service time. Hence Theodosius was made to retire by S. Ambrose. Theod. v. 17. The Council of Laodicea, said to be held a.d. 372, forbids any but persons in orders, ieratikoi, to enter the Chancel and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. also 44. Conc. t. 1. pp. 788, 789. It is doubtful what orders the word ieratikoi, is intended to include. vid. Bingham, Antiqu. viii. 6. §7.

73 Ep. Aeg. 13.

74 Vid. infr. §32.

75 [On Artemas or Artemon and Theodotus, see Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) a.]

76 [See Apol. Ar. 84; Hist. Ar. 1; Prolegg. ii. §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. i. 26. and Soz. ii. 27. and was presented to Constantine by Arius in 330.

78 [Prolegg. ch. ii. §6(2).]

79 1st Confession or 1st of Antioch, a.d. 341. [See Socr. ii. 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. iv. 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. i. §35, &c.

83 On aparallaktoj eikwn kat ousian, which was synonymous with omoiusioj, vid. infr. §38. supr. p. 163, note 9. It was in order to secure the true sense of aparallakton that the Council adopted the word omoousion. 'Aparallakton is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. §20, 24. Orat. iii. §36. contr. Gent. 41. 46. fin. Philostorgius ascribing it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing it; cf. S. Alexander thn kata panta omoiothta autou ek fusewj apomacamenoj, in Theod. H.E. i. 4. Xarakthr, Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18.

84 This statement perhaps is the most Catholic in the Creed; not that the former axe not more explicit in themselves, or that in a certain true sense our Lord may not be called a Mediator before He became incarnate, but because the Arians, even Eusebius, like Philo and the Platonists, consider Him as made in the beginning the `Eternal Priest of the Father,' Demonst. v. 3. de Land. C. 3, 11, `an intermediate divine power,' §26, 27, and notes.

85 On this phrase, which is justified by S. Hilary, de Syn. 32, and is protested against in the Sardican Confession, Theod. H.E. ii. 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. i. 2.) And Athan. condemns the notion of 'the logoj en tw qew atelhj, gennhqeij teleioj, Orat. iv. 11. The Arians then, as being the especial opponents of the Sabellians, insisted on nothing so much as our Lord's being a real, living, substantial, Word. vid. Eusebius passim. `The Father,' says Acacius against Marcellus, `begat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and perfect perfect; for there is nothing imperfect in the Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the Son's perfection is the genuine offspring of His perfection, and superperfection.' ap. Epiph. Haer. 72. 7. Teleioj then was a relative word, varying with the subject matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 138. and when the Arians said that our Lord was perfect God, they meant, `perfect, in that sense in which He is God '-i.e. as a secondary divinity.-Nay, in one point of view, holding as they did no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, they would use the term of His divine Nature more freely than the Catholics sometimes had. `Nor was the Word,' says Hippolytus, `before the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being perfect Word, Only-begotten; nor could the flesh subsist by itself without the Word, because that in the Word it has its consistence: thus then He was manifested One perfect Son of God.' contr. Noet. 15.

92 [See Prolegg.] Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him.

93 a.d. 341.

94 [Cf. Prolegg. ii. §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. ii. §3 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. 17. cont. Marc. ii. 4.

97 S. Hilary, as we have seen above, p. 78, by implication calls this the Nicene Anathema; but it omits many of the Nicene clauses, and evades our Lord's eternal existence, substituting for `once He was not,' `there was time when He was not.' It seems to have been considered sufficient for Gaul, as used now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the creed of Philippopolis.

98 Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Martyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long Confession, or Macrostich, which follows, is remarkable; [see Prolegg, ch. ii. §6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sq.]

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 ec 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.]

Click Your Choice