26 Ep. Encycl. 6; Epiph. Haer. 73. 1.
32 And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod haeretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494.
34 Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judaeis. ibid. xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord's nativity, circumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. xxxii. 6.
36 [A note on the intimate mutual connexion of all heresies is omitted here.]
39 dwrodokoi, and so kerdoj thj filocrhmatiaj, infr. §53. He mentions prostasiaj filwn, §10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10. And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa caedit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod H. E. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of filocrusouj mallon h filocristouj. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Aeg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c. (2).]
41 Vid. de Decr. 1. note. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers. vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40, 42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28; Ambros. de fid. i. n. 69 and 104.
43 1 Tim. iv. 1, 1 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 14.
44 This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. Haer. i. 25; Epiph. Haer. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Haer. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xx. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Hoer. ii praef. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901. Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Quoest. 22. vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, cf. Depos. Ar. supr. p. 71, note 29.
45 [This is the only occurrence of the word omoousioj in these three Discourses.]
47 de Decr. §14 fin.; de Syn. §51.
50 That is, `Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to predicate that of God (of one who is God), for such is the Word, viz. that He was from eternity or was created,' &c., &c.
51 kat epinoian, vid. Orat. ii. §38.
54 de Decr. 6. note 5; de Syn. 32.
61 Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word `time.' vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,-`There was,' what `when the Son was not?' or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if `when' be a word of time, He it is who was `when' He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who `was' before the Son? This was true, if `before' was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John's Gospel may be interpreted `In the Beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father `was the Word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.
64 Rev. i. 4. tade legei. [On legei, &c., in citations, see Lightf. on Gal. iii. 16, Winer, Gram. §58, 9 y, Grimm-Thayer, s.v. II. 1. e.]
67 1 Cor. i. 24. Athan. has so interpreted this text supr. de Decr. 15. It was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicaea, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid. de Syn. 18, and Orat. ii. §37.
68 2 Cor. iii. 16, 2 Cor. iii. 17. S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 4-7, that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply `Spirit' without the addition `of God' or `of the Father' or `from Me' or of the article, or of `Holy,' or `Comforter,' or `of truth,' or unless He has been spoken of just before. Accordingly this text is understood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr. Cels. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 32; Psendo-Athan. de comm. ess. 6. On the other hand, the word pneuma, 'Spirit, is used more or less distinctly for our Lord's Divine Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63, &c. [But cf. also Milligan Resurr. 238 sq.] Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the `Holy Spirit,' which came down upon S. Mary might be considered the Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, `If the Spirit of God did not descend into the womb "to partake in flesh from the womb," why did He descend at all?' de Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 26, Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren. Hoer. v. 1. Cypr. Idol Van. 6. Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. ii. 27; Athan. logoj en tw pneumati eplatte to swma. Serap. i. 31 fin. en tw logw hn to pneuma ibid. iii. 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, auton anti sporaj sullabousa ton logon, kekuhke, t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even though his date were a.d. 150), who also says plainly: Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est. Sim. v. 5, 2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of `Spirit' for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Groec. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren. Hoer. iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3, and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severion. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot. ad Marc. ii. 8; Bull, Def. F. N. i. 1, §5; Coustant. Proeef. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init.]
82 Vid. de Decr. 18, note 5. The subject is treated at length in Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 93-101. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8-11. As time measures the material creation, `ages' were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timaeus says eikwn esti cronoj tw agennatw cronw, on aiwna potagoreuomej. vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. 1 prope fin., p. 501. Naz. Or. 38. 8.
83 John xiv. 6; John x. 14; John viii. 12; John xiii. 13.
86 John xiv. 28, John xiv. 29.
94 This was an objection urged by Eunomius, cf. de Syn. 51, note 8. It is implied also in the Apology of the former, §24, and in Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alexandria with George of Cappadocia, a.d. 356-8, and Athan. wrote these Discourses in the latter year, as the de Syn. at the end of the next. It is probable then that he is alluding to the Anomoean arguments as he heard them reported, vid. de Syn. l.c. where he says, `they say, "as you have written,"' §51. Anomoioj kat ousian is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are adelfoi, so did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third. vid. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2.
97 In other words, by the Divine gennhsij is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in the Divine Essence. Arius. not admitting this, objected at the outset of the controversy to the phrase `always Father, always Son,' Theod. H. E. i. 4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, `if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never such in act, energoj, but was argoj.' Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that 'works, erga, are made ecwqen, `from without;' but that our Lord, as S. Athanasius here says, is neither a `work' nor 'from without. And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are fathers first in posse then in act, God is dunamei te kai energeia pathr. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in aeterna, Adv. Ar. i. p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And Arius scoffs at aeigennhj and agennhtogenhj. Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had said, o swthr aei gennatai. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, anarcon kai aeigenej. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav. de Trin ii. 5. n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara, `Since the Son's generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (kuriwj) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is itself an end, teloj, and is perfect. teleion.' Opusc 26.
99 Infr. §26 fin., and de Decr. 12, note 2.
100 Vid. supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the objection; the Arians said, `How can God be ever perfect, who added to Himself a Son?' Athan. answers, `How can the Son not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?' vid. Greg. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the Son's perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph. Haer. 76. pp. 925, 6, that growth and consequent accession from without were essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not atelh proteron, eita teleion, wsper nomoj thj hmeteraj genesewj Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is tegwoj, because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a xarakthr, or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him perfect, without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16 fin.