9 Acts xvii. 28. Vid. supr. ii. 41, note 11. The doctrine of the perixwrhsij, 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,' emfiloxwrein tw qew kai endiaitasqai. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), `Filius locus eat Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.' in Ezek. iii. 12. So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are en memerismenoij topoij 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 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 topoj or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as oloj qeoj, 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 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, ec authj thj patrikhj [not ousiaj, but] metousiaj, wsper apo phghj, ep' auton proxeomenhj plhroumenon. 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' olon idion autou gennhma. 4.
13 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 h patrikh qeothj. p. 82. and S. Basil, ec ou exei 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 perixwrhsij.
15 panta ginwskein epaggellomenoj. 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 epaggelma of the o Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11.
18 paranomoj. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. Ep. Aeg. 16, d. Vid. anomoj. 2 Thess. ii. 8.
19 en uiw, but en tw uiw. Ep. Aeg. 14 fin vid. Or ii. 22, note 2.
21 1 Kings viii. 59, or 1 Kings x. 24?
22 2 Kings v. 8, 2 Kings v. 15.
24 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 perixwrhsij 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 perixwrhsij is the Divine gennhsij. Thus S. Hilary, Trin. ii. 4. vid. Or. ii. 33, n. 1.
25 eidouj. Petavius here prefers the reading idiou&Eaxute\ qeothj and to idion occur together infr. 6. and 56. eidoj occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. Aeg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§6, 16, notes.
26 In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherenee 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 he 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. tautothj ousiaj, 21. patrikh qeothj tou uiou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140.
31 anomoion; and so anomoioj kata panta. Orat. i. 6. kat' ousian. 17. Orat. ii. 43. thj ousiaj. infr. 14. vid. anomoiothj. infr. 8, c.
32 Cf. in illud. Omn. 4. `As the Father is I am (o wn) so His Word is I Am and God over all.' Serap. i. 28, a; ib. ii. 2.
34 Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. 1.
42 John xvi. 15; John xvii. 10.
43 John x. 30, John x. 38; John xiv. 10.
45 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, qrullountej; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the perixwrhsij 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 aparallaktoj, de Syn. 23, n. 1.
47 Vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in Psalm cxviii. 25 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 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. rid. 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 Dan. iii. 18. Incense was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards before the images of the Saints.
50 eidoj, vid. infr. 16, note.
51 Here first the Son's eidoj is the eidoj of the Father, then the Son is the eidoj of the Father's Godhead, and then in the Son is the eidoj of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, oloj qeoj. vid. infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word opisqia (Exod. xxxiii. 23), which forms a contrast to eidoj, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3.
54 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 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.
57 Ex. iii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 39, LXX.; Is. xliv. 6.
59 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 Deut. xxxii. 39; Deut. vi. 4, &c.
62 2 Sam. xv. 13; 1 Kings i. 11.
63 Luke xviii. 19, and vid. Basil. Ep. 236, 1.
66 John v. 23, cf. John xiii. 20.
68 oi nun, cf. Or ii. 1, note 6, and Hist. Ar. 61, fin.
69 diabolikoi. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Decr. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Aeg. 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; diaballwn occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius diaboloj, it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was ton diabolou propon analabwn, where the word has no article, and diabeblhmai and dieblhqhn 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 touj pateraj diaballontwn and thj eij ton episkopon diabolhj.
70 para, vid. §24 end, and John xv. 26.
71 ouj hqelon, infr. §10, n. 1.
72 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.
75 maqwn edidace, de Decr. 7, n. 8; Or. ii. 1, note 6 a.
78 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 arxh; a word which, as `Father,' does not imply that the Son is not from eternity.
80 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 oloj qeoj, 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, h ousia auth thj ousiaj thj patrikhj esti gennhma. de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 and 2.
81 wj autoi felousi. 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 idioj: 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 euaggelikoj oroj.
82 sumfwnoj. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian sumfwnia 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 John x. 30. by John 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.
84 wra. 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 This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril. de Trin. i. p 407.