150 From ec ouk ontwn, `out of nothing,' one of the original Arian positions concerning the Son. Theodoret says that they were also called Hexakionitae, from the nature of their place of meeting, Haer. iv. 3. and Du Cange confirms it so far as to show that there was a place or quarter of Constantinople Hexakionium [Cf. Soph. Lex. s.v.]
151 This passage shews that Athanasius did not insert these sections till two years after the composition of the work itself; for Constantine died a.d. 361.
152 Euzoius, now Arian Bishop of Antioch, was excommunicated with Arius in Egypt and at Nicaea, and was restored with him to the Church at the Council of Jerusalem.
153 upekrinanto. Hypocrites is almost a title of the Arians (with an apparent allusion to 1 Tim. iv. 2. vid. Socr. i. p. 5, Orat. i. §8).
154 The subject before us, naturally rises out of what has gone before. The Anomoean creed was hopeless; but with the Semi-Arians all that remained was the adjustment of phrases. Accordingly, Athan. goes on to propose such explanations as might clear the way for a re-union of Christendom. §47, note.
156 wra. vid. Orat. i. §15; iv. §10; Serap. ii. 1. kairo= de Decr. §15. init.
157 `The Apostle' is a common title of S. Paul in antiquity. Cf. August. ad Bonifac. iii. 3.
160 Vid. supr. Orat. i. §15; de Decr. §22, note 1.
166 [Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1).]
170 It must not be supposed from this that he approves [as adequate] the phrase omoioj kat ousian or omoiousioj, in this Treatise, for infr. §53. he rejects it on the ground that when we speak of `like,' we imply qualities, not essence. Yet he himself frequently, uses it, as other Fathers, and Orat. i. §26. uses omoioj thj ousiaj.
171 [Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (2) a.]
172 Vid. p. 162, note 8. Cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 24. vid. also Hil. contr. Constant. 16. August. Ep. 238. n. 4-6. Cyril. Dial. i. p. 391. Petavius refers to other passages. de Trin. v. 5. §6.
174 [See Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (2) c.]
175 [Ath. is referring to the Council of Ancyra, 358.]
176 So also de Decr. §23. p. 40. Pseudo-Ath. Hyp. Mel. et Euseb. Hil. de Syn. 89. The illustration runs into this position `Things that are like, [need] not be the same.' vid. §39. note 5. On the other hand, Athan. himself contends for the tauton th omoiwsei, `the same in likeness.' de Decr. §20.
177 Vid. Socr. iii. 25. p. 204. a.b. Una substantia religiose praedicabitur quae ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturae similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. Hil. de Syn. 67.
178 Here at last Athan. alludes to the Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph. Haer. 73, 5 and 7. about which he has kept a pointed silence above, when tracing the course of the Arian confessions. That is, he treats the Semi-Arians as tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon as they break company with the Arians. The Ancyrene Council of 358 was a protest against the `blasphemia' or second Sirmian Confession
179 It is usual with the Fathers to use the two terms `Son' and `Word,' to guard and complete the ordinary sense of each other, vid. p. 157, note 6; and p. 167, note 4. The term Son, used by itself, was abused into Arianism; and the term Word into Sabellianism; again the term Son might be accused of introducing material notions, and the term Word of imperfection and transitoriness. Each of them corrected the other. Orat. i. §28. iv. §8. Euseb. contr. Marc. ii. 4. p. 54. Isid. Pel. Ep. iv. 141. So S. Cyril says that we learn `from His being called Son that He is from Him, to ec autou; from His being called Wisdom and Word, that He is in Him,' to en autw. Thesaur. iv. p. 31. However, S Athanasius observes, that properly speaking the one term implies the other, i.e. in its fulness. Orat. iii. §3. iv. §24 fin. On the other hand the heretics accused Catholics of inconsistency, or of a union of opposite errors, because they accepted all the Scripture images together. Vigilius of Thapsus, contr. Eutych. ii. init. vid. also i. init. and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225, p. 759.
181 Vid. Epiph. Haer. 73. 3, &c.
183 Vid. Hilar. de Syn. 81 init.; Epiph. Haer. 73. 12.
184 There were three Councils held against Paul of Samosata, of the dates of 264, 269, and an intermediate year. The third is spoken of in the text, which contrary to the opinion of Pagi, S. Basnage, and Tillemont. Pearson fixes at 265 or 266.
185 Vid. p. 167, and a different translation, p. 183
186 This is in fact the objection which Arius urges against the Coessential, supr. §16, when he calls it the doctrine of Manichaeus and Hieracas, vid. §16, note 11. The same objection is protested against by S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. in his account of the reason of the Council's rejection of the word, S. Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a Sabellian sense, and therefore the Council rejected it. `Male homoüsion Samosatenus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt.' de Syn. 86.
187 Cf. Soz. iii. 18. The heretical party, starting with the notion in which their heresy in all its shades consisted, that the Son was a distinct being from the Father, concluded that `like in essence' was the only term which would express the relation of the Son to the Father. Here then the word `coessential' did just enable the Catholics to join issue with them, as exactly expressing what the Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no such distinction between Them as made the term `like' necessary, but that as material parent and offspring are individuals under one common species, so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one common individual essence.
189 thn thj omoiwsewj enothta: and so pp. 163, note 9, 165, 166. And Basil. tautothta thj fusewj, Ep. 8. 3: [but] tautothta thj ousiaj, Cyril in Joan. lib. iii. c. v. p. 302. [cf. tautoousion, p. 315, note 6.] It is uniformly asserted by the Catholics that the Father's godhead, qeothj, is the Son's; e.g. infr. §52; supr. p. 329 b, line 8; p 333, note 5; Orat i. 49 fin. ii. §18. §73. fin. iii. §26; iii. §5 fin. iii. §53; mian thn qeothta kai to idion thj ousiaj tou patroj. §56 supr. p. 84 fin. vid. §52. note. This is an approach to the doctrine of the Una Res, defined in the fourth Lateran Council [in 1215, see Harnack Dogmg. iii. 447, note, and on the doctrine of the Greek Fathers, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (a) b.]
190 Vid. Epiph. Haer. 73. 9 fin.
192 epiteixisma ; in like manner sundesmon pistewj. Epiph. Ancor. 6; cf. Haer. 69. 70; Ambros. de Fid. iii. 15.
193 [In this passage the difficulties and confusion which surround the terms agenhtoj and agennhtoj (supr. p. 149, &c.) come to a head. The question is (assuming, as proved by Lightfoot, the validity of the distinction of the two in Athan.) which word is to be read here. The mss. are divided throughout between the two readings, but it is clear (so Lightf. and Zahn on Ign. Eph. 7) that one word alone is in view throughout the present passage. That word, then, is pronounced by Lightf., partly on the strength of the quotation from the unnamed teachers (infr. note 7), partly on the ground of a reference to §26 (see note 10 there), to be agennhtoj. With all deference to so great an authority, I cannot hesitate to pronounce for agenhtoj. (1.) The parallelism of the two senses with the third and fourth senses of agen. Orat. i. 30. is almost decisive by itself. (2.) Ath.'s explanation of Ignatius. viz. that Christ is genhtoj on account of the flesh (he would have referred gennhtoj to His Essence, Orat. i. 56, certainly not to the flesh), while as Son and Word He is distinct from genhta and poihmata, is even more decisive. (3.) His explanation §46, sub fin. that the Son is agenhtoj. because He is aidion gennhma would lose all sense if agennhtoj. were read. As a matter of fact, agennhtoj. is the specific, agenhtoj. the generic term: the former was not applicable to the Eternal Son; the latter was, except in the first of the two senses distinguished in the text: a sense, however, more properly coming under the specific idea of agenhto. This was the ambiguity which made the similarity of the two words so dangerous a weapon in Arian hands. The above note does not of course affect the true reading of Ign. Eph. 7, as to which Lightfoot and Zahn speak with authority: but it seems clear that Athan., however mistakenly, quotes Ign. with the reading agenhtoj.]
194 Ign. ad Eph. [Lightf. Ign. p. 90, Zahn Patr. Apost. ii. p. 338.]
195 Not known, but cf. Clement. Strom. vi. 7. p. 769. en men to agennhton, o pantokratwr qeoj, en de kai to progennhqen di ou ta panta egeneto, kai xwrij autou egeneto oude en.
196 [On the subject of the rejection of the omoousion at this Council of Antioch, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.]
199 §23, note 3, yet vid. Hipp. contr. Noet. 7.
200 kinhsei vid. Cyril. contr. Jul. viii. p. 274. Greg. Nyss. de Hom. Op. p. 87.
202 By `the Son being equal to the Father,' is but meant that He is His `exact image;' it does not imply any distinction of essence. Cf. Hil. de Syn. 73. But this implies some exception, for else He would not be like or equal, but the same. ibid. 72. Hence He is the Father's image in all things except in being the Father, plhn thj agennhsiaj kai thj patrothtoj. Damasc. de Imag. iii. 18. p. 354. vid. also Basil. contr. Eun. ii. 28; Theod. Inconfus. p. 91; Basil. Ep. 38. 7 fin. [Through missing this point the] Arians asked why the Son was not the beginning of a qeogonia. Supr. p. 319 a, note 1. vid. infr. note 8.
204 Arianism was in the dilemma of denying Christ's divinity, or introducing a second God. The Arians proper went off on the former side of the alternative, the Semi-Arians on the latter; and Athan., as here addressing the Semi Arians, insists on the greatness of the latter error. This of course was the objection which attached to the words omoiousion, aparallaktoj eikwn, &c., when disjoined from the omoousion; and Eusebius's language, supr. p. 75, note 7, shews us that it is not an imaginary one.
205 De Decr. §10. p. 15, note 4.
206 eqeopoihse Orat. ii. §70. de Decr. §14.
207 Cf. supr. p. 314, note 1, Cyr. Thesaur. pp. 22, 23.
208 Cf. p. 169, note 4a [and on ousia as a philosophical and theological term, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b. On the divergence of its theological use from its philosophical sense, see] Anastasius, Hodeg. 6. and Theorian, Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. Socr. iii. 25. Damascene, speaking of the Jacobite use of fusij and upostasij says, `Who of holy men ever thus spoke? unless ye introduce to us your S. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and prefer the idolater to the divinely inspired.' cont. Jacob. 10. p. 399. and so again Leontius, speaking of Philoponus, who from the Monophysite confusion of nature and hypostasis was led into Tritheism. `He thus argued, taking his start from Aristotelic principles; for Aristotle says that there are of individuals particular substances as well as one common.' De Sect. v. fin.
209 The argument, when drawn out, is virtually this: if, because two subjects are coessential, a third is pre-supposed of which they partake, then, since either of these two is coessential with that of which both partake, a new third must be supposed in which it and the pre-existing substance partake and thus an infinite series of things coessential must be supposed, Vid. Basil. Ep. 52. n. 2. [Cf. Aristot. Frag. 183, p. 1509 b 23.]
211 Vid. de Decr. §11, note 6: also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p. 29: Basil. contr. Eun. ii. 23: Hil. de Syn. 17.
213 S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father kuriwj properly, supr. p. 156, note 1, 157, note 6, 171, note 5, 319, note 3), yet it comes to the same thing if we were to say that He is tropikwj and ek metaforaj, figuratively, such, contr. Eun. ii. 24; gennhsij implies two things,-passion, and relationship, oikeiwsij fusewj; accordingly we must take the latter as an indication of the divine sense of the term. Cf. also supr. p. 158, note 7, p. 322, Orat. ii. 32, iii. 18, 67, and Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 17; Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also Athan. ad Serap. i. 20. and Basil. Ep. 38. n. 5. and what is said of the office of faith in each of these.
214 Supr. p. 167. note 7, and p. 307.
215 enoj ontoj eidouj qeothtoj: for the word eidoj, cf. Orat iii. 16 is generally applied to the Son, as in what follows, and is synonymous [?] with hypostasis; but it is remarkable that here it is almost synonymous with ousia or fusij. Indeed in one sense nature, substance, and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i.e. as one and all denoting the Una Res, which is Almighty God. The apparent confusion is useful as reminding us of this great truth; vid. note 8, infr.
217 [fusij is here (as the apodosis of the clause shows) as well as in the next section, used as a somewhat more vague equivalent for ousia, not, as Newman contends in an omitted note. for `person,' a use which is scarcely borne out by the (no doubt somewhat fluctuating) senses of fusij in the passages quoted by him from Alexander (in Theod. H.E. i. 4, cf. Origen's use of ousia, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) a) and Cyril c. Nest. iii. p. 91. fusij and ousia are nearly equivalent in the manifesto of Basil of Ancyra, whom Ath. has in view here, see Epiph. Hoer. 73. 12-22.]
219 And so taij logomaxiaij, Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. It is used with an allusion to the fight against the Word, as xristomaxein and qeomaxein. Thus logomaxein melethsantej, kai loipon pneumatomaxountej, esontai met oligon nekroi th alogia. Serap. iv. 1.
220 Cf. Hil. de Syn. 77, and appendix, note 3, also supr. p. 303, and note. The omoousion was not imposed upon Ursacius and Valens, a.d. 347, by Pope Julius; nor in the Council of Aquileia in 381, was it offered by S. Ambrose to Palladius and Secundianus. S. Jerome's account of the apology made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of the same kind. `We thought,' they said, `the sense corresponded to the words, nor in the Church of God, where there is simplicity, and a pure confession, did we fear that one thing would be concealed in the heart, another uttered by the lips. We were deceived by our good opinion of the bad.' ad Lucif. 19.