[879] Herm. Mand. 1. vid. ad Afr. 5.
[880] [Letter 39, and Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.] He calls it elsewhere a most profitable book. Incarn. 3.
[881] 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 agenetos, though allowable as used by religious men, de Syn. §40. was unscriptural, Orat. i. §30, 34. Also Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. Incarn. 80.
[882] Vid. §10, note 3.
[883] vid. ad. Afr. 5.
[884] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[885] 2 Cor. v. 17.
[886] 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 5. 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, genneta. 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 ex ousias, 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 gennetos and genetos.]
[887] Cf. de Syn. §35.
[888] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[889] 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, agenetos, 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. On 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.
[890] 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 Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Hær. 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.
[891] aparallakton
[892] 1 Cor. xi. 7.
[893] 2 Cor. iv. 11.
[894] Acts xvii. 28.
[895] Rom. viii. 35, who shall separate.
[896] Joel ii. 25.
[897] Ex. xii. 41.
[898] Ps. xlvi. 7.
[899] vid. supr. §8, note 3.
[900] Prov. xii. 20.
[901] 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, homoousion,' 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. Arius, however, had disclaimed homoousion already, Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. It was a word of old usage in the Church, as Eusebius of Cæsarea confesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13 fin. has the translation unius substantiæ:' (vid. Lucifer de non Parc. p. 218.) as he has de substantia Patris,' 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 henosis tes monadikes ousias, the union of the single essence,' vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has per substantiæ communionem,' de Trinit. 31.
[902] The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and the 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 aparallaktos 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 aparallaktos eikon, or aparallaktos homoios, 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 homoousion as implying, as the text expresses it, the same in likeness,' tauton te homoiosei, 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.]
[903] Gen. v. 3.
[904] vid. Euseb.'s Letter, supr.
[905] gennema, 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 an 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. Hær. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.
[906] Ps. xlv. 1.
[907] Ib. cx. 3.
[908] John viii. 42.
[909] Ib. vi. 46.
[910] Ib. x. 30, and xiv. 10.
[911] Ib. i. 18.
[912] sumbebekos. Cf. Orat. iv. 2. also Orat. i. 36. The text embodies the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God's goodness as an accident, as colour to the body,' as flame is ruddy and the sky blue,' Legat. 24. This, however is but a verbal difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, to ontos on, and His unity of nature, to monophues, as in the number of episumbebekota auto. Eusebius uses the word sumbebekos in the same way [but see Orat. iv. 2, note 8], Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections to observe, There are cogent reasons for considering these things as accidents sumbebekota in God, though they be not.' Thesaur. p. 263. vid. the following note.
[913] peribole, and so de Syn. §34. which is very much the same passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen says that neither the immateriality of God nor ingenerateness, present to us His essence.' Orat. 28. 9. And S. Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that not every thing which is said to be in God is said according to essence.' de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that there are qualities or the like belonging to Him, peri auton, it is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words peri theon occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, though it would require more words than could be given to it here. Petavius has treated the subject fully in his work de Deo. i. 7-11. and especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no difference between the divine proprietates' and essence, they speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He is; when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but view His Divine Nature as if in projection (if such a word may be used), and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be divided into genus and difference.
[914] Ex. iii. 14, 15.
[915] In like manner de Synod. §34. Also Basil, The essence is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God.' contr. Eun. i. 10 fin. The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded.' Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. When we say the power of the Father, we say nothing else than the essence of the Father.' August. de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is essence and being.' Præp. Evang. xi. 10.
[916] Athan.'s ordinary illustration is, as here, not from fire,' but from radiance,' apaugasma, after S. Paul [i.e. Hebrews] and the Author of the Book of Wisdom, meaning by radiance the light which a light diffuses by means of the atmosphere. On the other hand Arius in his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of Hieracas that the Son was from the Father as a light from a light or as a lamp divided into two, which after all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius refers to fire, Orat. iv. §2 and 10, but still to fire and its radiance. However we find the illustration of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Græc. 5. At this early day the illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bearing, as that of fire in Athan.'s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who considered the Son as like the sun's light in the heaven,' which when it sets, goes away with it,' whereas it is as fire kindled from fire.' Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius, says as light from fire,' using also the word apo& 207;rhoia, effluence: vid. also Orig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull. Ap. 21. Theognostus, quoted infr. §25.