[2786] Prov. xviii. 3, LXX.
[2787] Jer. iii. 3.
[2788] Supr. ch. xix.
[2789] Ch. xiii.
[2790] Ch. xxi.
[2791] Ch. xiv.
[2792] ii. 44, n. 1.
[2793] John xiv. 10.
[2794] Acts xvii. 28. Vid. supr. ii. 41, note 11. The doctrine of the perichoresis, 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,' emphilochorein to theo kai endiaitasthai. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), Filius locus est Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.' in Ezek. iii. 12. So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are en memerismenois topois 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.
[2795] 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 topos or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as holos theos, 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.]
[2796] 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, ex autes tes patrikes [not ousias, but] metousias, hosper apo peges, ep' auton procheomenes pleroumenon. 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' holon idion autou gennema. 4.
[2797] De Decr. 15, n. 9.
[2798] 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 he patrike theotes. p. 82. and S. Basil, ex hou echei 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 perichoresis
[2799] sunegorou, infr. §60.
[2800] panta ginoskein epangellomenos. 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 epangelma of the Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11.
[2801] 1 Cor. ii. 4.
[2802] 1 Tim. i. 7.
[2803] paranomos. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. Ep. Æg. 16, d. Vid. anomos. 2 Thess. ii. 8.
[2804] en hui& 254;, but en to hui& 254;. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. vid. Or. ii. 22, note 2.
[2805] Ps. lxxxv. 8, LXX.
[2806] 1 Kings viii. 59, or x. 24?
[2807] 2 Kings v. 8, 15.
[2808] Or. ii. 19, n. 6.
[2809] 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 perichoresis 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 perichoresis is the Divine gennesis. Thus S. Hilary, Trin. ii. 4. vid. Or. ii. 33, n. 1.
[2810] eidous. Petavius here prefers the reading idiou; theotes and to hidion occur together infr. 6. and 56. eidos occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. Æg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§6, 16, notes.
[2811] In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherence 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 be 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. tautotes ousias, 21. patrike theotes tou huiou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140.
[2812] John x. 30.
[2813] De Syn. 45, n. 1.
[2814] Infr. Orat. iv. 9.
[2815] Infr. 11.
[2816] anomoion; and so anomoios kata panta. Orat. i. 6. kat' ousian. 17. Orat. ii. 43. tes ousias. infr. 14. vid. anomoiotes. infr. 8, c.
[2817] Cf. in illud. Omn. 4. As the Father is I am (ho on) so His Word is I Am and God over all.' Serap. i. 28, a; ib. ii. 2.
[2818] Cf. i. 6.
[2819] Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. 1.
[2820] Ib. 49, n. 4.
[2821] Parallel to de Syn. 49.
[2822] John i. 1.
[2823] Rev. i. 8.
[2824] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[2825] John viii. 12.
[2826] Luke v. 24.
[2827] John xvi. 15; xvii. 10.
[2828] John x. 30, 38; xiv. 10.
[2829] Ib. xiv. 9.
[2830] 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, thrullountes; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the perichoresis 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.
[2831] aparallaktos, de Syn. 23, n. 1.
[2832] Vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in Psalm cxviii. 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.
[2833] 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. vid. 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.
[2834] Phil. ii. 6.
[2835] eidos, vid. infr. 16, note.
[2836] Here first the Son's eidos is the eidos of the Father, then the Son is the eidos of the Father's Godhead, and then in the Son is the eidos of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, holos theos. vid. infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word opisthia (Exod. xxxiii. 23), which forms a contrast to eidos, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3.
[2837] 2 Cor. v. 19.
[2838] John xiv. 10; x. 30.
[2839] 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.
[2840] 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.
[2841] Mark xii. 29.
[2842] Ex. iii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 39, LXX.; Is. xliv. 6
[2843] De Decr. 19, n. 6.
[2844] 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.
Chapter XXIV.--Texts Explained; Eighthly, John xvii. 3. and the Like. Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. One' is used in contrast to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin.
7. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet is clear and manifest to all; but since the irreligious men, alleging such passages also, dishonour the Lord and reproach us, saying, Behold God is said to be One and Only and First; how say ye that the Son is God? for if He were God, He had not said, "I Alone," nor "God is One [2845] ;"' it is necessary to declare the sense of these phrases in addition, as far as we can, that all may know from this also that the Arians are really contending with God [2846] . If there then is rivalry of the Son towards the Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonijah and Absalom [2847] , so also the Father looks upon the Son, then let Him utter and urge such words against Himself, lest He the Son, calling Himself God, make any to revolt from the Father. But if he who knows the Son, on the contrary, knows the Father, the Son Himself revealing Him to him, and in the Word he shall rather see the Father, as has been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified not Himself but the Father, saying to one who came to Him, Why callest thou Me good? none is good save One, that is, God [2848] ;' and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord [2849] ;' and saying to the multitudes, I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me [2850] ;' and teaching the disciples, My Father is greater than I,' and He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me [2851] ;' if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty [2852] , that one must need take such a view of such passages? and on the other hand, if the Son is the Father's Word, who is so wild, besides these Christ-opposers, as to think that God has thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own Word? This is not the mind of Christians; perish the thought; for not with reference to the Son is it thus written, but for the denial of those falsely called gods, invented by men.