[2866] hos autoi thelousi. 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 idios; 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 euangelikos horos.
[2867] sumphonos. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian sumphonia 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 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.
[2868] Asterius, §2, init.
[2869] hora. 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.
[2870] This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril. de Trin. i. p. 407.
[2871] Is. xiv. 12.
[2872] Luke vi. 36 (cf. Tisch. in loc.)
[2873] Eph. v. 1, 2.
[2874] 1 Cor. xi. 1.
[2875] John x. 30; xiv. 10.
[2876] Vid. Ps. lxxxvi. 8; lxxxix. 6.
[2877] Aug. de Trin. vii. fin.
[2878] Cf. Serap. i. 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. §19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21-24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. One must not say,' he observes, that these names properly and primarily, kurios kai protos belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure katachrestikos (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings says, "Call no one your father upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven."' He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decr. 31, n. 5), much more is He the pater tou kata phusin huiou. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kurios logos, not kurios hui& 231;s. ibid. ii. 10 fin. vid. supr. ii. 19, note 3.
[2879] kat' ousian homoios, Or. i. 21, n. 8.
[2880] Supr. §6.
[2881] And so ergazomenou tou patros, ergazesthai kai ton hui& 231;n. In illud Omn. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one kata ten dunamin, they are one also in ousia. in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hær. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so S. Athan. trias adiairetos te phusei, kai mia tautes he energeia. Serap. i. 28, f. hen thelema patros kai huiou kai boulema, epei kai he phusis mia. In illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentiæ, de Sp. ii. 12. fin. and of S. Basil, on mia energeia, touton kai ousia mia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius Trin. iv. 15.
[2882] John xiv. 23.
[2883] 1 Thess. iii. 11.
[2884] Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col. 2. And Theodoret on Col. iii. 17. says, Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.' All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living Word and God....But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.' Origen contr. Cels. v. 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.
[2885] Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the doctrine vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Infr. §14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in him,' i.e. sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Præscr. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.
[2886] Is. ix. 6, LXX.
[2887] Gen. xxxii. 26, 30.
[2888] Gen. xxviii. 15, LXX.
[2889] Ib. xxxi. 7; xxxii. 11.
[2890] Ps. cxx. 1, 2.
[2891] Ps. xviii. 1, 2.
[2892] Vid. 2 Tim. iii. 11; 2 Cor. i. 10.
[2893] Gen. xxviii. 3, 4, LXX.
[2894] Rom. i. 7, &c.
[2895] 1 Cor. i. 4.
[2896] Or. ii. 21, n. 2.
[2897] Heb. i. 14.
[2898] tes theotokou Marias. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] vid. also infr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (ton palai kai propalai) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord theotokon, according to the Apostolical tradition.' Hær. iv. 12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known, writes to the former. This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it.' Concil. Eph. part i. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. Interpreting,' he says, how theotokos is used, he discussed the question at length.' Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently overlooked, in arguing from Ephrem. ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase Mother of God' originated in S. Leo). [See vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]
[2899] Vid. Ex. iii. 2-6.
[2900] §12, note 2.
[2901] Serap. i. 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. Hom. 24 init. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. 3. p. 481.
[2902] Infr. §64. Ep. Æg. 14.
[2903] Infr. §16, notes.
[2904] eidos.
[2905] And so infr. 25, 36 fin. Serap. i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, d. iii. 1, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. p. 865. Damascen. F. O. i. 7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ibid. 24. Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10, e.
[2906] polueidous
[2907] Vid. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note 5. The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and worship. vid. de Decr. 6, note 5, Or. i. 30, n. 1. But every substance,' says S. Austin, which is not God, is a creature, and which is not a creature, is God.' de Trin. i. 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 31.
[2908] §11, n. 4.
[2909] epicheirema, de Decr. 1, note.
[2910] Vid. supr. ii. 14, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de Trin. ii. 12. §5. from the Fathers in proof of the worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as idolaters vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8. also Ep. Æg. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init. Serap. i. 29, d. Theodoret in Rom. i. 25.
[2911] Or. i. 30, n. 1.
[2912] sunkuliontai, vid. Orat. i. 23. ii. 1 init.; Decr. 9 fin.; Gent. 19, c. cf. 2 Pet. ii. 22.
[2913] theostugeis, infr. Letter 54. 1 fin.
[2914] eidos; also in Gen. xxxii. 30, 31. Sept. [a substitute for Heb. face.'] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56, n. 6. for the meaning of the word. It was just now used for kind.' Athan. says, de Syn. ubi supr. there is but one form of Godhead;' yet the word is used of the Son as synonymous with image.' It would seem as if there are a certain class of words, all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more appropriate application either ordinarily or under circumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance. Thus Being' is more descriptive of the Father as the pege theotetos, and He is said to be the Being of the Son;' yet the Son is really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words morphe and eidos [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] are rather descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He is called the form of the Father,' yet there is but one Form and Face of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons; while Spirit' is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus again S. Hippolytus says ek [tou patros] dunamis logos, yet shortly before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, dunamin de mian, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word Subsistence,' hupostasis, which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed personally. Other words may be used correlatively of either Father or Son; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of the Father; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Others in common, as the Father's Godhead is the Son's,' he patrike huiou theotes, as indeed the word ousia itself. Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or That Person only, as Word,' Image,' &c.
[2915] John v. 37.
[2916] Gen. xxxii. 31, LXX.
[2917] John xiv. 9, 10; x. 30.
[2918] §10, n. 1.
[2919] John xvii. 11.
[2920] Ib. 20-23.
[2921] hoi dolioi. crafty as they are, also infr. 59.
[2922] Or. i. 21, n. 8, cf. infr. §67.
[2923] diaboliken vid. §8, n. 10., cf. Isa. xiv. 14.
[2924] Supr. p. 171, note 5.
[2925] John viii. 44.
[2926] ii. 73, n. 7.
[2927] De Decr. 10; Or. i. 26, n. 1.
[2928] Cf. Hist. Ar. 80, n. 11.
[2929] periergazesthai; vid. Or. ii. 34, n. 5.
[2930] Orat. ii. 53, n. 4; Orat. iv. 33 init.
[2931] Ps. xxxii. 9; xlix. 20.
[2932] Jer. v. 8.
[2933] Luke xiii. 32.
[2934] Matt. x. 16.
[2935] Luke vi. 36.
[2936] Matt. v. 48.
[2937] theoi, §§23 end, 25, and ii. 70, n. 1.
[2938] ii. 44, n. 1.
[2939] 1 John v. 20.
[2940] John i. 12.
[2941] Ib. xiv. 6; xvii. 17.
[2942] kata mimesin. Clem. Alex. Pædag. i. 3. p. 102. ed. Pott. Naz. Ep. 102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) Leo in various places, supr. ii. 55, n. 1. Iren. Hær. v. 1. August. Serm. 101, 6. August. Trin. iv. 17. also ix. 21. and Eusebius, kata ten autou mimesin. Eccl. Theol. iii. 19, a. For inward grace as opposed to teaching, vid. supr. Orat. ii. 56, n. 5, and 79, n. 10.
[2943] enaretoi so panaretos Clem. Rom. Ep. i.
[2944] Acts iv. 4, 32.
[2945] Cf. ii. 23, 42.
[2946] diathesei, de Decr. 2, note 5; Ep. ad Mon. (1) init. Hipp. c. Noet. 7.
[2947] Matt. xi. 29.
[2948] 1 Cor. iv. 6.
[2949] Vid. 1 Cor. i. 10
[2950] Ps. lx. 12; xviii. 29.
[2951] Ps. xliv. 5. Vid. Olear. de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. 1702.) [Winer. xlviii. a.]
[2952] This remark which comes in abruptly is pursued presently, vid. §23.