[3532] On aparallaktos eikon kat' ousian, which was synonymous with homoiousios, vid. infr. §38. supr. p. 163, note 9. It was in order to secure the true sense of aparallakton that the Council adopted the word homoousion 'Aparallakton is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. §§20, 24. Orat. iii. §36. contr. Gent. 41. 46. fin. Philostorgius ascribing it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing it; cf. S. Alexander ten kata panta homoioteta autou ek phuseos apomaxamenos, in Theod. H. E. i. 4. Charakter, Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18.
[3533] This statement perhaps is the most Catholic in the Creed; not that the former are not more explicit in themselves, or that in a certain true sense our Lord may not be called a Mediator before He became incarnate, but because the Arians, even Eusebius, like Philo and the Platonists, consider Him as made in the beginning the Eternal Priest of the Father,' Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. 3, 11, an intermediate divine power,' §§26, 27, and notes.
[3534] On this phrase, which is justified by S. Hilary, de Syn. 32, and is protested against in the Sardican Confession, Theod. H. E. ii. 6 [see Prolegg. ubi supr.]
[3535] The whole of these anathemas are [a compromise]. The Council anathematizes every heretical heterodoxy;' not, as Athanasius observes, supr., §7, the Arian.
[3536] Our Lord was, as they held, before time, but still created.
[3537] This emphatic mention of Scripture is also virtually an Arian evasion, admitting of a silent reference to themselves as interpreters of Scripture.
[3538] On this Creed see Prolegg. ubi supr.
[3539] 3rd Confession or 3rd of Antioch, a.d. 341.
[3540] It need scarcely be said, that perfect from perfect' is a symbol on which the Catholics laid stress, Athan. Orat. ii. 35. Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 945. but it admitted of an evasion. An especial reason for insisting on it in the previous centuries had been the Sabellian doctrine, which considered the title Word' when applied to our Lord to be adequately explained by the ordinary sense of the term, as a word spoken by us. In consequence they insisted on His to teleion, perfection, which became almost synonymous with His personality. (Thus the Apollinarians, e.g. denied that our Lord was perfect man, because His person was not human. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 2.) And Athan. condemns the notion of the logos en to theo ateles, gennetheis teleios, Orat. iv. 11. The Arians then, as being the especial opponents of the Sabellians, insisted on nothing so much as our Lord's being a real, living, substantial, Word. vid. Eusebius passim. The Father,' says Acacius against Marcellus, begat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and perfect perfect; for there is nothing imperfect in the Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the Son's perfection is the genuine offspring of His perfection, and superperfection.' ap. Epiph. Hær. 72. 7. Teleios then was a relative word, varying with the subject matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 138. and when the Arians said that our Lord was perfect God, they meant, perfect, in that sense in which He is God'--i.e. as a secondary divinity.--Nay, in one point of view, holding as they did no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, they would use the term of His divine Nature more freely than the Catholics sometimes had. Nor was the Word,' says Hippolytus, before the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being perfect Word, Only-begotten; nor could the flesh subsist by itself without the Word, because that in the Word it has its consistence: thus then He was manifested One perfect Son of God.' contr. Noet. 15.
[3541] [See Prolegg.] Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him.
[3542] a.d. 341.
[3543] [Cf. Prolegg. ii. §6 (3) init.]
[3544] 4th Confession, or 4th of Antioch, a.d. 342. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Confessions are the same, and with them agree the Creed of Philippopolis [a.d. 343, see Gwatkin, Stud. p. 119, espec. note 2].
[3545] These words, which answer to those [of our present Nicene' Creed], are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus [on which see Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. 17. cont. Marc. ii. 4.
[3546] S. Hilary, as we have seen above, p. 78, by implication calls this the Nicene Anathema; but it omits many of the Nicene clauses, and evades our Lord's eternal existence, substituting for once He was not,' there was time when He was not.' It seems to have been considered sufficient for Gaul, as used now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the creed of Philippopolis.
[3547] Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Martyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long Confession, or Macrostich, which follows, is remarkable; [see Prolegg, ch. ii. §6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sq.]
[3548] 5th Confession or Macrostich, a.d. 344. [Published by the Council which deposed Stephen and elected Leontius bishop of Antioch.]
[3549] It is observable that here and in the next paragraph the only reasons they give against using the only two Arian formulas which they condemn is that they are not found in Scripture. Here, in their explanation of the ex ouk onton, or from nothing, they do but deny it with Eusebius's evasion, supr. p. 75, note 5.
[3550] They argue after the usual Arian manner, that the term Son' essentially implies beginning, and excludes the title co-unoriginate;' but see supr. §16, note 1, and p. 154, note 5.
[3551] [The four lines which follow are cited by Lightfoot, Ign. p. 91. ed. 2, as from de Syn. §3.]
[3552] Cf. §28, end.
[3553] ek prokopes, de Decr. §10, note 10.
[3554] These strong words, theon kata phusin teleion kai alethe are of a different character from any which have occurred in the Arian Confessions. They can only be explained away by considering them used in contrast to the Samosatene doctrine; so that perfect according to nature' and true,' will not be directly connected with God' so much as opposed to, by advance,' by adoption,' &c.
[3555] The use of the words endiathetos and prophorikos, mental and pronounced, to distinguish the two senses of logos, reason and word, came from the school of the Stoics, and is found in Philo, and was under certain limitations allowed in Catholic theology, Damasc. F. O. ii. 21. To use either absolutely and to the exclusion of the other would have involved some form of Sabellianism, or Arianism as the case might be; but each might correct the defective sense of either. S. Theophilus speaks of our Lord as at once endiathetos and prophorikos. ad Autol. ii. 10 and 22, S. Cyril as endiathetos, in Joann. p. 39. but see also Thesaur. p. 47. When the Fathers deny that our Lord is the prophorikos logos, they only mean that that title is not, even as far as its philosophical idea went, an adequate representative of Him, a word spoken being insubstantive, vid. Orat. ii. 35; Hil. de Syn. 46; Cyr. Catech. xi. 10; Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203; Cyril in Joann. p. 31; Iren. Hær. ii. 12. n. 5. Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15.
[3556] This passage seems taken from Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus's own words. S. Cyril speaks of his doctrine in like terms. Catech. xv. 27.
[3557] i.e. Photinus. [A note illustrating the frequency of similar nicknames is omitted. On Photinus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3. ad fin.]
[3558] Cf. Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 2.
[3559] Cf. §27, notes.
[3560] autoprosopos and so Cyril Hier. Catech. xv. 14 and 17 (It means, not in personation'), and Philo contrasting divine appearances with those of Angels. Leg. Alleg. iii. 62. On the other hand, Theophilus on the text, The voice of the Lord God walking in the garden,' speaks of the Word, assuming the person, prosopon, of the Father,' and in the person of God,' ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not then having its theological sense.
[3561] homoion kata panta. Here again we have a strong Semi-Arian or almost Catholic formula introduced by the bye. Of course it admitted of evasion, but in its fulness it included essence.' [See above §8, note 1, and Introd.]
[3562] See vol. i. of this series, p. 295, note 1. In the reason which the Confession alleges against that heretical doctrine it is almost implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on the Cross. They would naturally fall into this notion directly they gave up our Lord's absolute divinity. It would naturally follow that our Lord had no human soul, but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place of it:--also that His Mediatorship was no peculiarity of His Incarnation. vid. §23, note 2. §27, Anath. 12, note.
[3563] The Confession still insists upon the unscripturalness of the Catholic positions. On the main subject of this paragraph the thelesei gennethen, cf. Orat. iii. 59, &c. The doctrine of the monogenes has already partially come before us in de Decr. §§7-9. pp. 154 sq. Monos, not as the creatures. vid. p. 75, note 6.
[3564] The following passage is in its very form an interpolation or appendix, while its doctrine bears distinctive characters of something higher than the old absolute separation between the Father and the Son. [Eusebius of Cæs. had] considered Them as two ousiai, homoiai like, but not as homoousioi; his very explanation of the word teleios was independent' and distinct.' Language then, such as that in the text, was the nearest assignable approach to the reception of the homoousion; [and in fact, to] the doctrine of the perichoresis, of which supr. Orat. iii.
[3565] De Decr. §8.
[3566] De Decr. §26.
[3567] Sirmium [Mitrowitz on the Save] was a city of lower Pannonia, not far from the Danube, and was the great bulwark of the Illyrian provinces of the Empire. There Vetranio assumed the purple; and there Constantius was born. The frontier war caused it to be from time to time the Imperial residence. We hear of Constantius at Sirmium in the summer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10. He also passed there the ensuing winter. ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium in triumph, and passed the winter there. xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence in the spring, remained there till the end of May, 359.
[3568] [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §7]. The leading person in this Council was Basil of Ancyra. Basil held a disputation with Photinus. Silvanus too of Tarsus now appears for the first time: while, according to Socrates, Mark of Arethusa drew up the Anathemas; the Confession used was the same as that sent to Constans, of the Council of Philippopolis, and the Macrostich.
[3569] S. Hilary treats their creed as a Catholic composition. de Syn. 39-63. Philastrius and Vigilius call the Council a meeting of holy bishops' and a Catholic Council,' de Hær. 65. in Eutych. v. init. What gave a character and weight to this Council was, that it met to set right a real evil, and was not a mere pretence with Arian objects.
[3570] 6th Confession, or 1st Sirmian, a.d. 351.
[3571] Eph. iii. 15.
[3572] Vid. p. 77, sqq.
[3573] This Anathema which has occurred in substance in the Macrostich, and again infr. Anath. 18 and 23. is a disclaimer of their in fact holding a supreme and a secondary God. In the Macrostich it is disclaimed upon a simple Arian basis. The Semi-Arians were more open to this imputation; Eusebius, as we have seen above, distinctly calling our Lord a second and another God. vid. p. 75, note 7. It will be observed that this Anathema contradicts the one which immediately follows, and the 11th, in which Christ is called God; except, on the one hand the Father and Son are One God, which was the Catholic doctrine, or, on the other, the Son is God in name only, which was the pure Arian or Anomoean.
[3574] The language of Catholics and heretics is very much the same on this point of the Son's ministration, with this essential difference of sense, that Catholic writers mean a ministration internal to the divine substance and an instrument connatural with the Father, and Arius meant an external and created medium of operation. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord the All-harmonious Instrument (organon) of God.' Protrept. p. 6; Eusebius an animated and living instrument (organon empsuchon), nay, rather divine and vivific of every substance and nature.' Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on the other hand, insists that the Arians reduced our Lord to an inanimate instrument,' organon apsuchon, though they called Him hupourgon teleiotaton, most perfect minister or underworker. adv. Eunom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he makes them say, the nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instrument, organou, another;....foreign then in nature is the Son from the Father, since such is an instrument from a workman.' De Sp. S. n. 6 fin. vid. also n. 4 fin. 19, and 20. And so S. Gregory, The Father signifies, the Word accomplishes, not servilely, nor ignorantly, but with knowledge and sovereignty, and to speak more suitably, in a father's way, patrikos. Orat. 30. 11. Cf. S. Cyril, in Joann. p. 48. Explanations such as these secure for the Catholic writers some freedom in their modes of speaking, e.g. Athan. speaks of the Son, as enjoined and ministering,' prostattomenos, kai hupourgon, Orat. ii. §22. Thus S. Irenæus speaks of the Father being well-pleased and commanding, keleuontos, and the Son doing and framing. Hær. iv. 75. S. Basil too, in the same treatise in which are some of the foregoing protests, speaks of the Lord ordering,' prostassonta, and the word framing.' de Sp. S. n. 38, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of Him who bids, entelletai, bidding to one who is present with Him,' Cat. xi. 16. vid. also hupereton te boule, Justin. Tryph. 126, and hupourgon, Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. hexupereton thelemati, Clem. Strom. vii. p. 832.