|
{323} Chapter 18. Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22. continued
§ 31. 1. BUT the sentiment of Truth [Note 1] in this matter must not be hidden, but must have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and in Him all things were created [Col. i. 16.]. Nor for that we were weak, was He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of Him as an instrument; perish the thought! it is not so. For though it had seemed good to God not to make things generate, still had the Word been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things generate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through Him,—and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His substance, and is from Him, and in Him [Note 2], as He said himself, the creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand [Note A], in the Word wrought all things, and {324} without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as Moses relates, Let there be light, and Let the waters be gathered together, and let the dry land appear, and Let us make man [Gen i. 3, 9, 26; as also Holy David in the Psalm, He spake and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast [Ps. xxxiii. 9.]. And He spoke [Note B], not that, as in the case of men, some under-worker [Note 3] might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father's Will [Note C]. Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things which He wished made; but God only said, Let it become, and he adds, And it became; for what He thought good and counselled, that forthwith the Word began to do and to finish. 2. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or promises Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says, Whereby shall I know? [Gen. xv. 8.]and the other, Send some one else [Ex. iv. 13.]; and again, If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them? [Ex. iii. 13.] and the Angel said to Zacharias, Thus saith the Lord; and he asked the Lord, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem? [Zech. i. 17. v. 12.] and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator [Note 4] Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; {325} but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word He said is a token of the will for our sake, and It was so, denotes the work which is done through the Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And God said is explained in the Word, for, he says, Thou hast made all things in Wisdom [Ps. civ. 24.]; and By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made [Ps. xxxiii. 6.]; and There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him [1 Cor. viii. 6.]. § 32. 3. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with us about their heresy; but while they pretend us, their real fight is against the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours which says, This is My Son [vid. Mat. xvii. 5.], small were our complaint of them; but if it is the Father's voice, and the disciples heard it, and the Son too says of Himself, Before all the mountains He begat Me [Prov. viii. 25. Sept.], are they not fighting against God, as the giants [Note D] in story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword for irreligion? For they neither feared the voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour's words, nor trusted the Saints [Note 5], one of whom writes, Who being the Brightness of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence [Heb. i. 3.], and Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God [1 Cor. i. 24.]; and another says in the Psalm, With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light [Ps. xxxvi. 9.], and Thou hast made all things in Wisdom [Ps. civ. 24.]; and the Prophets say, And the Word of the Lord came to me [Jer. ii. 1.]; and John, In the beginning was the Word [John i. 1.]; and Luke, As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word [Luke i. 2.]; and as David again says, He sent His Word and healed them [Ps. cvii. 20.]. All these passages proscribe in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper to the Father's Substance. For when saw any one light without radiance? or who dares to say that the expression can be different from the subsistence? or has not a man lost his mind [Note E] himself who even entertains the thought that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? {326} 4. For such illustrations and such images has Scripture proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these however poorly and dimly [Note 6], as far as is attainable [Note F]. And as the creation contains abundant matter for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence, (for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen [Wisd. xiii. 5.],) and we learn from them without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe; and surveying the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His marvellous providence and governance over all things; so in like manner about the Son's Godhead, what has been above said is sufficient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather it is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in an heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? or how can He be from the Father's Substance, yet not a part? since what is said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, is not whole. § 33. These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox; yet, though we have already shewn their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these illustrations will serve to shew the baseless nature of their loathsome [Note 7] tenet. 5. For we see that reason [Note 8] is ever, and is from him and proper to his substance, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and an after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the sun's substance is not divided or impaired; but its substance is whole and its radiance perfect and whole [Note G], yet without impairing the {327} substance of light, but as a true offspring from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of his Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father's likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation [Note 9] of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, The Father who dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works which I do [John xiv. 10.]; and I and the Father are one [John x. 30.], and I in the Father and the Father in Me. Therefore let this Christ-opposing heresy attempt first to divide [Note 10] the examples found in things generate, and say, "Once the sun was without his radiance," or, "Radiance is not proper to the substance of light," or "It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division;" and then let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or that it is not proper to its substance, or that it is by division a part of mind. And so of His Expression and the Light and the Power, let it be violent with these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead let it imagine what it will [Note 11]. But if such extravagance be impossible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding into what is higher than things generate and their own nature, and essaying impossibilities [Note 12]? § 34. 6. For if in the case of these generate and irrational things offsprings are found which are not parts of the substances from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the substances of their originals, are they not mad again in seeking and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change, thereby to perplex the ears of the simple [Note 13] and to pervert them from the Truth ? for who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper {328} to the father's substance? who heard, in his first catechising [Note 14], that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange [Note H], and a second sowing besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His substance; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second sowing [Note I], of "He is a creature," and "There was once when He was not," and "how can it be?" thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ's enemies rose as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every orthodox thought, as robbers, they go about [Note K] and venture to say, "how can the Son always exist with the Father? for men come of men and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being begotten; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he was not before his generation." [Note 15] And again they whisper, "how can the Son be Word, or the Word be God's Image? for the word of men is composed of syllables [Note 16], and only signifies the speaker's will, and then is over [Note 17] and is lost." § 35. 7. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have been already urged against them, pierce themselves through [vid. 1 Tim. vi. 10.] with these bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth [Note L] {329} confutes them as follows:—if they were disputing concerning any man, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if of God who created man, no longer let them entertain human thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For such as is the parent, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time [Note 18] also Himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word [Note M] also is over [Note 19] and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing [Note 20] and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing [Note 21] and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance from light. And man's word is composed of syllables [Note 22], and neither lives nor operates any thing, but is only significant of the speaker's intention, and does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not at all before it was spoken; wherefore the word of man neither; lives nor operates anything, nor in short is man. And this happens to it, as I said before, because man who begets it, has his nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not merely pronounced [Note 23], as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by His Son is meant His command [Note 24]; but as radiance from light, so is He perfect offspring from perfect [Note 25]. Hence He is God also, as being God's Image; for the Word was God [John i. 1.], says Scripture. And man's words avail not for operation; hence man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and man's word subsists not. But the Word of God, {330} as the Apostle says, is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do [Heb. iv. 12, 13.]. He is then Framer of all, and without Him was made not one thing [John i. 3.], nor can any thing be made without Him. § 36. 8. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before said; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, or how He is God's radiance, or how God begets, and what is the manner of His begetting [Note N]. For a man must be beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and proper to God's nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son, this he demands to be explained in words. It is all one as if they sought where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is. But as to ask such questions is irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy [Note O], {331} because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is unworthy of God, such daring incurs a sentence without mercy. For in such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief, so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an illustration; that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work [Note 26] external to us, so also God's Word is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work [Note 27]; and yet is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. 9. For observe, many and various are men's words which pass away day by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors [Note 28] are men, and have seasons which pass away, and ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases, and his word forthwith perishes. But God's Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, The Word of God endureth for ever [vide Ps. cxix. 89.], not changed, not before or after other, but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One, and One His Wisdom [Note P]. § 37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after their private notions [Note 29], many images and wisdoms and words [Note Q], and say that the Father's proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son [Note R], and that {332} He who is really Son is but notionally [Note 30] called Word [Note S], as vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called Wisdom also only in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which co-exist ingenerately [Note 31] with Him, being other than the Son, by which He even made the Son, and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it. 10. This they have not confined to words, but Arius has said in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius has written, what we have stated above, as follows: "Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God, but without the addition of the article, God's power and God's wisdom [1 Cor. i. 24.], thus preaching that the proper Power of God Himself which is natural [Note 32] to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus,—The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead [Rom. i. 20.]. For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat Him [Note 33]. And he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ." And shortly after the same Asterius says, "However His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues [Note 34] to be unoriginate and ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all however equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are rightly called His who created and uses them:—as the Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God." § 38. 11. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering this? for if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten {333} of the Father and proper to His Substance, but that He is called Word only because of things rational [Note 35], and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing, He has the gift of existence [Note T], that is, in our notions only [Note U]. And then after all what is He? for He is none of these Himself, if they are but His names [Note 36]: and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names from us. Rather this is some recklessness [Note 37] of the devil [Note 38], or worse, if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God's Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom co-exists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us {334} say that the Word co-exists with the Father, forthwith murmur out, "Are you not speaking of two Ingenerates?" yet in speaking themselves of "His Ingenerate Wisdom," do not see that they have already incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against us [Note X]? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Ingenerate Wisdom co-existing with God is God Himself! for what co-exists does not co-exist with itself, but with some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples;—unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Substance, ingenerate as well as Himself [Note Y], which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold true doctrine concerning the Lord. § 39. 12. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom [Note 39] besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? [Jer. xxiii. 29.] and in the Proverbs, I will make known My words unto you [Prov. i. 23.]; but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the sacred writers through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep {335} Thy words [Ps. cxix. 101.]. Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, The words which I have spoken unto you. For certainly such words are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God are those good tidings spoken of Him by John, The Word was made flesh, and all things were made by Him [John i. 14. ver. 3.]. 13. Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth, the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the sacred writers, aware of this and saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and without Him was made not one thing [John i. 3.] [Note Z]. But concerning another or any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise [Note 40], and they wrest the true sense [Note A] of the name of the Word and the {336} Wisdom, and framing to themselves others, they deny the true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves another, whom they can show neither by work nor in any testimony drawn from the divine oracles. § 40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers [Note 41] have we heard of any such, yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom co-existing with the Father ingenerately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them is eternally co-existent with the Father. For He is Framer of all, as it is written, In Wisdom hast Thou made them all [Ps. civ. 24.]. 14. Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas's fashion, involuntarily [vid. John xi. 15.], when urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words;—"God the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the substance and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful." And soon afterwards he says again:—"Who are they whom they honour with the title of God's children [Note 42]? for they will not say that they two are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Substance of the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom." It is not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it co-exists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is ingenerate, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are ingenerate also. And they battle with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom co-exists with God ingenerately [Note B]. So dizzied [Note 43] are they in all these {337} matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which is not, as the Manichees who made to themselves another God, after denying Him that is. § 41. 15. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario-maniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One, being the only Son proper and genuine from His Substance, and having with His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible, as we have said many times, being taught it by the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and illuminate them? or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious [Note C]; but if He be, for this alone is holy to say, what is the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? And what fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? for if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature? but if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son, is able to make us Sons also. Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no {338} help will come to creatures from a creature [Note 44], since all [Note 45] need grace from God. 16. We said a few words just now on the fitness that all things should be made by Him; but since the course [Note 46] of the discussion has led us to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God's Word and proper Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father worketh, He worketh through the Son [Note 47], and the Lord Himself says, "What I see the Father do, that do I also;" so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost [Note 48]. And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him [Note D]. § 42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the sacred writers [Note 49], {339} He thus spoke; I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him; and again, that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one with Us [vid. John xiv. 23. and John xvii. 21.]. And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [Rom. i. 7.]. For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light. 17. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the Father either; for, as having left the Fountain of Wisdom [Bar. iii. 12.], as Baruch reproaches them [Note 50], they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ, (for Christ, says the Apostle, is God's power and God's wisdom [1 Cor. i. 24.],) when they said, We have no king but Cæsar [John xix. 15.]. The Jews then have the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the consecration [Note 51] is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Substance, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work [Note 52]. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed [Note 53] to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture. For not he who simply says, "O Lord," gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith [Note E]. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, Teach; and then "Baptize into the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;" that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration [Note 51] of Baptism. {340} § 43. 18. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but without orthodoxy, as I have said, nor the sound faith [Note 54], and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in a religious meaning, so that he who is sprinkled [Note 55] by them is rather polluted [Note F] by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism [Note G], because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians [Note 56], and the disciples of Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He altogether did not die, or become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and every where concerning that Image, they carry about [Note 57] with them the base word [Note 58], "He was not," as mud in a wallet [Note 59], and {341} spit it forth as serpents [Note H] their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human patronage [Note 60], that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity. 19. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help, and believing in one unlike [Note 61] and foreign to the Father in substance, to the Father they will not be joined, not having His proper Son by nature, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His Father's throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion. [Note I (not cited in text—NR.)] FootnotesA. [hos dia cheiros]. vid. supr. p.
12. note Z. And so in Orat. iv. 26, a. de Incarn. contr. Arian. 12, a.
[krataia cheir tou patros]. Method. de Creat. ap. Phot. cod.
235. p. 937. Iren. Hær. iv. 20. n. 1. v. 1. fin. and 5. n. 2. and 6.
n. 1. Clement. Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog.
45. Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm. cviii. 27. Clement. Recogn.
viii. 43. Clement. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril. Alex. frequently, e.g. in
Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur. p. 151. Pseudo-Basil. [cheir demiourgike],
contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 582. and August. in
Joann. 48. 7. though he prefers another use of the word. B.
Vid. de Deer. 9. supr. p. 15. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hær. iii. 8. n.
3. Origen contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12. fin. Patres
Antioch. ap. Routh t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) Basil.
de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. Vid. supr.p. 118, note N. p.
311. note I. "That the Father speaks and the Son hears, or
contrariwise, that the Son speaks and the Father hears, are
expressions for the sameness of nature and the agreement of Father and
Son." Didym. de Sp. S. 36. "The Father's bidding is not other than His
Word; so that 'I have not spoken of Myself' He perhaps meant to be
equivalent to 'I was not born from Myself.' For if the Word of the
Father speaks, He pronounces Himself, for He is the Father's Word,
&c." August. de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. Petav. Trin. vi.
4. C.
[boule]. And so [boulesis] presently; and
[zosa boule], supr. 2. and Orat. iii. 63. fin, and so
Cyril. Thes. p. 54. who uses it expressly, (as it is always used by
implication,) in contrast to the [kata boulesin] of the
Arians, though Athan. uses [kata to boulema], e.g. Orat.
iii. 31. where vid. note; [autos tou patros thelema].
Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the
use of such words is this; that we must ever speak of the Father's
will, command, &c. and the Son's fulfilment, assent, &c. as
one act. Vid. notes on Orat. iii. 11 and 15. infr. D.
[tous mutheuomenous gigantas], vid. supr. p. 58, note M. Also [hos
tous gigantas], Orat. iii. 42. In Hist. Arian. 74. he calls
Constantius a [gigas]. The same idea is implied in the word [theomachos]
so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this sentence. Vid. supr. p.
6, note N. E.
Vid. p. 2, note E. also Gent. 40 fin. where what is here, as commonly,
applied to the Arians, is, before the rise of Arianism, applied to
unbelievers. F.
Vid, supr. p. 25, note C. p. 140, note N. p. 219, note B. p. 330, note
M. Also supr. p. 20. Elsewhere after adducing the illustration of the
sun and its light, he adds, "From things familiar and ordinary we may
use some poor illustration and represent intellectually what is in our
mind, since it were presumptuous to intrude upon the incomprehensible
Nature." In illud Omnia 3. fin. Vid. also 6. And S. Austin, after an
illustration from the nature of the human mind, proceeds, "Far other
are these three and that Trinity. When a man hath discovered something
in them and stated it, let him not at once suppose that he has
discovered what is above them, &c." Confess. xiii. 11. And again,
Ne hunc imaginem ita comparet Trinitati, ut omni modo existimet
similem. Trin. xv. 39. And S. Basil says, "Let no one urge against
what I say, that the illustrations do not in all respects answer to
the matters in question. For it is not possible to apply with
exactness what is little and low to things divine and eternal, except
so far as to refute, &c." contr. Eunom. ii. 17. G.
The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality, or attribute,
or relation, but the One Eternal Substance; not a part of the First
Person, but whole or entire God; nor does the generation impair the
Father's Substance, which is antecedently to it, whole and entire God.
Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, Each being wholly
one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely separate
aspects of the Same, Each being God as absolutely as if there were no
other Divine Person but Himself. Such a statement indeed is not only a
contradiction in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not therefore a
contradiction in fact; unless indeed any one will say that human words
can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one idea, the
unknown and infinite God. Basil. contr. Eun. i. 10. Vid. infr. p. 333,
note U. H.
He here makes the test of the truth of explicit doctrinal statements
to be in their not shocking, or their answering to the religious sense
of the Christian. I.
Vid. supr. p. 5, note K. Tertullian uses the image in a similar but
higher sense when he applies it to Eve's temptation, and goes on to
contrast it with Christ's birth from a Virgin. In virginem adhuc Evam
irrepserat verbum ædificatorium mortis; in Virginem æque
introducendum erat Dei Verbum exstructorium vitæ ... Ut in doloribus
pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit; contra Maria, &c. de Carn.
Christ. 17. S. Leo, as Athan. makes "seed" in the parable apply
peculiarly to faith in distinction to obedience. Serm 69. 5
init. K.
[periergazontai], Edd. Col. Ben. and Patav. This seems an error
of the Press for [perierchontai]. The Latin translates "circumire
cæperunt." Vid. supr. p. 22, note G. p. 18, note C. also [perierchontai]
infr. 63 init. [enepompeusate kai tethrulekate], 82. [ano
kai kato periiontes], Orat. iii. 54 init. [ano
kai kato periiontes thrulousi], Apol. contr. Ar. 11 init. [peritrechousi],
de Fug. 2. [peripherousi], infr. 43, [peritrochazein],
Theod. Hist. i. 3. .p. 730. [periergia], &c. is used Orat.
iii. 1, a. 43 init. L.
[ho tes aletheias logos elenchei]. This and the
like are usual forms of speech with Athan. and others. Thus [hos
ho tes al. apeitei l.]. Ap. contr. Ar. 36. where it is
contrasted to [hos ethelon], (vid. Hist. Treat. tr. p.
266, note D.) also Serap. ii. 2. Epiphanius; [ho tes al. l.
antipiptei autoi], p. 830. Eusebius; [ho tes al.
l. boai]. Eccl. Theol. i. p. 62. d. [antiphthenketai autoi
mega boesas, ho tes al. l.]. ibid. iii. p. 164. b.
And Council of Sardica; [kata ton tes al. l.]. ap. Athan.
Apol. contr. Ar. 46. where it seems equivalent to "fairness" or "impartiality."
Asterius; [hoi tes al. apophainontai logismoi] infr. 37.
Orat. i. 32. de Syn. 18. cir. fin. and so Athan. [tois al.
logismois]. Sent. D. 19, c. And so also, [he al. dielenke],
supr. 18. c. [he physis kai he al.] "draw the
meaning to themselves," supr. 5. init. [tou logou deikvuntos],
3. init. [edeiknuen ho logos], 13 fin. [tes al.
deixases], infr. 65. init. 60. d. [elenchontai para tes
aletheias], 63. c. [he aletheia deiknusi],
70. init. [tes al. marturesases], 1. init.
[to tes al. phronema megalegorein prepei],
31. init. de Decr. 17 fin. In some of these instances the words [aletheia,
logos], &c. are almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid.
[para ten aletheian], infr. 36. a. and Origen. de
Princ. Præf. 1 and 2. M.
For this contrast between the Divine Word and the human which is Its shadow, vid. also Orat.
iv. 1. circ. fin. Iren. Hær. ii. 13, n. 8. Origen. in Joan. i. p. 25,
e. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 230. Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil, Hom. xvi.
3. Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii. p. 350. Orat. Cat. i. p. 478. Damasc. F.
O. i. 6. August. in Psalm xlv. 5. N.
Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject in his Eccl. Theol.,
though he converts them to an heretical purpose. As, he says, we do
not know how God can create out of nothing, so we are utterly ignorant
of the Divine Generation. We do not understand innumerable things
which lie close to us; how the soul is joined to the body, how it
enters and leaves it, what its nature, what the astute of Angels. It
is written, He who believes, not he who knows, has eternal life.
Divine generation is as distinct from human, as God from man. The sun's
radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no true idea of
that which is above all images. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. So has S. Greg.
Naz. Orat. 29. 8. Vid. also Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril. Cat. xi. 11.
and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante Const. p. 619. And
instances in Petav. de Trin. v. 6. §. 2. and 3. O.
"They who do not pertinaciously defend their opinion, false and
perverse though it be, especially when it does not spring from the
audacity of their own presumption, but has come to them from parents
seduced and lapsed into error, while they seek the truth with cautious
solicitude, and are prepared to correct themselves when they have
found it, are by no means to be ranked among heretics." August. Ep.
43. init. vid. also de Bapt. contr. Don. iv. 23. P.
Vid. supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also presently, "He is likeness and image
of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also," 49. [monos en
monoi], Orat. iii. 21. [holos holou eikon].
Sarap. i. 16, a. "The Offspring of the Ingenerate," says St. Hilary, "is
One from One, True from True, Living from Living, Perfect from
Perfect, Power of Power, Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory." de Trin.
ii. 8. [teleios teleion gegenneken, pneuma pneuma].
Epiph. Hær. p. 495. "As Light from Light, and Life from Life, and
Good from Good; so from Eternal Eternal." Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p
164. App. Q.
[polloi logoi], vid. supr. p. 26, note G. infr. 39 init. and [oud'
ek pollon eis], Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Æg. 14. c. Origen
in Joan. tom. ii. 3. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Marc.
p. 4. fin. contr. Sabell. init. August. in Joan. Tract i. 8. also vid.
Philo's use of [logoi] for Angels as commented on by Burton,
Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called Mercury by the name of [logos].
Vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin. Ap. i. 21. R.
This was the point in which Arians and Sabellians agreed, vid. infr.
Orat. iv. init. also p. 336, note B. and supr. p. 41, note E. p. 311,
note K. also Sent. D. 25. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. Epiph. Hær. 72. p. 835, b. S.
that is, they allowed Him to be "really Son," and argued that He was
but "notionally Word." Vid. p. 307, D. T.
Of course this line of thought consistently followed, leads to a kind
of Pantheism; for what is the Supreme Being, according to it, but an
ideal standard of perfection, the sum total of all that we see
excellent in the world in the highest degree, a creation of our minds,
without real objective existence? The true view of our Lord's titles,
on the other hand, is that He is That properly and in perfection, of
which in measure and degree the creatures partake from and in Him.
Vid. supr. p. 29, note K. U.
[kat' epinoian], in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very
frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found
it already just above, and p. 96, note E. p. 193, r. 1. also Orat. iv.
2, 3. de Sent. D. 2. Ep. Æg. 12, 13, 14. It denotes our idea or
conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus, the sun
is to a savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a "rational
animal," according to a certain process of abstraction; a herb may be
medicine upon one division, food in another; virtue may be called a
mean; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion, to another
a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manlier, the Almighty is in
reality most simple and uncompounded, without parts, passions,
attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him as good or holy, or as
angry or pleased, denoting some particular aspect in which our
infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is infinite and
incomprehensible. That is, He is [kat' epinoian] holy or
merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness and also
all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as one indivisible
perfection; which is too great for us to conceive as It is. And for
the very reason that we cannot conceive It simply, we are bound to use
thankfully these conceptions, which are our best possible; since some
conceptions, however imperfect, are better than none. They stand for
realities which they do not reach, and must be accepted for what they
do not adequately represent. But when the mind comes to recognise this
existing inadequacy, and to distrust itself, it is tempted to rush
into the opposite extreme, and to conclude that because it cannot
understand fully, it does not realize any thing, or that its [epinoiai],
are but [onomata]. Hence some writers have at least seemed to
say that the Divine Being was but called just, good, and true,
(vid. Davison's protest in Note at end of Discourses on Prophecy,) and
in like manner the Arians said that our Lord was but called the Son
and the Word, not properly, but from some kind of analogy, as being
the archetype and representative of all those who are adopted into God's
family and gifted with wisdom. X.
The Anomœan in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic that, if
the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here retorts
that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in the
Divine Mind. Vid. next note. Y.
On this subject vid. Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable than
the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and
Sabellians in Orat. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature as
compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open to such a
charge. Nor are they; though in avoiding it, they are led to enunciate
the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. p. 326, note G.
The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son;
They do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is [holos
Theos]. This is not ditheism or tritheism, for They are the same
God; nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and
substantive Persons; but it is a depth and height beyond our
intellect, how what is Two in so full a sense can also in so full a
sense be One, or how the Divine Nature does not come under number.
vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27 and 36. Thus, "being uncompounded in
nature," says Athan. "He is Father of One Only Son." supr. p. 19. In
truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, "avails
especially towards the unity and simplicity of God." Vid. de Deo. ii.
4, 8. Z.
Vid. (in addition to what is said supr. p. 288, note A.) Simon. Hist.
Crit. Comment. pp. 7, 32, 52. Lampe in loc. Joann. Fabric. in Apocryph.
N. T. t. 1. p. 384. Petav. de Trin. ii. 6. §. 6. Ed. Ben. in Ambros.
de Fid. iii. 6. Wetstein in loc. Wolf. Cur. Phil. in loc. The verse
was not ended as we at present read it, especially in the East, till
the time of S. Chrysostom, according to Simon, vid. in Joann. Hom. v.
init. though as we have seen supra, S. Epiphanius had spoken strongly
against the ancient reading. S. Ambrose loc. cit. refers it to the
Arians, Lampe refers it to the Valentinians on the strength of Iren. Hær.
i. 8, n. 5. Theophilus in loc. (if the Comment on the Gospels is his)
understands by [ouden] "an idol," referring to 1 Cor. viii. 4.
Augustine, even at so late a date, adopts the old reading, vid. de
Gen. ad lit. v. 29-31. It was the reading of the Vulgate, even at the
time it was ruled by the Council of Trent to be authentic, and of the
Roman Missal. The verse is made to end after "in Him," (thus, [oud'
hen ho gegonen en autoi]) by Epiph. Ancor. 75. Hil. in
Psalm cxlviii. 4. Ambros. de Fid. iii. 6. Nyssen in Eunom. i. p. 84.
app. which favours the Arians. The counterpart of the ancient reading,
which is very awkward, ("What was made in Him was life,") is found in
August. loc. cit. and Ambrose in Psalm xxxvi. 35. but he also notices "What
was made, was in Him," de Fid. loc. cit. It is remarkable that St.
Ambrose attributes the present punctuation to the Alexandrians in loc.
Psalm, in spite of Athan.'s and Alexander's, (Theod. Hist. i. 3. p.
733.) nay Cyril.'s (in loc. Joann.) adoption of the ancient. A.
[katachrontai]. vid. supr. p. 10, note S. and so [katachrestikos],
Cyril. Cat. xi. 4. Epiph. Hær. 69, p. 743. 71, p. 831. Euseb. contr.
Marc. p. 40. Concil. Labb. t. 2. p. 67. and abusivè, ibid. p. 210. B.
Asterius held, 1. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that
the Son was created by and called after that Attribute; or 1. that
Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms,
words, powers many, of which the Son was one. In the two propositions
thus stated there is no incongruity; yet Athan. seems right in his
criticism, because Eusebius, and therefore probably Asterius, whom he
is defending against Marcellus, (whose heresy was of a Sabellian
character,) brings it again and again as a charge against the latter
that he held an eternal and ingenerate [logos], (vid. contr.
Marc. pp. 5 init. 35, c. 106, d. 119, c. vid. infr. note on Orat. iv.
3.) which is identical with the former of the two propositions. That
is, the zealous maintenance of their peculiar tenet about the Son,
which is the second, involved them in an opposition to the Sabellian
tenet, which is the first, which in reality they also held. C.
He says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that
Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to
His creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in saying that the
Son was created for creation, illumination, &c. whereas in the
Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person who in the Economy of
grace is creator, enlightener, &c. God is represented all-perfect,
but acting according to a certain divine order. This is explained just
below. Here the remark is in point about the right and wrong sense of
the words "commanding," "obeying," &c. supra, p. 324, note C. D.
Vid. supr. p. 326, note G. and notes on iii. 3-6. "When the Father is
mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And
if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not
external to the Word." ad Serap. i. 14. and supr. p. 98, note N. "I
have named the Father," says S. Dionysius, "and before I mention the
Son, I have already signified Him in the Father; I have mentioned the
Son, and though I have not yet named the Father, He had been fully
comprehended in the Son, &c." Sent. D. 17. vid. Hil. Trin. vii.
31. Passages like these are distinct from such as the one quoted from
Athan. supr. p. 65, note M. where it is said that in "Father" is implied
"Son," i.e. argumentatively as a correlative. vid. p. 33, note R. The
latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to admit in Sabell. i. ap.
Sirm. t. i. p. 8, a. "Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit
ista vox filium, &c.;" for here no [perichoresis]
is implied, which is the doctrine of the text, and is not the
doctrine of an Arian who considered the Son an instrument. Yet
Petavius observes as to the very word [perich.] that one of its
first senses in ecclesiastical writers was this which Arians would not
disclaim; its use to express the Catholic doctrine here spoken of was
later. vid. de Trin. iv. 16. E.
The primâ facie sense of this passage is certainly
unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism; vid. the subject
considered at length in Note C. on Tertullian, O. T. vol. 1. p. 280.
also Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 19 and 20.
Forbes Instruct. Theol. x. 2. 3, and 12. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. v. 62. §.
5-11. On Arian Baptism in particular, vid. Jablonski's Diss. Opusc. t.
iv. p. 113. F.
S. Cyprian speaks of those who prophanâ aquâ polluuntur, Ep. 76 fin.
(ed. Ben.) and of the hæreticorum sordida tinctio, Ep. 71 cir. init.
S. Optatus speaks of the "various and false baptisms, in which the
stained cannot wash a man, the filthy cannot cleanse." ad Parmen. i.
12. Iambus in the Council of Carthage speaks of persons baptized
without the Church as "non dicam lotos, sed sordidatos." ap. Cypr. p.
707. G.
[atheotetos]. vid. supr. p. 3, note F. p. 184, note K. "Atheist,"
or rather "godless," was the title given by pagans to those who
denied, and by the Fathers to those who professed, polytheism. Thus
Julian says that Christians preferred "atheism to godliness." Vid,
Suicer Thes. in voc. It was a popular imputation upon Christians, as
it had been before on philosophers and poets, some of whom better
deserved it. On the word as a term of reproach vid. Voet. Disput. 9.
t. 1. pp. 115, &c. 195. It is used of heathens, contr. Gent. 46
init. Orat. iii. 67 fin. and by Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. p. 73, c. who
also applies it to Sabellius, ibid. pp. 63, c. 107, b. to Marcellus,
p. 80, c. to phantasiasts, pp. 64, c. 65, d. 70. to Valentinus, p.
114, c. Athan. applies it to Asterius (apparently), Orat. iii. 64, b.
including Valentinus and the heathen; Basil to Eunomius. Athan.
however contrasts it apparently with polytheism, Orat. iii. 15 and 64,
b. H.
[hos ophis ton ion]. also Ep. Æg. 19. Hist. Ar. 66. and
so Arians, are dogs (with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Decr. 4.
Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 11. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de
Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels,
Ep. Æg. 7 fin, cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init.
Orat. iii. 59 init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65
init. de Fug. 4. In many of these instances the allusion is to
Scripture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum
bestialitatis hereticæ ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus
bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompæus
of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applications infr. Orat.
iii. 18. I.
[kalos anaginoskein … orthen echon ten
dianoian], i.e. the text admits of an interpretation consistent
with the analogy of faith, and so [met' eusebeias] just below.
Vid. supr. p. 283, note C infr. p. 343, note C. Such phrases are
frequent in Athan. e.g. [ten dianoian eusebe kai lian
orthen], de Decr. 13. [kalos kai orthos],
Orat. iv. 31, e. [gegraptai mala onankaios], de Decr. 14
[eikotos], Orat. ii. 44, e. iii. 53, a. [ten
dianoian ekklesiastiken], Orat. i. 44 init. [ton
skopon ton ekklesiastikon], Orat. iii. 58, a. [he
dianoia echei ten aitian eulogon], iii. 7 fin. Vid. also
Orat. i. 37 init. 46. ii. 1, a, c. 9 init. 12, b. 53, d. iii. 1, c.
18, a. 19, b. 35, c. 37, b. iv. 30, a. Margin Notes1. p. 328, note L. 2.
vid. supr. p. 140, note N. 3.
[hypourgos]. 4.
vid. p. 292, note M. p. 303, note E. 5.
or sacred writers, [hagion]. 6.
[amudros] p. 304, r. 2. 7.
[miarou]. 8.
[ton logon]. 9.
[energeias]. 10.
[dielein], vid. p. 317, r. 1. 11.
Hist. Treat. tr. p. 266, note D. 12.
In illud Omn. 6. init. 13.
[akoas akeraioteron]. Hist. Treat. tr. p. 299, notes F.
and G. 14.
p. 12, note Y. p. 76, note I. p. 191, r. 1. 15.
p. 276. 16.
Orat. iv. 1. 17.
[pepautai], Orat. iv. 2. 18.
p. 211. 19.
[pauetai], p. 328, r. 4. 20.
[on esti], vid. de Decr. p. 17, r. 3. 21.
vid. Serap. i. 28, a. 22.
p. 328, r. 3. 23.
[prophorikos]. 24.
p. 324, note B. 25.
vid. p. 108, note L. p. 331, note P. 26.
[ergon]. 27.
[poiema]. 28.
[pateres]. 29.
[epinoias]. 30.
[kat' epinoian]. 31.
[agennetos], vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 106. d. 32.
[emphuton]. 33.
p. 196, note C. 34.
p. 328, note L. 35.
[logika], vid. Ep. Æg. 13 fin. 36.
p. 307, note D. 37.
[aponoia] in contrast to [epinoia]. 38.
p. 9, note S. 39.
vid. 40. init. 40.
[hyponoia], vid. p. 333, r. 3. 41.
p. 12, note Y. 42.
[paidas]. 43.
[skotodiniosi], Orat. iii. 42. init. 44.
p. 303, note E. 45.
all, vid. supr. p. 32, note Q. 46.
[akolouthia], p. 293, r. 2. 47.
vid. notes on Orat. iii. 1-15. 48.
Orat. iii. 15. note. 49.
[hagiois], p. 325, r. 1. 50.
pp. 20, 207. 51.
[teleiosis], initiation. 52.
pp. 56, 229. 53.
[nomizomenon], so-called, p. 193. also Orat iii. 57. twice. 54.
[ten p. hugiainousan], Hist Treat. p. 302, note t. 55.
[rhantizomenon], Bingh. Antiqu. xi. 11. §. 5. 56.
Montanists. 57.
[peripherousi], p. 328, note K. 58.
[lexeidion], p. 296, r. 4. 59.
instead of provisions. 60.
p. 193, r. 5. 61.
Orat. iii. 4. note. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |