|
{398} Discourse 3.Chapter 23. Texts explained; seventhly, John xiv. 10.
§ 1. 1. THE Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, When the impious cometh into a depth of evil, He contemneth [Prov. xviii. 3. Sept.]; for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having a whore's forehead, they refuse to be ashamed [Jer. iii. 3.] before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, The Lord created Me [Note 1], and Made better than the Angels [Note 2], and First-born [Note 3], and Faithful to Him that made Him [Note 4], have an orthodox meaning [Note 5], and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor understanding what they read, as if in vomit [Note 6] from the depth of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, I in the Father and the Father in Me [John xiv. 10.]; saying, "How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?" or "How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?" or "What wonder, if the Son is in the Father, considering it is written even of us, {399} In Him we live and move and have our being?" [Note A] And this state of mind is consistent with their perverseness [Note 7], who think God to be material [Note 8], and understand not what is "True Father" and "True Son," nor "Light Invisible" and "Eternal," and Its "Radiance Invisible," nor "Invisible Subsistence [Note 9]," and "Immaterial Expression" and "Immaterial Image." For had they known, they would not have dishonoured and ridiculed the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, perverted good words. 2. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate [Note 10] process of persuasion; but since they have endeavoured to make even this passage level with their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their perverseness [Note 7] and to shew the mind of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, I in the Father and the Father in Me, They are not therefore, as these suppose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son [Note B], {400} and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect, (for this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of irreligion,) for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness of Godhead, Nor again, as God, by coming [Note 11] into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking [Note 12] of Him things generate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation [Note 13], but is the Father's proper Offspring [Note C]. Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, In Him we live and move and have our being; for, He as being from the Fount [Note 14] of the Father is the Life, in which all things are both quickened [Note 15] and consist; for the Life does not live in life [Note D], else it would not be Life, but rather He gives life [Note 16] to all things. § 2. 3. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the {401} retained pleader [Note 17] for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far, he writes as follows; "It is very plain that He has said, that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for this reason, that neither the word, on which He was discoursing is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor the works belong [Note 18] to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power." Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been excused from his age; but when one who bears the title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge [Note E], is the writer, what a serious condemnation does he deserve? And does he not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle [Note 19], as being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he saith nor whereof he affirms? For what the Son has said as proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father's Substance, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them; and he says, lawless [Note F] man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a Son [Note 20] the Son was made a son, and the Word received a Word's authority; and, far from granting that He spoke this as a Son, he ranks Him with all things made as having learned it as they have. For if the Son said, I am in the Father and the Father in Me, because His discourses were not His own words but the Father's, and so of His works, then, since David says, I will hear what the Lord God shall say in Me [Ps. lxxxiii. 9. Sept.], and again Solomon, My words are spoken by God, and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, Thus saith the Lord, and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own but God's who gave the power, Elias for instance and Eliseus invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Eliseus saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, {402} that thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel [vid. 2 Kings v. 8, 15.], and Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own power they did miracles but in the Lord's grace, it is plain that, according to Asterius, such a statement must be common to all, so that each of them is able to say, I in the Father and the Father in Me; and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many. § 3. 4. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, I in the Father and the Father in Me, but rather, "I too am in the Father and the Father is in Me too," that He may have nothing proper and by prerogative [Note 21], relatively to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that He is genuine [Note 22] Son from the Father, they bely Him who is such, whom only it befits to say, I in the Father and the Father in Me. For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father's substance [Note G], as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word {403} the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoso thus contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father's Substance, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Face [Note H] and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son [Note I]. § 4. 5. On this account and reasonably, having said before, I and the Father are One [John x. 30.], He added, I in the Father and the Father in Me, by way of shewing the identity [Note 23] of Godhead and the unity of Substance. For they are one, not [Note 24] as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor [Note 24] as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father [Note 25] but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike [Note K] its parent, for it is his image,) and all that is the Father's, is the Son's [Note L]. Wherefore neither is {404} the Son another God, for He was not procured [Note 26] from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father's [Note 27]; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity [Note 28] of nature, and the identity [Note 29] of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation [Note 30] of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights [Note 31], but sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father [Note 32]:—for instance [Note 33], that He is God, And the Word was God [John i. 1.]; Almighty, Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty [Rev. i. 8.]; Lord, One Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. viii. 6.]; that He is Light, I am the Light [John viii. 12.]; that He forgives sins, that ye may know, He says, that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins [Luke v. 24.]; and so with other attributes. For all things says the Son Himself, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine [John xvi. 15.]; and again, And Mine are Thine [John xvii. 10.]. § 5. And on hearing the attributes [Note 34] of the Father spoken of Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son, is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? and why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Substance? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Substance, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, I and the Father are One, He adds, that ye may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me [John x. 30, 38. xiv. 10.] {405} 6. Moreover, He has added this again, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [John xiv. 9.]; and there is one and the same sense in these three [Note M] passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father; for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the face and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that face which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is unvarying [Note 35]; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image [Note N]. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, "I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou beholdest in me." [Note O] Accordingly he who worships the image, {406} in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form [Note 36] and face. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son. § 6. 7. And this is what is said, Who being in the form of God [Phil. ii. 6.], and the Father in Me. Nor is this Form [Note 37] of the Godhead partial merely, but the fulness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He thought it not robbery to be equal to God; and again since the Godhead and the Face of the Son is none other's than the Father's [Note P], this is what He says, I in the Father. Thus God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself [2 Cor. v. 19.]; for the propriety [Note 38] of the Father's Substance is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled [Note 39] with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought [Note 40], are the Father's works, for the Son is the Face of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works. And thus he who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father's Godhead is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father's Face which is in Him shews in Him the Father; and thus the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and Godhead which is from the Father in the Son, shews the Son in the Father, and His inseparability [Note 41] from Him; and whoso hears and beholds that what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, not as accruing [Note 42] to his Substance by grace or participation [Note 43], but because the very Being of the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father's Substance, will fitly understand the words, as I said before, I in the Father, and the Father in Me; and I and the Father are One [John xiv. 10; x. 30]. For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's. {407} 8. Wherefore also is lie implied together with the Father. For, a son not being, one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not of necessity intimate the things which have come to be; for a maker is before his works [Note Q]. But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's existence [Note 44]. Therefore also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father; for he believes in what is proper to the Father's Substance; and thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honours the Son, in the Son worships and honours the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one [Note R] the honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one God and none other than He. Accordingly when the Father is called the only God, and we read that there is one God, and I am, and beside Me there is no God, and I the first and I am the last [Mark xii. 23. Ex. iii. 14. Deut. xxxii. 39. Sept. Is. xliv. 6.], this has a fit meaning. For God is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial of the Son [Note 45]; perish the thought; for He is in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being whole and full God [Note S]. This then {408} is not said on His account, but to deny that there is other such as the Father and His Word. {409} Chapter 24. Texts explained; eighthly, John xvii. 3. and the like.
§ 7. 1. 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;" [Deut. xxxii. 39; vi. 4. &c.] 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 [Note 46]. If there then is rivalry [Note 47] of the Son towards the Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonias and Absalom, 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 [Luke xviii. 19.] [Note 48]; and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord [Mark xii. 28, 29.]; and saying to the multitudes, I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me; and teaching the disciples, My Father is greater {410} than I [John vi. 38; xiv. 28.], and He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me [vid. John v. 23.]; if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty [Note 49], 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. § 8. 2. And this account of the meaning of such passages is satisfactory; for since those who are devoted to gods falsely so called, revolt from the True God, therefore God, being good and careful for mankind, recalling the wanderers, says, I Am Only God, and I Am, and Besides Me there is no God, and the like; that He may condemn things which are not, and may convert all men to Himself. And as, supposing in the day-time when the sun was shining, a man were rudely to paint a piece of wood, which had not even the appearance of light, and call that image the cause of light, and if the sun with regard to it were to say, "I alone am the light of the day, and there is no other light of the day but I," he would say this, with regard, not to his own radiance, but to the error arising from the wooden image and the dissimilitude [Note 50] of that vain representation; so it is with I am, and I am only God, and There is none other besides Me, viz. that He may make men renounce falsely called gods, and that they may recognise Him the true God instead. 3. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His own Word, unless forsooth these modern [Note 51] Jews add this too, that He has not said this through His Word; but so hath He spoken, though they rave, these followers of the devil [Note A]. For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this was what was heard; nor is there the thing which God says {411} or does, but He says and does it in the Word. Not then with reference to Him is this said, O Christ's enemies, but to things foreign to Him and not from [Note 52] Him. For according to the aforesaid illustration, if the sun had spoken those words, he would have been setting right the error and have so spoken, not as having his radiance without him, but in the radiance shewing his own light. Therefore not for the denial of the Son, nor with reference to Him, are such passages, but to the overthrow of falsehood. Accordingly God spoke not such words to Adam at the beginning, though His Word was with Him, by whom all things came to be; for there was no need, before idols came in; but when men made insurrection against the truth, and named for themselves gods such as they would [Note 53], then it was that need arose of such words, for the denial of gods that were not. Nay I would add, that they were said even in anticipation of the folly of these Christ-opposers [Note B], that they might know, that whatsoever god they devise external to the Father's Substance, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the Only and First. § 9. 4. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is said not to the denial of Him who said, I am the Truth [John xiv. 6.], but of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself added at once, And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent [John xvii. 3.]. Now had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and ranked Himself with His Creator; (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?) but now by adding Himself to the Father, He has shewn that He is of the Father's nature; and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had learned [Note 54], so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the True God and eternal life [1 John v. 20.]. And when the Prophet says concerning the creation, That stretcheth forth the heavens alone [Isa. xliv. 24.], and when God says, I only stretch out the heavens, it is made plain to every one, that in the Only is signified also the Word of the Only, in whom all things were made [John i. 3.], and {412} without whom was made not one thing. Therefore, if they were made through the Word, and yet He says, I Only, and together with that Only is understood the Son, through whom the heavens were made, so also then, if it be said, One God, and I Only, and I the First, in that One and Only and First is understood the Word coexisting [Note 55], as in the Light the Radiance. 5. And this can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all other things subsisted out of nothing through the Son, and are greatly different in nature; but the Son Himself is natural and true Offspring from the Father; and thus the very passage which these insensates have thought fit to adduce, I the First, in defence of their heresy, doth rather expose their perverse spirit [Note 56]. For God says, I the First and I the Last; if then, as though ranked with the things after Him, He is said to be first of them, so that they come next to Him, then certainly you will have shewn that He Himself precedes the works in time only [Note C]; which, to go no further, is extreme irreligion; but if it is in order to prove that He is not from any, nor any before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables, that He has said I the First, it is plain also, that when the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and adoption of all things [Note 57] through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First [Note D], as Image of the First, and {413} because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship. FootnotesA. vid. supr. p. 338, note D. The doctrine of the
[perichoresis], which this objection introduces,
is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism. vid. p. 95, note D. 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.
63, note G. 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 strong language of Pope
Dionysius, supr. p. 16, "the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in
God," [emphilochorein toi theoi 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. Hence Athan.
contrasts the creatures who are [en memerismenois] and the Son.
Serap. iii. 4. c. d. Accordingly, one of the first symptoms of
reviving orthodoxy in the second school of semi Arians (as they have
above been called in notes to de Syn.) in the Macrostich Creed, is the
use of language of this character, viz. "All the Father embosoming the
Son," they say, "and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father,
and alone resting on the Father's breast continually." supr. p. 116,
where vid. note H. B. This might seem, but is not, inconsistent with
S. Jerome as quoted in the foregoing note. Athan. does but mean 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]
we do but view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is; our
mind abstracts His Substance which is the Son for the moment from Him,
and regards Him merely as Father. Thus Athan. [ten
theianousian tou logou henomenon phusei toi
heautou patri]. In Illud. Omn. 4. 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 Substance is one and the same. This is insisted
on by S. Cyril, "We must not conceive that the Father is held in the
Son as body in body, or vessel in vessel; … for the One is in the
Other, [hos en tautoteti tes ousias aparallaktoi,
kai tei kata phusin henoteti te kai homoioteti].
in Joan. p. 28. And by S. Hilary; "Material natures do not admit of
being mutually in each other, of having a perfect unity of a nature
which subsists, of the abiding nativity of the Only-begotten being
inseparable from the unity of the Father's Godhead. To God the
Only-begotten alone is this proper, and this faith attaches to the
mystery of a true nativity, and this is the work of a spiritual power,
that to be and to be in differ nothing; to be in, yet not to be one in
another as body in body, but so to be and to subsist, as to be in the
subsisting, and so to be in, as also to subsist," &c. Trin. vii.
fin. vid, also iii. 23. The following quotation from S. Anselm is made
by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16 fin. and may be given here, though he
cannot be here used as an authority; "Though there be not many
eternities, yet if we say eternity in eternity, there is but one
eternity. And so whatever is said of God's Essence, if repeated in
itself, does not increase quantity, nor admit number. Since there is
nothing out of God, when God is born of God. He will not be born out
of God, but remains in God." C. vid. supr. p. 15, note E, p. 32, note Q. fin.
p. 203, and note D. 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. D. 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, "Vita viventis [Filii]
in vivo [Patre] est." de Trin, ii. 11. Other modes of expression for
the same mystery are found infr. "the whole being of the Son is proper
to the Father's substance;" 3. "the Son's being, because from the
Father, is therefore in the Father;" ibid. also 6 fin. "the Father's
Godhead is the being of the Son." 5. Vid. supr. p. 145, note R. and
Didymus [he patrike theotes], p. 82. and
S. Basil, [ex ou 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]. E. [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, ascribing to Protagoras the "profession" of being able to "make
the worse cause the better." Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr.
Rhet. iii. ii. F. [paranomos]. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71,
75, 79. Ep. Ęg. 16, d. Vid. [anomos]. 2 Thess. ii. 8. G. 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 that 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 Substance. 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: "The perfect Son of a perfect Father, and of the
Ingenerate God the Only-begotten Offspring, who from Him who hath all
hath received all, God from God, Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light,
says confidently, 'The Father in Me and I in the Father,' for as the
Father is Spirit so is the Son, as the Father God so is the Son, as
the Father Light so is the Son. From those things therefore which are
in the Father, are those in which is the Son; that is, of the whole
Father is born the whole Son; not from other, &c. … not in part,
for in the Son is the fulness of Godhead. What is in the Father, that
too is in the Son; One from the Other and Both One (unum); not Two One
Person (unus," vid. however, the language of the Athan. Creed, which
expresses itself differently after S. Austin) but Either in Other,
because not Other in Either. The Father in the Son, because from Him
the Son ... the Only-begotten in the Ingenerate, because from the
Ingenerate the Only-begotten, &c. Trin. ii. 4. vid. supr. p. 326,
note G. H. [eidous], face or form. Petavius here
prefers the reading [idiou]; [theotes] and [to
idion] occur together infr. 6. and 56. [eidos] occurs Orat.
i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. supr. p. 154, note E. infr. 6. 16. Ep. Ęg.
17, c. contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, b. d. vid. infr. p. 406, note P,
p. 424, note O. I. In accordance with note B. supr. 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. 28. 1. S. Cyril adopts
Athan.'s language to express this doctrine. "The Son in one place
says, that He is in the Father and has the Father again in Him; for
the very peculiarity ([idion]) of the Father's substance, by
nature coming to the Son, shews the Father in Him." in Joan. p. 105.
One is contemplated in the other, and is truly, according to the
connatural and consubstantial." de Trin. vi. p. 621. "He has in Him
the Son and is again in the Son, because of the identity of substance."
in Joann. p. 168. Vid. infra [tautotes ousias], 21. [patrike
theotes tou huiou], 26. and 41. and supr. p. 145, note R.
vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140. K. [anomoion]; and so [anomoios kata
panta]. Orat. i. 6. [kat' ousian]. 17. Orat. ii. 43. [tes
ousias], infr. 14. vid. [anomoiotes]. infr. 8, c. L. "We must conceive of necessity that in the
Father is the eternal, the everlasting, the immortal; and in Him, not
as foreign to Him, but as abiding ([anamauomena]) in Him as in
a Fount and in the Son. When then you would form a conception of the
Son, learn what are the things in the Father, and believe that they
are in the Son too. If the Father is creature or work, these
attributes are also in the Son, &c. … He who honours the Son, is
honouring the Father who sent Him, and He who receives the Son, is
receiving with Him the Father, &c." 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. "Altogether, there is nothing which the
Fattier has, which is not the Son's; for therefore it is that the Son
is in the Father, and the Father in the Son; because the things of the
Father, these are in the Son, and still the same are understood as in
the Father. Thus is understood, 'I and the Father are One;' since not
these things are in Him and those in the Son, but the things which are
in the Father those are in the Son, and what thou seest in the Father,
because thou seest in the Son, thereby is rightly understood 'He that
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.'" Serap. ii. 2. M. Here these three texts, which so often occur
together, are recognised 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. p. 229, note G. 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. N. vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The
honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. "He who crowns the
Statue of the Emperor, of course honours him, whose image he has
crowned." Ambros. in Psalm cxvii. x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on
Statues, O. T. pp. 356, &c. fragm. in Act. Conc. vii. (t. 4, p.
89, Hard.) Chrysostom's second persecution arose from his interfering
with a statue of the Empress which was so near the Church, that the
acclamations of the people before it disturbed the services. 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 statues and their honour, in
Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. p. 90.
vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197. O. 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. Dollinger,
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. P. 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. p. 424, note O. S. Greg.
Naz. uses the word [opisthia], (Exod. xxxiii. 23 ) which, forms
a contrast to [eidos], for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3. Q. vid. supr. pp. 55, 228. 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. 65, note M. p. 98, note N. p. 223,
note G. p. 338, note D. R. 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. S. vid. supr. 1, note B. ii. 41 fin. also infr.
iv. 1. "You have the Son, you have the Father; fear not duality …
There is One God, because Father is One, and Son is God, having
identity as Son towards Father … The Father is the whole fulness of
Godhead as Father, and the Son is the whole fulness of Godhead as Son
... The Father has Being perfect and without defect, being root and
fount of the Son and the Spirit; and the Son is in the fulness of
Godhead, a Living Word and Offspring of the Father without defect. And
the Spirit is full of the Son, not being part of another, but whole in
Himself; … Let us understand that the Face ([eidos]) is One
of Three truly subsisting, beginning in Father, beaming in Son, and
manifested through Spirit." Pseudo-Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 512. "I hardly
arrive at contemplating the One, when I am encircled with the radiance
of the Three; I hardly arrive at distinguishing the Three, when I am
carried back to the One. When I have imaged to myself One of the
Three, I think It the whole, and my sight is filled, and what is more
escapes me … And when I embrace the Three in my contemplation, I see
but One Luminary, being unable to distinguish or to measure the Light
which becomes One." Naz. Orat. 40, 41. "Thou art That which begetteth
and That which is begotten ... for Thou wast poured forth, O ineffably
bearing, to bear a Son, glorious Wisdom, Framer of all; and though
poured forth Thou remainest, [atomoisi tomais maieuomenos]&c.
Synes. Hymn. iii. pp. 328, 9. "The fulness of Godhead is in the
Father, and the fulness of Godhead is in the Son, but not differing,
but one Godhead ... If of all believers there was one soul and one
heart ... if every one who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit, … if
man and wife are one flesh, if all of us men in respect of nature are
of one substance, if Scripture thus speaks of human things, that many
are one, of which there can be no comparison with things divine, how
much more are Father and Son One in Godhead, where there is no
difference of substance or of will, &c." Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18.
"This Trinity is of one and the same nature and substance, not less in
Each than in All, nor greater in All than in Each; but so great in
Father alone or in Son alone, as in Father and Son together … For
the Father did not lessen Himself to have a Son for Himself, but so
begat of Himself another self, as to remain whole in Himself, and to
be in the Son as great as He is by Himself. And so the Holy Ghost,
whole from whole, doth not precede That wherein He proceeds, but is so
great with Him as He is from Him, and neither lessens Him by
proceeding nor increases by adhering ... Moreover, He who hath given
to so many hearts of His faithful to be one heart, how much more doth
He maintain in Himself that these Three and Each of Them should be
God, and yet all together, not three gods, but One God?" August. Ep.
170, 5. vid. p. 334, note Y. and infr. note on 36 fin. A. [diabolikoi]. vid. supr. p. 9, note S.
vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Ęg. 4 and 6. In the
passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or
lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; [diaballon]
occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls
Magnentius [diabolos], it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon
after he says that his accuser was [ton diabolou tropon analabon],
where the word has no article, and [diabeblemai] and [dieblethen]
have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so Sent. D. his
speaking of the Arians' "father the devil," 3, c. is explained 4, b.
by [tous pateras diaballonton] and [tes eis
ton episkopon diaboles]. vid. also 27 fin. B. who worship one whom they themselves call a
creature, vid. supr. p. 191, note D. p. 301, note C. p. 310, note H.
infr. p. 423, notes M and N. C. He says that in "I the first" the question of
time does not come in, else creatures would come second to the
Creation, as if His and their duration admitted of a common measure. "First"
then does not imply succession, but is equivalent to [arche];
a word which, as "Father," does not imply that the Son is not from
eternity. D. It is no inconsistency to say that the Father
is first, and the Son first also, for comparison or number does not
enter into this mystery. Since Each is [holos theos], Each, as
contemplated by our finite reason, at the moment of contemplation
excludes the Other. Though we say Three Persons, Person hardly
denotes one abstract idea, certainly not as containing under it
three individual subjects, but it is a term applied to the One God in
three ways. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, that, though we use
words expressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number, and that
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though eternally distinct from each
other, can scarcely be viewed together in common, except as One
substance, as if they could not be generalized into Three Any
whatever; and as if it were, strictly speaking, incorrect to speak of a
Person, or otherwise than of the Person, whether of Father, or
of Son, or of Spirit. The question has almost been admitted by S.
Austin, whether it is not possible to say that God is One
Person, (Trin. vii. 8.) for He is wholly and entirely Father, and at
the same time wholly and entirely Son, and wholly and entirely Holy
Ghost. Some passages from the Fathers shall be given on that subject,
infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. p. 407, note S. Meanwhile the doctrine
here stated will account for such expressions as "God from God," i.e.
the One God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father);
vid. supr. p. 155, note F. Again, [he ousia haute tes
ousias tes patrikes esti gennema]. de Syn.
48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 and 2. where he argues against the
Sabellian hypothesis as making the Divine Nature compound, (the Word
being a something in It,) whereas the Catholic doctrine preserves
unity because the Father is the One God simply and entirely, and the
Son the One God singly and entirely, (vid. supr. p. 334, note Y.); the
Word not a sound, which is nothing, nor a quality which is unworthy of
God, but a substantial Word and a substantial Wisdom. "As," he
continues, "the Origin is One substance, so Its Word and Wisdom is
One, substantial and subsistent; for as from God is God, and from Wise
Wisdom, and from rational ([logikou]) a Word, and from Father a
Son, so from a subsistence is He subsistent, and from substance
substantial and substantive, and from existing existing," &c. Margin Notes1. supr. ch. 19. 2. ch. 23. 3. ch. 21. 4. ch. 14. 5. p. 341, note I. 6. [ereugomenoi]. 7. [kakonoiai]. 8. [soma]. 9. [hypostasis]. 10. [ek periergias]. 11. [ginomenos en]. 12. [metochei]. 13. [metousiai]. 14. [ek peges], p. 25, note
E. 15. [zoogoneitai]. 16. [zoogonei]. 17. [synegorou], infr. § 60. 18. [oikeia]. 19. p. 131, note D. 20. [en huioi], but [en toi
huioi]. Ep. Ęg. 14 fin. vid. p. 311, note K. 21. [exaireton], p. 308, note F. 22. [gnesion]. 23. [tautoteti], p. 145, note R. 24. infr. Orat. iv. 9. 25. infr. 11. 26. [epenoethe]. 27. p. 186, § 6. 28. [oikeioteta]. 29. p. 403, r. 1. 30. [metousian]. 31. doctrine of the Una Res, p. 145, note R. 32. p. 149, note X. 33. parallel to de Syn. 49. p. 149,
supr. 34. [ta tou patros]. 35. [aparallaktos], p. 106, note D. 36. [morphe]. 37. [eidos], vid. infr. 16, note. 38. [to idion]. 39. [katellasseto]. 40. [eirgazeto]. 41. [adiaireton]. 42. [epigenomena]. 43. [metochen]. 44. [hyparxin]. 45. p. 33, note R. 46. [theomachoi]. vid. Acts v. 39. 47. [hauilla], 2 Sam. xv. 1 Kings
i. 48. vid. Basil. Ep. 236, 1. 49. [enantiotes hina labei],
vid. § 58. note. 50. [anomoioteta]. 51. [hoi nun], vid. p. 282, note A. Hist.
Ar. 61, fin. 52. [para], vid. p. 434, r. 1. and John
xv. 26. 53. [hous ethelon], infr. p. 414,
note A. 54. [mathon edidaxe], supr. p. 13,
note A. p. 282, note B. 55. [sunon]. 56. [kakonoian]. 57. vid. p. 368, note G. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |