2s. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the Indiction *, Constantius the most irreligious being present. Having thus conducted matters at Antioch at the Dedication, thinking that their composition was deficient still, and fluctuating moreover in their own opinions, again they draw up afresh another formulary, after a few months, professedly concerning the faith, and despatch Narcissus, Maris, Theodorus, and Mark into Gaul?. And they, as being sent from the Council, deliver the following document to Constans Augustus of blessed memory, and to all who were there: We believe? in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker of all things; from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. (Eph.
And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Epiph. Her. 76. p. 945. but it admitted of an evasion. An especial reason for insisting on it in the previous centuries had been the Sabellian doctrine, which considered the title ‘ Word’ when applied to our Lord to be adequately explained by the ordinary sense of the term, as a word spoken by us. In consequence they insisted on His 70 téAevov, perfection, which became almost synonymous with His personality. (Thus the Apollinarians, e.g. denied that our Lord was Zevfect man, because His person was not human. Athan. contr. Afoll.i. 2.) And Athan. condemns the notion of ‘ the Adyos év T@ Gee aredys, yevynOets TéAeLos, Orat. iv. 11. The Arians then, as being the especial opponents of the Sabellians, insisted on nothing so much as our Lord’s being a real, living, substantial, Word. vid. Eusebius assim. ‘The Father,’ says Acacius against Marcellus, ‘ begat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and perfect perfect; for there is nothing imperfect in the Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the Son’s perfection is the genuine offspring of His perfection, and superperfection.’ af. Hpith. Her. 72.7. Tédev.os then was a relative word, varying with the subject matter, vid. Damasc. FF. O.i. 8.
p- 138. and when the Arians said that our Lord was perfect God, they meant, ‘perfect, 2 that sense in which He is God’—i.e. as a secondary divinity.—Nay, in one point of view, holding as they did no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, they would use the term of His divine Nature more freely than the Catholics sometimes had. ‘ Nor was the Word,’ says Hippolytus, ‘before the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being perfect Word, Only-begotten; nor could the flesh subsist by itself without the Word, because that in the Word it has its consistence: thus then He was manifested One perfect Son of God.’ contr. Noet. 15. _ 10 [See Prolegg.] Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him. I A.D. 341.
3 4th Confession, or 4th of Antioch, a.p. 342. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Confessions are the same, and with them agree the Creed of Philippopolis [a.D. 343, see Gwatkin, Stud. p. 119, espec. | note 2).
Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made in the heavens and on _the earth, visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and True Light; who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin; who was crucified, and dead, and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father $ and is coming at the consummation of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly into the infinite ages4; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the Father, not only in this age but in that which is to come.: And inthe Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
But those who say, that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence and not from God, and, there was time when He was not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens 5.
26. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting again after three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius of Cilicia 6, and some others with them, to the parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith written at great length, with numerous additions over and above those which have gone before. They went abroad with these, as if they had devised something new.
We believe? in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named.
And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and Power and Life and True Light, who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works, whose Kingdom endures unceasingly unto the infinite ages; for He sitteth on the right hand of the Father not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which, having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things: through whom also shall re sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in im, 4 These words, which answer to those [of our present ‘ Nicene’ Creed], are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus [on which see Prolegg. ii. 33 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Eecl. Theol. iii. 8. 17. cont. Marc. ii. 4.
_5 S. Hilary, as we have seen above, p.78, by implication calls this the Nicene Anathema; but it omits many of the Nicene « clauses, and evades our Lord’s eternal existence, substituting for “once He was not,’ ‘ there was ¢27ze when He was not.’ It seems to have been considered sufficient for Gaul, as used naw, for Italy as in the sth Confession or Macrostich, and for Afriéa as in the creed of Philippopolis.
6 Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Martyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long Confession, or Macrostich, which follows, is remarkable; [see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sg.]
7 5th coe or Macrostich, a.p. 344. [Published by the Council which déposed Stephen and elected Leontius bishop of i Antioch.1 eee ene Sern But those who say, (1) that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence and not from God; (2) and that there was a time or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens. Likewise those who say, (3) that there are three Gods: (4) or that Christ is not God; (5) or that before the ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God; (6) or that Father and Son, or Holy Ghost, are the same; (7) or that the Son is Ingenerate; or that the Father begat the Son, not by choice or will; the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes, (1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated, For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Unbegun, the Father of Christ, is One 8.
. _(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, There was once when He was not,’ from unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of time before Him, but only the God who has generated Him apart from time; for through Him both times and ages came to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun and coingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly talled Father or Son of one who is co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with Him9. But we acknowledge” that the Father who alone is Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and incomprehensibly to all; and that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the Father who generated Him as His beginning; for ‘ the Head of Christ is God.’ (1 Cor. xi. 3.)
(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only*, the God and Father (Joh. xx. 17) of the Onlybegotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.
(4.) Nor again, in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one only God, the only Ingenerate, do we therefore deny that Christ also is God before ages: as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that after the incarnation He was by advance? made God, from being made by nature a mere man. For we acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true 3, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being.
(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a pretence of saying that He is but the mere word of God and unexisting, having His being in another, — now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental 4, — 8 Tt is observable that here and in the next paragraph the only reasons they give against using the only two Arian formulas which they condemns is that they are not found in Scripture. Here, in their explanation of the é& ovx dyrwy, or from nothing, they do but deny it with Eusebius’s evasion, sugr. p. 75, note 5.
9 They argue after the usual Arian manner, that the term ‘Son’ essentially implies beginning, and excludes the title ‘counoriginate;’ but see szf7. § 16, note 1, and p. 154, note 5.
z0 (The four lines which follow are cited by Lightfoot, Zgn. p. 91. ed. z, as from de Syn. § 3.)
i Cf. § 28, end. 2 é« mpoxomys, de Decr. § 10, note ro.
3 These strong words, @eoy Kata piow réAcvov Kat aAnOy are of a different character from any which have occurred in the Arian Confessions. They can only be explained away by considering them used zz contrast to the Samosatene doctrine; so that ‘ perfect according to nature’ and ‘true,’ will not be directly connected with ‘God’ so much as opposed to, ‘ by advance,’ ‘ by adoption,’ 4 The use of the words évéca8eTos and mpodpopikos, mental and pronounced, te distinguish the two senses of Adyos, reason and qwo¥d, came from the school of the Stoics, and is found in Philo, and was under certain limitations allowed in Catholic theology, holding that He was not Christ or Son of God or mediator or image of God before ages; but that He first became Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the Virgin, not quite four hundred years since. For they will have it that then Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation of all and the judgment 5. Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus® of Galatian Ancyra, who, equally with Jews, negative Christ’s existence before ages, and His Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting the divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as simply God’s pronounced word or mental, but as Living God and Word, existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ; being and abiding with His Father before ages, and that not in foreknowledge only?, and ministering to Him for the whole framing whether of things visible or invisible. For He it is, to whom the Father said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness ®’ (Gen. i. 26), who also was seen in His own Person? by the patriarchs, gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and at last, became man, and manifested His own Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages. For Christ has taken no recent dignity, but we have believed Him to be perfect from the first, and like in all things to the Father?.
(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and the same Reality and Person, we justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming man: for such are they whom Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians?. For we acknowledge that the Father who sent, remained in the peculiar state of His unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of the Incarnation.
(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say that the Son has been generated not by choice or will, thus encompassing God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define such things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For Damasc. /. O. ii. 21. To use either absolutely and to the exclusion of the other would have involved some form of Sabellianism, .or Arianism as the case might be; but each might correct the defective sense of either S. Theophilus speaks of our Lord as at once évduaGeros and mpodpopixds. ad Atol, ii. 10 and 22, S. Cyril as évdud0eros, in Joann. p. 39. but see also Thesaur. p. 47. en the Fathers deny that our ira is the mpoopixds Adyos, they only mean that that title is not, even as far as its philosophioal idea went, an adequate representative of Him, a word spoken being insubstantive, vid. Orat. ii. 353; Hil. de Syn. 46; Cyr. Catech. xi. 10; Damas. Gf. ii. p. 203; Cyril iz Joann. p.31; Iren. Her. ii. 1z.n.5. Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one and then the other. Zecl. Theol. ii. 15.
5 This passage seems taken from Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus’s own words. S. Cyril speaks of his doctrine in like terms. Catech. xv. 27.
6 i.e. Photinus. [A note illustrating the frequency of similar nicknames is omitted. On Photinus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3. ad fin.) 7 Cf. Euseb. contr. Marc.i.2. 8 Cf. § 27, notes.
9 avtompoownas and so Cyril Hier. Catech. xv. 14 and 17 (It means, ‘not in personation’), and Philo contrasting divine appearances with those of Angels. Leg. Adleg. iii. 62. On the other hand, Theophilus on the text, ‘The voice of the Lord God walking in the garden,’ speaks of the Word, ‘assuming the person, mpoowmov, of the Father,’ and ‘in the person of God,’ ad Axtol. ii. 22. the word not then having its theological sense.
I d0v0v kata wavrTa. Here again we have a strong Semi-Arian or almost Catholic formula introduced by the bye. Of course it admitted of evasion, but in its fulness it included ‘essence.’ [See above § 8, note 1, and Introd.)
2 See vol. i. of this series, p. 295, note x. In the reason which the Confession alleges against that heretical doctrine it is almost implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on the Cross. They would naturally fall into this notion directly they gave up our Lord’s absolute divinity. It would naturally follow that our Lord had no human soul, but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place of it:—also that His Mediatorship was no peculiarity of His Incarnation. vid. ¢ 23, note 2. § 27, Anath. 12, note.
Se eee ee oe we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son voluntarily and freely; yet, as we have a reverent belief in the Son’s words concerning Himself (Prov. viii. 22), ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works,’ we do not understand Him to have been originated like the creatures or works which through Him came to be. For it is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith, to compare the Creator with handiworks created by Him, and to think that He has the same manner of origination with the rest. For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son was generated sole and solely **. Yet3, in saying that the Son is in Himself, and both lives and exists like the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from the Father, imagining place and interval between their union in the way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with each other without mediation or distance ‘+, and that they exist inseparable; all the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father’s breast continually 4*. Believing then in the All-perfect Triad, the most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and calling the Father God, and the Son God, yet we confess in them, not two Gods, but one dignity of Godhead, and one exact harmony of dominion, the Father alone being Head over the whole universe wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the Son subordinated to the Father; but, excepting Him, ruling over all things after Him which through Himself have come to be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost unsparingly to the saints at the Father’s will. For that such is the account of the Divine Monarchy towards Christ, the sacred oracles have delivered to us.
Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in any officious display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion concerning our opinions, among those who are ignorant of our affairs: and that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the slanders of the ~ heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical mind in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are not perverse.
27. However they did not stand even to this; for again at Sirmium5 they met together 5 against Photinus © and there composed a faith again, 28 The Confession still insists upon the unscripturalness of the Catholic positions. On the main subject of this paragraph the GeAjaer yevunbev, cf. Ovat. iii. 59, &c. The doctrine of the povoyeves has already partially come before us in de Decr. §§ 7—9. Pp. 154 sg. Mévws, not as the creatures. vid. p. 75, note 6.
3 The following passage is in its very form an interpolation or appendix, while its doctrine bears distinctive characters of something higher than the old absolute separation between the Father and the Son. [Eusebius of Czes. had] considered Them as two ovata, dmorae like, but not as dfoovcev0r; his very explanation of the word réAcvos was ‘independent’ and ‘distinct.’ Language then, such as that in the text, was the nearest assignable approach to the reception of the duoovcvorv; [and in fact, to] the doctrine of the reprxapyots, of which supr. Orat. iii.
5 Sirmium [Mitrowitz on the Save] was a city of lower Pannonia, not far from the Danube, and was the great bulwark of the Illyrian provinces of the Empire. There Vetranio assumed the purple; and there Constantius was born. The frontier war caused it to be from time to time the Imperial residence. We hear of Constantius at Sirmium in the summer of 357. Ammian. xvi. ro. He also passed there the ensuing winter. ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium in triumph, and passed the winter there. xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence in the spring, remained there till the end of May, 359.
52 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 7]. The leading person in this Council was Basil of Ancyra, Basil held a disputation with Photinus. Silvanus too of Tarsus now appears for the first time: while, according to Socrates, Mark of Arethusa drew up the Anathemas; the Confession used was the same as that sent to Constans, of the Council of Philippopolis, and the Macrostich.: © §.Hilary treats their creed as a Catholic composition. de Syn.
not drawn out into such length, not so full in words; but subtracting the greater part and adding in its place, as if they had listened to the suggestions of others, they wrote as follows:— We believe? in-One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, ‘from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named ®.’
And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ, who before all the ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and True Light and Life, who in the last of days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works; whose Kingdom being unceasing endures unto the infinite ages; for He shall sit on the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to the Apostles to send forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach and to remind them of all things, He did send; through whom also are sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from other subsistence2 and not from God, and that there was time or age when He was not, the Holy and Catholic Church regards as aliens.
(2.) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son are two Gods, be he anathema”.
(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son of God, does not confess that He has subserved the Father for the framing of the universe, be he anathema ™, 39—63. Philastrius and Vigilius call the Council a meeting of “holy bishops’ and a ‘Catholic Council,’ de Her. 65. in Eutych. v. init. What gave a character and weight to this Council was, that it met to set right a real evil, and was not a mere pretence with Arian objects.
7 6th Confession, or rst Sirmian, A.D. 351.
10 This Anathema which has occurred in substance in the Macrostich, and again infr. Anath. 18 and 23. is a disclaimer of their in fact holding a supreme and a secondary God. In the Macrostich it is disclaimed upon a simple Arian basis. The Semi-Arians were more open to this imputation; Eusebius, as we have seen above, distinctly calling our Lord a second and another God. vid. p. 75, note 7. It will be observed that this Anathema contradicts the one which immediately follows, and the x1th, in which Christ is called God; except, on the one hand, the Father and Son are One God, which was the Catholic doctrine, or, on the other, the Son is God in name only, which was the pure Arian or Anomcean.
1r The language of Catholics and heretics is very much the same on this point of the Son’s ministration, with this essential difference of sense, that Catholic writers mean a ministration internal to the divine substance and an instrument connatural with the Father, and Arius meant an external and created medium of operation. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord ‘the All-harmonious Instrument (pyavov) of God.” Protrepi. p. 6; Eusebius ‘an _animated and living instrument (6pyavov euuxov), nay, rather divine and vivific of every substance and nature.’ Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on the other hand, insists that the Arians reduced our Lord to ‘an inanimate instrument,’ dpyavov a&uxov, though they called Him trovpyoy teActorarov, most perfect minister or underworker. adv. Eunomt. ii. 21. Elsewhere he makes them say, ‘ the nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instrument, dpyavou, another;...foreign then in nature is the Son from the Father, since such is an instrument from a workman.’ De Sf. S.n. 6 fin. vid. also n. 4 fin. 19, and 20. And so S. Gregory, ‘The Father signifies, the Word accomplishes, not servilely, nor ignorantly, but with knowledge and sovereignty, and to speak more suitably, in a father’s way, warpik@s. Ovat. 30. 11. Cf. S. Cyril, in Foann.
p. 48. Explanations such as these secure for the Catholic writers some freedom in their modes of speaking, e.g. Athan. speaks of the Son, as ‘ enjoined and ministering,’ spoorartopevos, Kal broupyav, Orat. ii. § 22, Thus S. Irenzeus speaks of the Father being (4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate, or a part of Him, was born of Mary, be he anathema.
(5-) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge * the Son is before Mary and not that, generated from the Father before ages, He was with God, and that through Him all things were originated, be he anathema. _ (6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the essence of God is dilated or contracted?, be he anathema.
(7.) Whosoever shall say that the essence of God being dilated made the Son, or shall name the dilation of His essence Son, be he anathema.
(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced Word 3, be he anathema, (9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man only, be he anathema.
Son as man, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, has wrestled, be he anathema ®.
(17.) Whosoever shall explain, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord’ (Gen. xix. 24), not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained from Himself, be he anathema. For the Son, being Lord, rained from the Father Who is Lord.
(18.) Whosoever, hearing that the Father is Lord and the Son Lord and the Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, says there are two Gods, be he anathema.’ For we do not place the Son in the Father’s order, but as subordinate to the Father; for He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father’s will, nor did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the Father authorising it. Nor is He (r0.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from Mary God and man, thereby means God the Ingenerate4, be he anathema.
(11.) Whosoever shall explain ‘I God the First and I the Last, and besides Me there is no God,’ (Is. xliv. 6), which is said for the denial of idols and of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, before ages God, as Jews do, be he anathema.
(12.) Whosoever hearing ‘The Word was made flesh,’ (John i. 14), shall consider that the Word has changed into flesh, or shall say that He has undergone alteration by taking flesh, be he anathema 5.
(13.) Whosoever hearing the Only-begotten Son of God to have been crucified, shall say that His Godhead has undergone corruption, or passion, or alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he anathema.
(14.) Whosoever shall say that * Let Us make man’ (Gen. i. 26), was not said by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he anathema®.
(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema’.
(16.) Whosoever shall say that with Jacob, not the well;pleased and comrianding, xeAe¥ovros, and the Son doing and framing. Her. iv. 75. S. Basil too, in the same treatise in which are some of the foregoing protests, speaks of ‘the Lord ordering, mpoorgacovta, and the Word framing.’ de Sf. S. n. 38, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of ‘Him who bids, é:7réNAerar, bidding to one who is present with Him,’ Caz. xi. 16. vid. also twnperav tH Bovdg, Justin. Txyph. 126, and jrovpyév, Theoph. ad Avxtol, ii. 10. efumnpeta@v GeAjmar., Clem. Strom. vii. p. 832.
5 The 12th and 13th Anathemas are intended to meet the charge which is alluded to 3 266), note 2, that Arianism ‘involved the doctrine that our Lord’s divine nature suffered. [But see Gwatkin, p. 147.] Athanasius brings this accusation against them distinctly in his work against Apollinaris. contr. Afoll. i, 15.. vid. also Ambros. de Fide, iii. 31. Salig in his de Eutychianismo ant. Eutychen takes notice of none of the passages in the text.
6 This Anathema is directed against Marcellus, who held the very opinion which it denounces, that the Almighty spake with Himself. Euseb. Accles. Theol. ii. 15. The Jews said that Almighty God spoke to the Angels. Basil. Hexaem. fin. Others that the plural was used as authorities on earth use it in way of dignity. Theod. ix Gen. 19. As to the Catholic Fathers, as is well known, they interpreted the text in the sense here given. See Petav. ees: 7 This again, in spite of the wording, which is directed against + the Catholic doctrine [or MarcelJiis?) is a Catholic interpretation, vid. (besides Philo de Sowimits. i. 12.) Justin. 7ryph. 56. and 126. Iren. Her. iv. 10. n. 1. Tertull. de carn. Christ. 6. adv. Mare. iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de Trin. 18. Origen. 7x Gen. Hom. iv. 5. Cyprian. ady. Jud. ii. Antioch. Syn. contr. Paul. apud Routh. Rebl. t. 2. p- 469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor. 29 and 39. Her. 71. 5. Chrysost. iz Gen. Hom. 41.7. These references are principally from Petavius; also from Dorscheus, who has written an elaborate commentary on this Gouncil, &c. The Catholic doctrine is that the Son has condeseended to become visible by means of material appearances. Augustine seems to have been the first,who changed the mode of viewing the texts in qpestion, and consitlered»the divine appearance, not God the Son, but a created Angel. Vid. de Prin. 1i. passim. Jansenius considers that he did so froma suggestion of S. Ambrose, that the hitherto received view had*been the origo hzresis Ariane, vid. his Anugustinus, 1b. prowm. C. 12. t. 2. Pp. 12. | VOL. IV. H of Himself set down on the right hand, but He hears the Father saying, ‘Sit Thou on My right hand’ (Ps. Cx hs (19.) Whosoever says that the Father and the Sor and the Holy Ghost are one Person, be he anathema.
(20.) Whosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as Paraclete, shall mean the Ingenerate God, be he anathema?.
(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us, that the Paraclete is other than the Son, for He hath said, ‘And another Paraclete shall the Father send to you, whom I will ask,’ (John xiv. 16) be he anathema.
(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is part of the Father or of the Son?, be he anathema.
(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three Gods, be he anathema.
(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at the will of God has come to be, as one of the works, be he anathema.
(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son has been generated, the Father not wishing it?, be he anathema. For not by compulsion, led by physical necessity, ‘did the Father, as He wished not, generate the Son, but He at once willed, and, after generating Him from Himself apart from time and passion, manifested Him.
(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is without beginning and ingenerate, as if speaking of two unbegun and two ingenerate, and making two Gods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, namely the beginning of all: and God is the Head, namely the beginning of Christ; for thus to one unbegun beginning of the universe do we religiously refer all things through the Son.