5 It must not be supposed from this that he approves [as adequate] the phrase 6pov0s Kar ovciay or 6uorovaros, in this Treatise, for zu/r. § 53. he rejects it on the ground that when we speak of How then read you, ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily?’ and, ‘from His fulness all we received’ (Coloss. ii. 9; John i. 16)? how is it that you expel the Arian Aetius as an heretic, though ye say the same with him? for he is your companion, O Acacius, and he became Eudoxius’s master in this so great irreligion®; which was the reason why Leontius the Bishop made him deacon, that using the name of the diaconate as sheep’s clothing, he might be able with impunity to pour forth the words of blasphemy.
39. What then has persuaded you to contradict each other, and to procure to yourselves so great a disgrace? You cannot give any good account of it; this supposition only remains, that all you do is but outward profession and pretence, to secure the patronage of Constantius and the gain from thence accruing. And ye make nothing of accusing the Fathers, and ye complain outright of the expressions as being unscriptural; and, as it is written, ‘opened your legs to every one that passed by’ (Ez. xvi. 25); so as to change as often as they wish, in whose pay and keep you are. Yet, though a man use terms not in Scripture, it makes no difference, so that his meaning be religious®. But the heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dangerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the Spirit, ‘ Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My covenant in thy mouth’ (Ps. 1. 16)? Thus whereas the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, the blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, ‘ The Cretans are always liars,’ and, ‘For we are His offspring,’ and, ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners,’ yet has a religious meaning, as being holy,—is ‘ doctor of the nations, in faith and verity,’ as having ‘the mind of Christ’ (Tit, 1.025 Acts xvit. 28.1 Cor. xv. 33; 1 Tim. ii. 7; 1 Cor. il. 16‘, and what he speaks, he utters religiously. What then is there even plausible, in the Arian terms, in which the ‘caterpillar’ (Joel ii. 25) and the ‘locust’ are preferred to the Saviour, and He is reviled with ‘Once Thou wast not,’ and ‘Thou wast created,’ and ‘Thou art foreign to God in essence,’ and, in a word, no irreverence is unused among them? But what did the Fathers omit in the way of reverence? or rather, have they not a lofty view and a Christloving religiousness? And yet these, they ‘like,’ we imply qualities, not essence. Yet he himself frequently uses it, as other Fathers, and Ovat. i. § 26. uses o0L05 THs ovatlas. 7 6a Vid. p. 162, note 8, Cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 24. vid. also Hil. cont. Constant. 16. August. Ef. 238. n. 4—6. Cyril. Diad, i. p. 391. Petavius refers to other vassages. de Trin. vs 5+ § 6.
wrote, ‘We reject;’ while those others they endure in their insults towards the Lord, and betray to all men, that for no other cause do they resist that great Council but that it condemned the Arian heresy. For it is on this account again that they speak against the term Coessential, about which they also entertain wrong sentiments. For if their faith was right, and they confessed the Father as truly Father, believed the Son to be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of the Father, and as to saying that the Son is ‘from God,’ if they did not use the words of Him as of themselves, but understood Him to be the proper offspring of the Father’s es. sence, as the radiance is from light, they would not every one of them have found fault with the Fathers; but would have been confident that the Council wrote suitably; and that this is the right faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.
40. ‘ But,’ say they, ‘the sense of such expressions is obscure to us;’ for this is another of their pretences,—‘ We reject them,’ say they, ‘because we cannot master their meaning.’ But if they were true in this profession, instead of saying, ‘We reject them,’ they should ask instruction from the well informed; else ought they to reject whatever they cannot understand in divine Scripture, and to find fault with the writers. But this were the venture of heretics rather than of us Christians; for what we do not understand in the sacred oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from persons to whom the Lord has revealed it, and from them we ask for instruction, But since they thus make a pretence of the obscurity of such expressions, let them at least confess what is annexed to the Creed, and anathematize those who hold that ‘the Son is from nothing,’ and ‘ He was not before His generation,’ and ‘the Word of God is a creature and work,’ and ‘He is alterable by nature,’ and ‘from another subsistence;’ and in a word let them anathematize the Arian heresy, which has originated such irreligion. Nor let them say any more, ‘We reject the terms,’ but that ‘we do not yet understand them;’ by way of having some reason to shew for declining them. But I know well, and am sure, and they know it too, that if they could confess all this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they would no longer deny those terms of the Council. For on this account it was that the Fathers, after declaring that the Son’ was begotten from the Father’s essence, and Coessential with Him, thereupon added, ‘ But those who say’—what has just been quoted, Cie ee Men ee a the symbols of the Arian heresy,—‘we anathematize;’ I mean, in order to shew that the statements are parallel, and that the terms in the Creed imply the disclaimers subjoined, and that all who confess the terms, will certainly understand the disclaimers. But those who both dissent from the latter and impugn the former, such men are proved on every side to be foes of Christ.
41. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Niczea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers ®, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, ‘ Coessential.’ Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith®. For only to say ‘like according to essence,’ is very far from signifying ‘of the essence,’ by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog**. But since they say that He is ‘of the essence’ and ‘ Like-in-essence,’ what do they signify by these but ‘Coessential **?’ For, while to say only ‘ Like-inessence,’ does not necessarily convey ‘of the essence,’ on the contrary, to say ‘Coessential,’ is to signify the meaning of both terms, ‘ Like-in-essence,’ and ‘of the essence.’
And accordingly they themselves in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their proofs against them from human illustrations of son and father "2, with this exception that God is not as man, nor the 9 [Ath., is referring to the Council of Ancyra, 358.]
10 So also de Decr. § 23. p. 40. Pseudo-Ath. Hyf. Mel. et Luseb. Hil. de Syn. 89. The illustration runs into this position, ‘Things that are like, [meed} not be the same.’ vid. § 39. note 5. On the other hand, Athan. himself contends for the radrév rH oporwcer, “the same in likeness.’ de Decr, § 20.
1 Vid. Socr. iii. 25. p. 204. a.b. Una substantia religiose pradicabitur que ex zatzvitatis proprietate et ex nature similitudine’ ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. Hil. de Sy. 67.
_ 72 Here at last Athan. alludes to the Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph. ev. 73. 5 and 7. about which he has kept a pointed silence above, when tracing the course of the Arian confessions. That is, he treats the Semi-Arians as tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon as they break company with the Arians. The Ancyrene Council of 358 was a protest against the ‘ blasphemia’ or second Sirmian Confession.
generation of the Son as issue of man, but such as may be ascribed to God, and is fit for us to think, Thus they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Offspring from the Fountain, as He says, ‘I am the Life, and, ‘I Wisdom dwell with Prudence’ (John xiv. 6; Prov. viii. 12). But the Radiance from the Light, and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these be so fitly expressed as by ‘ Coessential?’ And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are coessential, the Son, by being called Coessential, be Himself considered as a human offspring too? perish the thought! not so; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivistbility of such a generation from the Father. For not even man’s word is part of him, nor proceeds from him according to passion?; much less God’s Word; whom the Father has declared to be His own Son, lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard of ‘Word,’ we should suppose Him, such as 1s the word of man, impersonal; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to be living Word and substantive Wisdom.
42. Accordingly, as in saying ‘ offspring,’ we have no human thoughts, and, though we know God to be a Father, we entertain no material ideas concerning Him, but while we listen to these illustrations and terms, we think suitably of God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when we hear of ‘coessential,’ we ought to transcend all sense, and, according to the Proverb, ‘understand by the understanding what is set before us’ (Prov. xxili. 1); so as to know, that not by will, but in truth, is He genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain, and Radiance from Light. Else 3 why should we understand ‘offspring’ and ‘son,’ in no corporeal way, while we conceive of ‘coessential’ as after the manner of bodies? especially since these terms are not here used about different subjects, but of whom ‘ offspring’ is predicated, of Him is ‘coessential’ also.
1 It is usual with the Fathers to use the two terms ‘Son’ and ‘Word,’ to guard and complete the ordinary sense of each other, vid. p. 157, note6; and p. 167, note4. The term:Son, used by itself, was abused into Arianism; and the term Word into Sabellianism; again the term Son might be accused of introducing material notions, and the term Word of imperfection and transitoriness. Each of them corrected the other. Ovat.i. § 28. iv. § 8. Euseb. contr. Mare. ii. 4. p. 54. Isid. Pel. ZZ. iv. 141. So S. Cyril says that we learn ‘from His being called Son that He is from Him, 70 é& avtod; from His being called Wisdom and Word, that He isin Him,’ 76 év av7@. Thesaur. iv. p. 31. However, S. Athanasius observes, that properly speaking the one term implies the other, i.e. in ats ftilmess. Ovat. iti. § 3. iv. § 24 fin. On the other hand the heretics accused Catholics of inconsistency, or of a union of opposite errors, because they accepted all the Scripture images together. Vigilius of Thapsus, conzy. Eutych. ii. init. vid. also i, init. and Eulogius, a2. Phot. 225, p. 759- 2 De Decr. § to. 3 Vid. Epiph. Her. 73. 3, &c.
ee ee ae ee And it is but consistent to attach the same sense to both expressions as applied to the Saviour, and not to interpret ‘offspring’ in a good sense, and ‘coessential’ otherwise; since to be consistent, ye who are thus minded and who say that the Son is Word and Wisdom of the Father, should entertain a different view of these terms also, and understand Word in another sense, and Wisdom in yet another. But, as this would be absurd (for the Son is the Father’s Word and Wisdom, and the Offspring from the Father is one and proper to His essence), so the sense of ‘ Offspring’ and ‘Coessential’ is one, and whoso considers the Son an offspring, rightly considers Him also as ‘ coessential.’
43. This is sufficient to shew that the meaning of the beloved ones+ is not foreign nor far from the ‘Coessential.’ But since, as they alleges (for I have not the Epistle in question), the Bishops who condemned the Samosatene® have said in writing that the Son is not coessential with the Father, and so it comes to pass that they, for caution and honour towards those who have so said, thus feel about that expression, it will be to the purpose cautiously to argue with them this point also. Certainly it is unbecoming to make the one conflict with the others; for all are fathers; nor is it religious to settle, that these have spoken well, and those ill; for all of them fell asleep in Christ. Nor is it right to be disputatious, and to compare the respective numbers of those who met in the Councils, lest the three hundred seem to throw the lesser into the shade; nor to compare the dates, lest those who preceded seem to eclipse those that came after. For all, I say, are fathers; and yet not even the three hundred laid down nothing new, nor was it in any selfconfidence that they became champions of words not in Scripture, but they fell back upon fathers, as did the others, and used their words. For there have been two of the name of Dionysius, much older than the seventy who deposed the Samosatene, of whom one was of Rome, and the other of Alexandria. But a charge had been laid by some persons against the Bishop of Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as if he had said that the Son was made, and not coessential with the Father. And, the synod at Rome being indignant, the Bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments in a letter to his namesake. And so the latter, in defence, wrote a book with the title 4 % 54, note 2. 5 Vid. Hilar. de Sy. 81 init.; Epiph. Her.
6 There were three Councils held against Paul of Samosata, of the dates of 264, 269, and an intermediate year. The third is spoken of in the text, which contrary to the opinion of Pagi, S. Basnage, and Tillemont, Pearson fixes at 265 or 266, ‘of Refutation and Defence;’ and thus he writes to the other: 44. And? I wrote in another Letter a refutation of the false charge which they bring against me, that I deny that Christ is coessential with God. For though I say that I have not found or read this term anywhere in holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief. For I instanced a human production, which is evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably fathers differed from their children, only in not being the same individuals; otherwise there could be neither parents nor children, And my Letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances, I am unable to produce, or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of it all; which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection, that I adduced many parallels of things kindred with each other, for instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, and yet altogether one in nature with it; and that a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its appearance and its name, for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, but both existed, and that the fountain was as it were father, but the stream was what was generated from the fountain.
45. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds fault with those who met at Nicza, as if they contradicted the decisions of their predecessors, he might reasonably find fault also with the seventy, because they did not keep to the statements of their own predecessors; but such were the Dionysii and the Bishops assembled on that occasion at Rome. But neither these nor those is it pious to blame; for all were charged with the embassy of Christ, and all have given diligence against the heretics, and the one party condemned the Samosatene, while the other condemned the Arian heresy. And rightly have both these and those written, and suitably to the matter in hand. And as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said, ‘The Law is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’ (Rom. vil. 14, 12); and soon after, ‘What the Law could not do, in that it was weak’ (Ib. viii. 3), but wrote to the Hebrews, ‘The Law has made no one perfect’ (Heb. vii. 19); and to the Galatians, ‘ By the Law no one 1s justified’ (Gal. ili. 11), but to Timothy, ‘The Law is good, if a man use it lawfully’ (1 Tim. i. 8); and no one would accuse the Saint of inconsistency and variation in writing, but rather would admire how suitably he wrote to each, to teach the Romans and the others to turn from the letter to the spirit, but to instruct the Hebrews and Galatians to place their hopes, not in the Law, but in the Lord who had given the Law; —so, if the Fathers of the two Councils made different mention of the Coessential, we ought not in any respect to differ from them, but to investigate their meaning, and this will fully DEGSYNODIS: shew us. the agreement of both the Councils. For they who deposed the Samosatene, took Coessential in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, ‘Unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is Coessential with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three essences, one the previous essence, and the other two from it;’ and therefore guarding against this they said with good reason, that Christ was not Coessential®.. For the Son is not related to the Father as he imagined. But the Bishops who anathematized the Arian heresy, understanding Paul’s craft, and reflecting that the word ‘Coessential,’ has not this meaning when used of things immaterial °, and especially of God, and acknowledging that the Word was not a creature, but an offspring from the essence, and that the Father’s essence was the origin and root and fountain of the Son, and that he was of very truth His Father’s likeness, and not of different nature, as we are, and separate from the Father, but that, as being from Him, He exists as Son indivisible, as radiance is with respect to Light, and knowing too the illustrations used in Dionysius’s case, the ‘fountain,’ and the defence of ‘ Coessential,’ and before this the Saviour’s saying, symbolical of unity *°, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’ (John x. 30, Ib. xiv. 9), on these grounds reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was Coessential. And as, according to a former remark, no one would blame the Apostle, if he wrote to the Romans about the Law in one way, and to the Hebrews in another; in like manner, neither would the present Bishops find fault with the ancient, having regard to their interpretation, nor again in view of theirs and of the need of their so writing about the Lord, would the ancient censure their successors.
Yes surely, each Council has a_ sufficient reason for its own language; for since the Samosatene held that the Son was not before 8 This is in fact the objection which Arius urges against the Coessential, supr.?16, when he calls it the doctrine of Manicheus and Hieracas, vid. $16, note 11. The same objection is protested against by S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 1g. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. in his account of the reason of the Council’s rejection of the word, S. Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in A Mary, but received from her the origin of His being, therefore those who then met deposed him and pronounced him heretic; but concerning the Son’s Godhead writing 1n simplicity, they arrived not at accuracy concerning the Coessential, but, as they understood the word, so spoke they about it. For they directed all their thoughts to destroy the device of the Samosatene, and to shew that the Son was before all things, and that, instead of becoming God from man, He, being God, had put on a servant’s form, and being Word, had become flesh, as John says (Phil. ii. 7; Joh. i. 14). This is how they dealt with the blasphemies of Paul; but when Eusebius, Arius, and their fellows said that though the Son was before time, yet was He made and one of the creatures, and as to the phrase ‘from God,’ they did not believe it in the sense of His being genuine Son from Father, but maintained it as it is said of the creatures, and as to the oneness? of likeness? between the Son and the Father, did not confess that the Son is like the Father according to essence, or according to nature as a son resembles his father, but beeause of Their agreement of doctrines and of teaching 3; nay, when they drew a line and an utter distinction between the Son’s essence and the Father, ascribing to Him an origin of being, other than the Father, and degrading Him to the creatures, on this account the Bishops assembled at Niczea, with a view to the craft of the parties so thinking, and as bringing together the sense from the Scriptures, cleared up the point, by affirming the ‘Coessential;’ that both the true genuineness of the Son might thereby be known, and that to things originate might be ascribed nothing in common with Him. For the precision of this phrase detects their pretence, whenever they use the phrase ‘from God,’ and gets rid of all the subtleties with which they seduce the simple. For whereas they contrive to put a sophistical construction on all other words at their will, this phrase only, as detecting their heresy, do they dread; which the Fathers set down as a bulwark¢ against their irreligious notions one and all.
46. Let then all contention cease, nor Sabellian sense, and therefore the Council rejected it, ‘Male homoiision Samosatenus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt.’ de Syz. 86, me net. Soz. iii. 18. The heretical party, starting with the notion in which their heresy in all its shades consisted, that the Son was a distinct being from the Father, concluded that ‘Ze in essence’ was the only term which would express the relation of the Son to the Father, Here then the word ‘coessential’ did just enable the Catholics to join issue with them, as exactly expressing what the Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no such distinction between Them as made the term ‘like’ necessary, but that as material parent and offspring are individuals under one common sfeczes, so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one common individual essence, 70 $ 49, I Hv HS Opordgews évdtyTA! and so PP. 163, note 9, 165, 166. And Basil. ravrérnra tis dieews, Lp. 8. 3: [but] radtétyTa rhs ovouds, Cyril zz Joan. lib. ili. c. v. p. 302. [cf. ravroovcrov, P- 315, note 6.] It is uniformly asserted by the Catholics that the Father's godhead, @edrys, is the Son’s; e.g. infr..3 523 supr. P: 329 b, line 8; p. 333, note 5; Orar. i. 49 fin, il. § 18. § 73. fin. ii, $26; iii. t5 fin. ili. $53; pico Thy Oed7HTa Kal Td idvoy THs OvgLas TOU marpds. } 56 swPr. p. 84 fin. vid. 352. note. This is an approach to the doctrine of the Una Res; defined in the fourth Lateran Council [in 1215, see Harnack Dogmg. iii. 447, note, and on the doctrine of the Greek Fathers, Prolegg. ch. ii. ¢ 3 (2) b.]
4 emretxigua; in like manner otvSecuov micrews. Epiph. Ancor. 6; cf. Her. 69. 70; Ambros. de Fid. iii. 15s ‘ COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA, ee Pe eo ee