istence. Athan. says that the title ‘Maker’ does, but that the title ‘father’ does not. vid. supr. p. 76, n. 35 O7 1. 29, n. 10: WL AL, Ne) ire ‘ i Oo xchats de Incarn. c. Ar. 19, c. vid. Ambros. de /id. iii. cap. 12, 13- Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 64. |, 8 Mark xii. 29. 9 Ex. iii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 39, LXX.; Is. xliv. 6. LORD eH CCT AAG iO) ane 3 iz Vid. supr. 1, note 10; ii. 4t fin. also infr. iv. 1. Pseudo-Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5—12. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. Synes. Hymn. iui. pp. 328, 9. Ambros, de Fid. i. n. 18. August. Ep. 170, 5. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6. and zr. note on 36 fin.
Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonijah 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‘;’ and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, ‘ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord 5;’ 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 vdis: ciples, ‘My Father is greater than I,’ and ‘He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me7;’ if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty, 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. 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 daytime 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 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 4 Luke xviii. 19, and vid. Basil. ZZ. 236, 1. 5 Mark xii. 29. 6 John vi. 38; xiv. 28. 7 John v. 23, cf. xiii, 20.
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST, THE ARIANS.
instead. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His own Word, unless forsooth the modern? 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??. For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this was what was heard; nor is there a thing which God says 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™ 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 7, 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 Christopposers*3, that they might know, that whatsoever god they devise external to the Father’s Essence, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the Only and First.
g. 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,’ 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 didst send?.’ 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 as itis, 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 learned3, so he teaches 9 ot viv, cf. Ov. ii. x, note 6, and His¢. Ax. 61, fin.
10 §caBoArkol. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Decry. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. #A. Ag. 4and 6. In the passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; dvaBdéAAwy occurs shortly before. And so.in Agol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius 6uéBodos, it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was Toy SvaBdAov mpomov avadaBdyv, where the word has no article, and 81aBéBAnmar and dveBAHOyv have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. | 32 fin. And soin Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians’ ‘father the devil,’ 3, c. is explained 4, b. by tovs marépas StaBaddAdvrwy and THS Els TOY emLaKOTOV StaBodys.
II wapa, vid. § 24 end, and John xv. 26, 13-Who worship one whom they themselves call a creature, vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n, 8, ll. 14, n. 7, 21, n. 2, and below, § 16 notes, t John xiv. 6. 2 Ib. xvii. 3. 3 pabay édiSake, de 12 ods nOcAov, 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+’ And when the Prophet says concerning the creation, ‘That stretcheth forth the heavens alone5,’ 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,’ and 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, as in the Light the Radiance. 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. 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®; 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? through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First®, as © He says that in ‘I the first’ the question of time does not come in, else creatures would come ‘second’ to the Creator, as if His and their duration admitted of acommon measure. ‘ First’ then does not imply succession, but is equivalent to apxy; a word which, as ‘ Father,’ does not imply that the Son is not from eter- 8 It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, and the Son first also, for comparison or number does not enter into mystery. Since Each is oAos 6eds, 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 isa ‘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 (777z. 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 references to the Fathers shall be given on that subject, 7/7. 36 fin. vid, also sapr. § 6, n. 11. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will account for such expressions as ‘God from God,’ i.e. the One Image of the First, and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship.
GHAPDER XV.
Texts EXPLAINED; NINTHLY, JOHN x. 30; Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one, as we are one with Christ, is put aside by the Regula /dez, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. confirmed by S. John. In what sense we are ‘in God’ and His ‘sons.’
10. However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise ‘one,’ or ‘like,’ as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have itt. For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He, judges, but is in all respects concordant? with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father’s teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this3. Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son and the Father are One, and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows forthwith+ that the Angelss too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father); vid. supr. de Syn. 52, note 8 Again, H ovata airy rs obatas tis marpikns éoti yevunua. de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also iz/r. Ovat. iv. z and 2.
ZI ws avtot OédAover. vid. § 8, n. 12. ‘not as you say, but as we will.’ This is 2 common phrase with Athan. vid. sur. Or. i. 13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4, 14). It is here contrasted to the Church's doctrine, and connected with the word tdvos- for which de Syn. 3, n. 63 Ov. i. 37, n. 1. Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Afoll. ii. 5 init. in contrast with the evayyeAckos opos.; 2 gupwvos. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian guppuwyia is touched on de Sy. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned in the former of these notes, ‘one’ is explained as oneness of will by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains John x. 30. by xvii. 22. like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius Lccl. Theol, iii. p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. pp. 28, 37 The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are collected by Maldonat. zx oc.
5 This ereatienk is found de Syw. 48. vid. also Cyril. de T77n.
Force of ‘in us;’ force of ‘as;’ | said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God’s Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they; and neither In judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, ‘ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning®?’ But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many (are like the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Saviour’s command, being merciful ‘as their Father which is in heaven7,’ and observing the exhortation, ‘ Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us8;’ many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ®*, And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, ‘I and the Father are One,’ or, ‘I in the Father, and the Father in Me9;’ but it is said of all of them, ‘ Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God???’ and of Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Image™, and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but ior that Image and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation.
11. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shewn to have anything beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father’s doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father', but the 6 Is, xiv. 12, 7 Luke vi. 36 (cf. Tisch. z loc.)
10 Vid. Ps Ixxxvi. 8; Ixxxix. 6. m Aug. de Trin. vii. fin.
1 Cf, Serap. i, 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. § 19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21-24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. ‘One must not say,’ he observes, ‘that these names properly and primarily, cuptws Kai Tparws belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure karaxpyoricds (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referrmg us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings, says, ‘‘ Call no one your fath + upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven.”’ He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decry. 31, n. 5), much more is He the rarijp tov Kara piouw viov. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i.
Oe ee ot ye oe doctrines and teaching are the Father’s. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image, or rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? for Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like Him in essence.’ Having then such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker3, and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son4, as He promised when He said, ‘ I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with himS5;’ for in the Image is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance is the Light. Therefore also, as we said just now, when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, writing, ‘ Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and as the sun’s illumination is effected through the radiance; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, in saying, ‘ Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you®,’ he has guarded the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, ‘May they direct,’ as if a double grace were given from two Sources, This and That, but ‘May He direct,’ to shew that the Father gives it through the Son;—at which these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might.
12. For if there were no unity, nor the Word the own Offspring of the Father’s Essence, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kupiws Adyos, not Kupiws vids. ibid. ii. ro fin. vid. sg. il. 19, note 3.
4 And so épyagouévov tot marpds, épyagerQar kai tov vidv. In tllud Onin. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath, argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one xara ryv divamwv, they are one also in ovata. in Joan. Hom. 61, 2,4. Tertullian iz Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Her. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe 7 loc. And so S. Athan. rpids advatperos TH pice, Kal ula Tavtns H évépyera. Sevag, i. 28, f. ev 0€Anuwa watpds Kat viod kat BovAnua, emer Kai y pvors pia. I illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentia, de Sp. ii. 12. fin. and of S. Basil, dv pia évépyera, rovtwv Kai ovata pia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius 777. iv. 15.
5 John xiy. 23. 6 x Thess. iii. rx.
divided in nature from the Father, it were sufficient that the Father alone should give, since none of originate things is a partner with his Maker in His givings; but, as it is, such a mode of giving shews the oneness of the Father and the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels‘, or from any other creature, nor would any one say, ‘May God and the Angel give thee;’ but from Father and the Son, because of Their oneness and the oneness of Their giving. For through the Son is given what is given; and there is nothing but the Father operates it through the Son; for thus is grace secure to him who receives it. And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, ‘God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless the lads?,’ yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, ‘Who delivered me from all evil,’ he shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever. He will, God doth deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father’s ‘ Angel of great Counsel3,’ he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, ‘I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me*’ (for that was God, as he says himself, ‘I have seen God face to face’), Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph. It is proper then to an Angel to minister at the command of God, and often does he go forth to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the way; but these are not his doings, but of God who commanded and sent him, whose also it is to deliver, whom He will deliver. Therei Vid. Basil de Sf. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col. 2. And Theodoret on Col. ili, 17. says, ‘ Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living Word and God...But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.’ Origen contr. Ceds. v. 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Jdololatr. i. 9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.
_.? Gen. xlvili. 15, 16. vid. Sevag. i. 14. And on the doctrine vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Jnfr. § 14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, ‘what was seez was an Angel, but God spoke in him,’ i.e. sometimes the Son is cad/ed an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil, Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Prescr. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.
DISCOURSES IIE eee eee eee fore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, ‘And behold I am with thee, to guard thee m all the way whither thous goest;’ and it was no other than God whom He had seen, who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering him not to speak evil words to Jacob; and none other than God did he himself beseech, saying, ‘Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him®;’ for in conversation too with his wives he said, ‘God hath not suffered Laban to injure me.’
x13. Therefore it was none other than God Himself that David too besought concerning his deliverance, ‘When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, and He heard me; deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue*.’ To Him also giving thanks he spoke the words of the Song in the seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying, ‘I will love Thee, O Lord my strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defence and deliverer?.” And Paul, after enduring many persecutions, to none other than God gave thanks, saying, ‘Out of them all the Lord delivered me; and He will deliver in Whom we trust3.’ And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, ‘May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father?.’ But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself, and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God’s Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, ‘Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ 4.’ For thus the blessing was secure, because of the Son’s indivisibility from the Father, and for that the grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it, through the Son is the gift; and though the Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies it through and in the Son; for ‘I thank my God,’ says the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, ‘always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus5.’ And this one may see in the instance of light and radiance; for what the light enlightens, § Gen. xxviii.t5, LXX. © Ib. xxxi. 73 XXXIL. 11. Ponca.
4 Gen. xxviii. 3, 4, LXX. VOL IV.
5: t Cor. lady ES a ae a | vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]
pd that the radiance irradiates; and what the radiance irradiates, from the light is its enlightenment. So also when the Son is beheld, so isthe Father, for He is the Father’s radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one.
14. But this is not so with things originate and creatures; for when the Father works, it is not that any Angel works, or any other creature; for none of these is an efficient cause", but they are of things which come to be; and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is written, are ‘ ministering spirits sent forth to minister?,’ and are heralds of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God3. And he who beholds a vision of Angels, knows that he has seen the Angel and not God. For Zacharias saw an Angel; and Isaiah saw the Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an Angel; but Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld an Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw God; for greatly, or rather wholly, do things by nature originate differ from God the Creator. But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God’s voice, as took place at the bush; for ‘the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob+,’ yet was not 3 rijs GcordKov Mapias. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] vid. also znfr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. 1. 45, N. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (trav wéAat Kal mpdmadar) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord @coroxoy, according to ‘the Apostolical tradition.’ Her. iv. 12, And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S, Cyril are well known, writes to the former. ‘This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it. Concil. Eph. parti. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. ‘Interpreting,’ he says, */ow @eoroxos is used, he discussed the question at length.’ Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently overlooked, in arguing from Ephrem. ag. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase ‘ Mother of God’ originated in S.Leo). [See 4 Vid. Ex. ili. 2—6.
the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him’. For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spake by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father’s Essence, what He works, those are the Father’s works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father’s gift. And he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than Angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun.