Back

Annotations on Theological Terms in the foregoing
Treatises alphabetically arranged

The [Agenneton], or Ingenerate

{347} IT had been usual in the Schools of Philosophy, as we contrast Creator and creatures, the Infinite and the finite, the Eternal and the temporal, so in like manner to divide all beings into the Unoriginate or Ingenerate, the [anarcha] or [ageneta], on the one hand, and those on the other which have an origin or beginning. Under the ingenerate, which was a term equivalent to "uncreate," fell—according as particular philosophies or heresies determined—the universe, matter, the soul of man, as well as the Supreme Being, and the Platonic ideas. Again, the Neoplatonists spoke of Three Principles as beyond time, that is, eternal: the Good, Intellect, and the Soul of the world. (Theod. Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750.) Plotinus, however, in his Enneads, seems to make Good the sole [arche]; [he arche agennetos], (5. Enn. iv. 1,) while Plato says, [eite archen eite archas] (Theod. ibid. p. 749, Tim. p. 48), and in his Phædrus, p. 246, he calls the soul of man ingenerate or [ageneton]. The Valentinians (Tertull. contr. Valent. 7, and Epiph. Hær. 31, 10) and Basilides (Epiph. Hær. 24) applied the term to the {348} Supreme God. The word thus selected to denote the First Principle or Cause, seems to have been spelt sometimes with one [n], sometimes with two. Vid. art. [genetos].

And so too with Christian writers, and with like variety in the spelling, this was the word expressing the contrast between the First Cause or causes, and all things besides. Ignatius distinctly applies it to our Lord in His Divine Nature, doubling the [n] in the Cod. Med. "There is One Physician, generate and ingenerate, ... from Mary and from God." (Ephes. 7.) vid. Athan. Syn. § 47. Theophilus says, [ho genetos kai prosdees esti; ho de agenetos oudenos prosdeitai], (ad Autol. ii. 10.) Clement of Alexandria, [hen to ageneton], in contrast to our Lord (Strom. vi. 7, p. 769). Dionysius Alex. even entertains the hypothesis that [agennesia] is the very [ousia] of God (Euseb. Præp. vii. 19), which the Arians took advantage of for the purposes of their heresy, (vid. Epiph. Hær. 76,) laying it down as a fundamental axiom that nothing [genneton] could be God. Hence Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the beginning of the controversy, rested his heresy on the dictum [hen to agenneton], adding [hen de to hyp' autou alethos, kai ouk ex' ousias autou]. Theod. Hist. i. 5. Eusebius of Cæsarea too speaks of the Supreme Being as [agennetos kai ton holon poietes theos]. (Ev. Dem. iv. 7, p. 167.)

The word [arche] expressed the same attribute of the Divine Being, and furnished the same handle to the Arian disputant for his denial of our Lord's Divinity. The [arche] of all was [anarchos]; how then could our Lord be the [arche], that is, God, if He was a Son? But the solution of both forms of the question was {349} obvious, being as easy as that of the stock fallacies inserted, half as exercises, half as diversions for the student, to relieve a dry treatise on Logic. It was enough for Catholics to answer that [arche] had notoriously two meanings, origin and beginning; that in the philosophical schools these senses were understood to go together, but that Christianity had introduced a separation of them; that our Lord's Sonship involved His having no beginning because He was God, but His having an origin, because He was Son. And in like manner, the Son of God was, as God, ingenerate, that is, without a beginning, and as Son generate, that is, with an origin.

Thus Clement calls Him [anarchos arche], and Arius scoffingly [agennetogenes].

As to the assumption that nothing generate could be God, Athan. maintains on the contrary that our Lord cannot but be God because He is generate. vid. art. Son. {350}

The [Aeigennes]

ATHAN., as the other Fathers, insists strongly on the perfection and the immutability of the Divine Being; from which it follows that the birth of the Son must have been from eternity, for, if He exists now, He must have existed ever. "I am the Lord, I change not." It was from dimness and inaccuracy even in orthodox minds, in apprehending this truth, that Arianism arose and had its successes.

Athan. says, "Never was the substance of the Father incomplete, so that what belonged to it should be added afterwards; on the contrary, whereas it belongs to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God's Offspring is eternal, for God's nature is ever perfect." Orat. i. § 14. (Disc. n. 24.) "Though a parent be distinct in time from his son, as being man, who himself has come into being in time, yet he too would have had his child ever co-existent with him except that his nature was a restraint, and made it impossible. Let these say what is to restrain God from being always Father of the Son?" Orat. i. § 26, 27; iv. § 15.

"Man," says S. Cyril, "inasmuch as he had a beginning of being, also has of necessity a beginning of begetting, as what is from him is a thing generate; but ... if God's substance transcend time, or {351} origin, or interval, His generation also will transcend these; nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of the power of generating, that He doth not generate in time. For other than human is the manner of divine generation; and together with God's existing is His generating implied, and the Son was in Him by generation, nor did His generation precede His existence, but He was always, and that by generation." Thesaur. v. p. 35. vid. also p. 42, and Dialog. ii. fin. This was retorting the objection; the Arians said, "How can God be ever perfect, who added to Himself a Son?" Athan. answers, "How can the Son not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?" vid. Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the Son's perfection, Aetius objects, ap. Epiph. Hær. 76, p. 925, 6, that growth and consequent accession from without were essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not [atele proteron, eita teleion, hosper nomos tes hemeteras geneseos]. Orat. 20. 9, fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is [teleios], because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a [charakter], or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him perfect, without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16 fin.

It follows from this perfection and unchangeableness of the Divine Nature, that, if there is in the beginning a gennesis of the Son, it is continual:—that is the doctrine of the [aeigennes]. Athan. says that there is no {352} [paula tes genneseos]. Orat. iv. § 12. Again, "Now man, begotten in time, in time also himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance from light." vid. Orat. ii. § 35.

In other words, by the Divine [gennesis] is not meant so much an act, as an eternal and unchangeable fact, in the Divine Essence. Arius, not admitting this, objected at the outset of the controversy to the phrase "always Father, always Son," Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, "if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never a Father in act, [energos], but was [argos]." Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that it is works, [erga], that are made [exothen], from without; but that our Lord is neither a "work" nor "from without." And hence, he says elsewhere, that, while men are fathers first in posse then in act, God is [dunamei te kai energeiai pater]. Dial. 2, p. 458. Victorinus in like manner says that God is "potentiâ et actione Deus sed in æternâ," Adv. Ar. i. 33; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to Arius, of a "semper generans generatio." And Arius scoffs at [aeigennes] and [agennetogenes]. Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 749. And Origen had said, [ho soter aei gennatai]. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4, p. 304, and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, [anarchon kai aeigenes]. Athan. S. D. 15. And Athan., "As the Father is good always and by nature, so is He always generative by nature." Orat. {353} iii. § 66. S. Augustine too says, "Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius." Ep. 238, n. 24. Petav. de Trin. ii. 5, n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara, "Since the Son's generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly ([kurios]) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is itself an end, [telos], and is perfect, [teleion]." Opusc. 26. Vid. art. Father Almighty.

Didymus however says, [ouk eti gennatai], de Trin. iii. 3, p. 338, but with the intention of maintaining our Lord's perfection and eternity, as Hil. Trin. ii. 20. Naz. Orat. 20. 9 fin. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20 fin. It is remarkable that Pope Gregory too objects to "Semper nascitur" as implying imperfection, and prefers "Semper natus est." Moral. 29, 1; but this is a question of words. {354}

[Atheos, atheotes]

This epithet, in its passive sense, as used by St. Paul, Eph. ii. 12, (not in the sense of disowning or denying God, but of being disowned by Him,) is familiar with the Fathers in their denunciation of heretics and heathen, and with the heathen against Christians and others, who refused to worship their country's gods. Of course the active sense of the word is here and there more or less implied in the passive.

Thus Athan. says of Arius that "he is on all sides recognised as godless (atheist) Arius," Orat. i. § 4. And of the Anomœan Aetius, "Aetius who was surnamed godless," Syn. § 6. Asterius too he seems to call atheist, including Valentinus and the heathen, Orat. iii. § 64. Eustathius calls the Arians [anthropous atheous], who were attempting [kratesai tou theiou]. Theod. Hist. i. 7, p. 760. And Arius complains that Alexander had expelled him and his from Alexandria, [hos anthropous atheous], ibid. i. 4.

Since Christ was God, to deny Him was to deny God; but again, whereas the Son had revealed the "unknown God," and destroyed the reign of idols, the denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry and its attendant spiritual ignorance. Thus in the Orat. contr. Gent. § 29 fin., written before the Arian controversy, {355} he speaks of "the Greek idolatry as full of all Atheism" or ungodliness, and contrasts with it the knowledge of "the Guide and Framer of the Universe, the Father's Word," "that through Him we may discern His Father, and the Greeks may know how far they have separated themselves from the truth." And, Orat. ii. § 43, he classes Arians with the Greeks, who, "though they have the name of God in their mouths, incur the charge of Atheism, because they know not the real and true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (vid. also Basil. in Eunom. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards Athan. gives a further reason for the title, observing that Arianism was worse than previous heresies, such as Manicheism, inasmuch as the latter denied the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God's substance His connatural Word, and, as far as its words went, infringed the perfections and being of the First Cause. And so ad Ep. Æg. § 17 fin. he says, that it alone, beyond other heresies, "has been bold against the Godhead Itself in a mad way, ([manikoteron],) denying that there is a Word, and that the Father was always Father."

In like manner he says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says "that the Son is a creature, who is Word and Wisdom, and the Impress, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father," he falls under the text, "Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." "Such a one," he continues, "will in no long time say, as the fool, there is no God." In like, manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit, as "without ([exo]) the Holy Trinity, and {356} atheists," Serap. iv. 6, "because they do not really believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He." And so again, "As the faith delivered [in the Holy Trinity] is one, and this unites us to God, and he who takes aught from the Trinity, and is baptised in the sole name of the Father or of the Son, or in Father and Son without the Spirit, gains nothing, but remains empty and incomplete, both he and the professed administrator, (for in the Trinity is the perfection,) [initiation,] so whoso divides the Son from the Father, or degrades the Spirit to the creatures, hath neither the Son nor the Father, but is an atheist and worse than an infidel, and anything but a Christian." Serap. i. 30.

Elsewhere, he speaks more generally, as if Arianism introduced "an Atheism or rather Judaism against the Scriptures, being next door to Heathenism, so that its disciple cannot be even named Christian, for all such tenets are contrary to the Scriptures;" and he makes this the reason why the Nicene Fathers stopped their ears and condemned it, Ep. Æg. § 13. Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution worse than the pagan cruelties, and therefore "a Babylonian Atheism," Ep. Encycl. § 5, as not allowing the Catholics the use of prayer and baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius atheist, for his treatment of Hosius, [oute ton theon phobetheis ho atheos], Hist. Arian. 45; and Nazianzen calls Lucius, on account of his cruelties in Alexandria, "this second Arius, the most copious river of the atheistic fountain." Orat. 25. 11. And Palladius, the Imperial officer, is [aner atheos]. ibid. 12. {357}

Another reason for the title seems to have lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship on its own showing, viz., as paying divine honours to One whom they yet maintained to be a creature.

As to other heresies, Eusebius uses the word of the Sabellian, Eccl. Theol. p. 63; of Marcellus, p. 80; of Phantasiasts, p. 64; of Valentinus, p. 114. Basil applies it to Eunomius.

As to the heathen, Athan. speaks of the [eidolon atheoteta], contr. Gent. § 14 and 46 init. Orat. iii. § 67, though elsewhere he contrasts apparently atheism with polytheism, Orat. iii. § 15 and 16. Nazianz. speaks of the [polytheos atheia], Orat. 25. 15. vid. also Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 73.

On the other hand, Julian says that Christians preferred "atheism to godliness." vid. Suicer. Thes. in voc. It was a popular imputation upon Christians, as it had been before on philosphers and poets, some of whom better deserved it. On the word as a term of reproach, vid. Voet. Disput. 9, t. 1, pp. 115, &c. 195. {358}

[Aion]

BY [aion], age, seems to be meant duration, or the measure of duration, before or independent of the existence of motion, which is the measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are creatures, so are the ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an age has a sort of positive existence, though not an [ousia] or substance, and means the same as "world," or an existing system of things viewed apart from time and motion. vid. Theodor. in Hebr. i. 2. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages, thus considered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3, and God is the King of the ages, 1 Tim. i. 17, or is before all ages, as being eternal, or [proaionios]. However, sometimes the word is synonymous with eternity: "as time is to things which are under time, so ages to things which are everlasting," Damasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, and "ages of ages" stands for eternity; and then the "ages," or measures of duration, may be supposed to stand for the [ideai] or ideas in the Divine Mind, which seems to have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence Synesius, Hymn. iii., addresses the Almighty as [aionotoke], Parent of the Ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Clem. Alex. Hymn. Pæd. iii. fin., or the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. 5, p. 581, or again, [aionios]. Theodoret sums up what has been said thus: "Age is not any subsisting substance, {359} but is an interval indicative of time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate with creation, now with human life." Hær. v. 6. If then, as St. Paul says in Hebr. xi. 3, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is independent of duration altogether; He does not come to be in time, but is above and beyond it, or eternal. vid. Decr. 18. Elsewhere he says, "The words addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, 'Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages,' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured by ages, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were madness to say, 'There was once when the Everlasting ([aionios]) was not.'" Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander: "Is it not unreasonable that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to all of which belongs 'was not,' should be said not to be? for, if so, that interval in which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the Father, precedes that Wisdom of God which framed all things." Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 736. vid. also Basil. de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34.

The subject is treated of at length in Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 93-101. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8-11. As time measures the material creation, so "ages" were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction. Timæus says, [eikon esti chronos toi agennatoi chronoi, hon aiona potagoreuomes]. Vid. also Philo, p. 298, Quod Deus Immort. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. p. 501. Naz. Orat. 38. 8. {360}

[Akratos]

SIMPLE, absolute, untempered, direct; an epithet applied both by Catholics and Arians to the creative Hand of God, as if the very contact of the Infinite with the finite, which creation involves, would extinguish the nascent creature which it was bringing into being. The Arians attempted to find in this doctrine an argument in favour of their own account of our Lord's nature. They said that our Lord was created to be the instrument whereby the world could be created without that perilous intervention of the Almighty Hand, which made creation almost impossible. Decr. § 8, Orat. ii. § 25, 30. Epiph. Hær. 76, p. 951. Cyril. Thes. pp. 150, 241. de Trin. iv. p. 523. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 21, Orat. ii. 29. But how was it, asked Catholics, that creation was possible at all, that is, in the case of our Lord Himself, on supposing Him a creature? vid. Decr. § 8. Catholics on their side had no difficulty to overcome: they considered that the Creator, by a special and extraordinary grace, supplied whatever was necessary for bearing the mighty Hand of God, as also a parallel grace is supplied for receiving safely the great privileges of the Gospel, especially the Holy Eucharist.

"Not as if He were a creature, nor as having any relation in substance with the universe, is He called Firstborn of it; but because, when at the beginning {361} He framed the creatures, He condescended to them that it might be possible for them to come into being. For they could not have endured His untempered nature and His splendour from the Father, unless, condescending by the Father's love for man, He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into substance." Orat. ii. § 64.

He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man immediately, ... but that He did not create him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into his created nature, to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in other words, that man was created in Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the [dia] and [en] in reference to the first and second creation, In Illud omn. 2). Vid. art. Arian Tenets, &c., and Gent. 47, where the [sunkatabasis] is spoken of. {362}

[Aletheia]

TRUTH, whether true doctrine or true reasoning, means the objective truth in contrast to subjective opinion or private judgment. Sometimes [aletheia] is used by itself, sometimes [aletheias logos], sometimes [logos] (vid. arts. Rule of Faith and [orthos]). E.g. [ho tes aletheias logos elenchei], Orat. ii. 35. [hos ho tes aletheias apeitei logos], Ap. c. Ar. 36, where it is contrasted with [hos ethelon] (vid. above, art. Private Judgment); also Serap. ii. 2. Epiphanius: [ho tes al. l. antipiptei autoi], Hær. 71, p. 830. Eusebius: [ho tes al. l. boai], Eccl. Theol. i. p. 62, and [antiphthenxetai autoi mega boesas ho tes al. l.] ibid. iii. p. 164. And the Council of Sardica: [kata ton tes al. l.] ap. Athan. Apol. contr. Ar. 46, where it seems equivalent to "fairness" or "impartiality." Asterius: [hoi tes al. apophainontai logismoi], Orat. ii. 37, i. 32. de Syn. § 18 cir. fin., and so also [tois al. logismois], Sent. D. 19. And so also, [he al. dielenxe], Orat. ii. § 18. [he physis kai he al.] "draw the meaning to themselves," § 5 init. [tou logou deiknuntos], ibid. 3 init. [edeiknuen ho logos], 13 fin. [tes al. deixases], 65 init. 60, [elenchontai para tes aletheias], 63, [he aletheia deiknusi], 70 init. [tes al. marturesases], 1 init. [to tes al. phronema megalegorein prepei], § 31 init. and Decr. 17 fin. In some of these instances the words [aletheia], [logos], &c., are almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid. [para ten aletheian], Orat. ii. § 36, and Origen de Princ. Præf. 1 and 2. {363}

"Had these expositions proceeded from orthodox men ([orthodoxon]), Hosius," &c., &c. Ep. Æg. 8. And, "Terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms, and changes them." Orat. ii. § 3. Also de Mort. Ar. fin. And vid. Leont. contr. Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581, Canis.) He here seems alluding to the Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the earlier Fathers.

One of the characteristic points in Athanasius is his constant attention to the sense of doctrine, or the meaning of writers, in preference to the very words used. Thus he scarcely uses the symbol [homoousion], (one in substance,) throughout his Orations, and in the de Synod. acknowledges the Semi-Arians as brethren. Hence, Decr. § 18, he says that orthodox doctrine "is revered by all, though expressed in strange language, provided the speaker means religiously, and wishes to convey by it a religious sense." vid. also § 21. He says that Catholics are able to "speak freely," or to expatiate, [parrhesiazometha], "out of Divine Scripture." Orat. i. § 9. vid. de Sent. Dionys. § 20 init. Again: "The devil spoke from Scripture, but was silenced by the Saviour; Paul spoke from profane writers, yet, being a saint, he has a religious meaning." de Syn. § 39. Again, speaking of the apparent contrariety between two Councils, "It were unseemly to make the one conflict with the other, for all their members are Fathers; and it were profane to decide that these spoke well and those ill, for all of them have slept in Christ." § 43; also § 47. Again: "Not the phrase, but the meaning and the religious life, is the recommendation of the faithful." ad Ep. Æg. § 9. {364}

[Alogia, Alogos]

THIS epithet is used by Athan. against the Arians, as if, by denying the eternity of the Logos (Reason or Word), first, they were denying the Intellectual nature of the Divine Essence; and, secondly, were forfeiting the source and channel of their own rational nature.

1. As to the first of these, he says, "Imputing to God's nature an absence of His Word, [alogian], ... they are most impious." Orat. i. § 14. Again, "Is the God, who is, ever without His rational Word?" Orat. i. § 24, iv. § 4 and 14. Also Sent. P. 16, 23, &c. Serap. ii. 2. Athenag. Leg. 11. Tat. contr. Græc. 5. Hippol. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 216. Orat. Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145. (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 9.)

It must not be supposed from these instances that the Fathers meant that our Lord was literally what is called the attribute of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence, or in other words that He was God merely viewed as God is wise; which would be a kind of Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute, they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in character with it, that {365} whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son;—that the attribute was the Son's symbol, and not His mere archetype;—that our Lord was eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was so, which was His title, vid. Athan. Ep. Æg. 14;—that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom, not by which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not wise;—not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but in fact. Or, whereas the Father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the necessary issue of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a radiance supposes a light; or, as Petavius remarks, Trin. vi. 9, as the eternity of the Original involves that of the Image: [tes hypostaseos hyparchouses, pantos euthus einai dei ton charaktera kai eikona tautes]. Orat. i. § 20. vid. also § 31. Decr. § 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 737.

Secondly, he says of the Arians themselves, "Denying the Word of God, Divine Reason have they forfeited." Decr. § 2. And again, "If they impute change to the Word, their own reason is in peril." Orat. i. § 35. Hence Arianism, as denying the Word, is essentially madness. "Has not a man lost his mind who entertains the thought that God is Wordless and Wisdomless?" Orat. ii. § 32. This will help us to understand how it is he calls them [areiomanitai]. vid. art. in voc. {366}

[Anthropos]

IN Greek, and homo in Latin, are used by the Fathers to signify our Lord's manhood, and again, human nature, with an abruptness which, were it not so frequent, would be taken to give some sanction to Nestorianism.

Thus Athan., speaking of His receipt of grace, says, "The Word being united to the man," Orat. iv. § 7. "Separating the hypostasis of God's Word from the Man from Mary," ibid. § 35. "I, the Word, am the Chrism, and that which has the Chrism from Me is the man," ibid. It illustrates this use of the word, that it is also used for human nature; e.g., "Of that was [ho anthropos] in want, because of ... the flesh and of death," Orat. i. § 41, vid. also iv. § 6.

I will set down one or two specimens of the parallel use of homo among the Latins: "Deus cum homine miscetur; hominem induit," Cypr. Idol. ed. Ven. p. 538. "Assumptus homo in Filium Dei," Leon. Serm. 28, p. 101. "Suus [the Word's] homo," ibid. 22, p. 70. "Hic homo," Ep. 31, p. 855. "Hic homo, quem Deus suscepit." Aug. Ep. 24, 3. vid. the author's Tract. Theol. [mia physis], fin. {367}

[Antidosis ton idiomaton]

SINCE God and man are one Person, we are saved from the confusion which would otherwise follow from the union of two contrary natures. We may say intelligibly that God is man and man is God, because the attributes of those two contrary natures of Christ do not rest and abide in, and thereby destroy, each other, but belong to the one Person, and become one because they are His; and when we say that God becomes man, we mean that the Divine Person becomes man; and when we say that a man is the object of our worship, we mean that He is worshipped who is Himself also truly a man.

The word "Person," as the received term for expressing this union of natures, is later than Athan., who uses instead "He" and "His," the personal pronouns; but no writer can bring out the theological idea more forcibly than he.

[ouk allou, alla tou kuriou;] and so [ouk heterou tinos], Incarn. 18; also Orat. i. § 45, and iv. 35. Cyril. Thes. p. 197, and Anathem. 11, who defends this phrase against the Orientals.

[idion] is another word by which Athan. signifies the later word "Person." "For when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His; and when He did divinely His {368} Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them," &c. ... [meta ton idion pathon], &c. Orat. iii. § 31, 32, 3.

For [idion], which occurs so frequently in Athan., vid. also Cyril. Anathem. 11. [idiopoioumenon], Orat. iii. § 33 and 38. ad Epict. 6. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275, ed. Ben.) Cyril. in Joann. p. 151. And [oikeiotai], contr. Apoll. ii. 16, Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. t. v. p. 782, Concil. Eph. t. 1, pp. 1644, 1697, (Hard.) Damasc. F. O. iii. 3, p. 208, (ed. Ven.) Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15.

For [koinon], opposed to [idion], vid. Orat. iii. § 32, 51. Cyril. Epp. p. 23; "communem," Ambros. de Fid. i. 94.

Vid. Orat. iv. 6. This interchange is called theologically the [antidosis] or communicatio [idiomaton]. "Because of the perfect union of the flesh which was assumed, and of the Godhead which assumed it, the names are interchanged, so that the human is called from the divine and the divine from the human. Wherefore He who was crucified is called by Paul, Lord of glory, and He who is worshipped by all creation of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, is named Jesus," &c. Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2, pp. 697, 8.

"And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body. The Word bore the infirmities of the flesh {369} as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's." Orat. iii. § 31.

"The birth of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature, the bearing of the Virgin a token of divine power. The infancy of a little one is shown in the lowliness of the cradle, the greatness of the Highest is proclaimed by the voices of Angels. He has the rudiments of men whom Herod impiously plots to kill, He is the Lord of all whom the Magi delight suppliantly to adore, &c., &c. To hunger, thirst, weary, and sleep are evidently human; but to satisfy five thousand on five loaves, and to give the Samaritan living water," &c., &c. ... Leon. Ep. 28, 4. Serm. 51. Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. t. 1, p. 767. Cassian. Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8. Plain and easy as such statements seem in this and some parallel notes, they are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.

"If any happen to be scandalised by the swathing bands, and His lying in a manger, and the gradual increase according to the flesh, and the sleeping in a vessel, and the wearying in journeying, and the hungering in due time, and whatever else happen to one who has become really man, let them know that, making a mock of the sufferings, they are denying the nature; and denying the nature, they do not believe in the economy; and not believing in the economy, they forfeit the salvation." Procl. ad Armen. p. 2, p. 615, ed. 1630. {370}

The [Aparallakton]

Unvarying or exact, i.e. Image. This was a word used by the Fathers in the Nicene Council to express the relation of the Son to the Father, and if they eventually went farther, and adopted the formula of the Homoüsion, this was only when they found that the Arians explained its force away. "When the Bishops said that the Word ... was the Image of the Father, like to Him in all things and [aparallakton], &c. ... the party of Eusebius were caught whispering to each other that 'like' &c. were common to us and to the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these ... So the Bishops were compelled to concentrate the sense of the Scriptures, and to say that the Son is 'consubstantial,' or 'one in substance,' that is, the same in likeness with the Father." Decr. § 20.

The Eusebian party allowed that our Lord was like, and the image of, the Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original, differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed the strong word [aparallaktos], exact image, which, as I have said, had been used by the Catholics, (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 740,) as by the Semi-Arians afterwards, who even added the words [kat' ousian], or "according to substance." Even this strong phrase, however, [kat' ousian aparallaktos eikon], or {371} [aparallaktos homoios], or [aparallaktos tautotes], did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices, Syn. § 53, that "like" applies to qualities rather than to substance. Also Basil. Ep. 8, n. 3. "In itself it is frequently used of faint similitudes, and falling very far short of the original." Ep. 9, n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word [homoousion] as implying, as Athan. Decr. § 20 expresses it, "the same in likeness," [tauton tei homoiosei], that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. Cyril. in Joan. 1. iii. p. 302.

Athan. says that in consistency those who professed the [aparallakton] should go further one way or the other. Syn. § 38. When they spoke of "like," Athan. says, they could not consistently mean anything short of "likeness of substance," for this is the only true likeness; and while they used the words [aparallaktos eikon], unvarying image, to exclude all essential likeness, they were imagining instead an image varying utterly from its original. While then he allows it, he is far from satisfied with the phrase [homoios kat' ousian] or [homoiousios]; he rejects it on the very ground that when we speak of "like," we imply qualities, not substance. Every image varies from the original, because it is an image. Yet he himself frequently uses it, as do other Fathers; vid. Orat. i. § 26, [homoios tes ousias]. And all human terms are imperfect; and "image" itself is used in Scripture.

[Aparallaktos eikon kat' ousian] was practically the symbol of Semi-Arianism, not because it did not admit of a religious explanation, but because it did admit of {372} a wrong one. It marked the limit of Semi-Arian approximation to the absolute truth. It was in order to secure the true sense of [aparallakton] that the Council adopted the word [homoousian]. [Aparallakton] is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. supr. § 20, 24. Orat. iii. § 36. contr. Gent. 41, 46 fin. Provided with a safe evasion of its force, the Arians had no difficulty in saying it after him. Philostorgius ascribes it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing it. (vid. Epiph. Hær. 72, 6.) Acacius at the same time forcibly expresses what is meant by the word, [to ektupon kai tranes ekmageion tou theou ousias]. In this he speaks as S. Alexander, [ten kata panta homoioteta autou ek physeos apomaxamenos], Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 740. [Charakter], Hebr. i. 3, contains the same idea. "An image not inanimate, not framed by the hand, nor work of art and imagination, ([epinoias],) but a living image, yea, the very life ([autoousa]); ever preserving the unvarying ([to aparallakton]), not in likeness of fashion, but in its very substance." Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. The Auctor de Trinitate says, speaking of the word in the Creed of the Dedication, "Will in nothing varying from will ([aparallaktos]) is the same will; and power nothing varying from power is the same power; and glory nothing varying from glory is the same glory." The Macedonian replies, "Unvarying I say, the same I say not." Dial. iii. p. 993 (Theod. t. v.); Athan. de Decr. 1. c. seems to say the same. That is, in the Catholic sense, the image was not [aparallaktos], if there was any {373} difference, if He was not one with Him of whom He was the image. vid. Hil. de Syn. 91. ad Const. ii. 5. And the heretical party saw that it was impossible to deny the [homoousion] and [perichoresis], and yet maintain the [aparallakton], without holding two Gods. Hence the ultimate resolution of the Semi-Arians, partly into orthodox, partly into Anomœans.

"What sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor writing, but alter and change everything according to the season? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you do not decline the faith published at the Dedication, and in it is written that the Son is 'Exact Image of God's substance,' why is it ye write in Isauria, We reject 'the Like in substance?' for if the Son is not like the Father in respect of substance, how is He 'exact image of the substance?' But if you are dissatisfied at having written 'Exact Image of the substance,' how is it that ye anathematise those who say that the Son is unlike? for if He be not according to substance like, He is altogether unlike: and the Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does not hold that he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, there being then the greatest difference possible between Them, or rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other. And Unlike cannot possibly be called Like. By what artifice then do ye call unlike like, and consider Like to be unlike, and so pretend to say that the Son is the Father's Image? for if the Son be not like the Father in substance, something is wanting to the Image." Syn. § 38. {374}

[Apaugasma]

RADIANCE or shine. This is St. Paul's word, Hebr. i. 3, taken from Wisdom vii. 26, and suggesting the "Light from Light" of the Nicene Creed. It is the familiar illustration used by Athan. to convey the idea of the Divine Sonship, as consubstantial and from eternity. He sometimes uses the image of fire, Orat. iv. § 2 and 10, but it is still fire and its radiance. However, we find the illustration of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61, Tatian. contr. Græc. 5. At this early day the illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bearing, as that of fire in Athan.'s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who considered the Son as "like the sun's light in the heaven," which "when it sets, goes away with it," whereas it is as "fire kindled from fire." Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius, says "as Light from Fire," using also the word [aporrhoia], effluence. Vid. also Orig. Periarchon, i. 2, n. 4. Tertull. Apol. 21. Theogn. ap. Athan. Decr. § 25. {375}

[Aporrhoe]

THIS word, though in itself unobjectionable as an expression of the divine [gennesis], is generally avoided by the Fathers, as being interpreted by the Arians in a material sense. "The offspring of men are portions of their fathers," says Athanasius, "and men [aporrheousi] in begetting, and gain substance in taking food; but God, being without parts, is Father of a Son without partition or passion, for there is neither [aporrhoe] in the Immaterial nor [epirrhoe], and, being uncompounded by nature, He is Father of One only Son. And He too is the Father's Word, from which may be understood the impassible nature of the Father, in that not even a human word is begotten with passion, much less the Word of God." Decr. § 11.

S. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505, speaks of the [thrulloumene aporrhoe]; and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6, p. 43. Athanasius disclaims it, Expos. § i. Orat. i. § 21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 743. On the other hand, Athanasius quotes it in a passage which he adduces from Theognostus, Decr. § 25, and from Dionysius, de Sent. D. § 22, and Origen uses it, Periarchon, i. 2. It is derived from Wisd. vii. 25.

The passage of Theognostus is as follows:—

"The substance of the Son is not anything gained {376} from without, nor provided out of nothing, but it sprang from the Father's substance, as the radiance of light, as the vapour of water; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien; but it is an effluence of the Father's substance, which, however, suffers no partition. For as the sun remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither does the Father's substance suffer change, though it has the Son as an Image of Itself." Decr. § 25. "Vapour" is also used in Wisdom vii., Origen, &c., as referred to supr.

Hieracas the Manichæan compared the Two Divine Persons to the two lights of one lamp, where the oil is common and the flame double, thus implying a substance distinct from Father and Son of which each partook, or to a flame divided into two by (for instance) the papyrus which was commonly used instead of a wick. vid. Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12.

[Contributed by Dan Meardon, Cary, NC, USA]

Continue

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.