1 He was unable to speak from memory of the events of the persecution of 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), but (de Incarn. 56. 2) had been instructed in religion by persons who had suffered as martyrs. This must have been before 311, the date of the last persecution in Egypt under Maximin. Before 319 he had written his first books `against the Gentiles,' the latter of which, on the Incarnation, implies a full maturity of power in the writer, while the former is full of philosophical and mythological knowledge such as argues advanced education. But from several sources we learn that his election to the episcopate in 328 was impugned, at any rate in after years, on the ground of his not having attained the canonical age of thirty. There is no ground for supposing that this was true: but such a charge would not be made without some ground at least of plausibility. We must therefore suppose that on June 8, 328, he was not much beyond his thirtieth year. His parents, moreover, were living after the year 358 (see below, p. 562, note 6); allowing them over fourscore years at that date, we find in 298 a reasonable date for the birth of their son. We must remember that in southern climates mind and body mature somewhat more rapidly than with ourselves, and `contra Gentes' and `de Incarnatione' will scarcely appear precocious.
2 The statements of Greg. Naz. that he frequented classes of grammar and rhetoric is probable enough; that of Sulpitius Severus that he was `juris consultus' lacks corroboration.
3 The actual connection of Athanasius with Antony at this period is implied in the received text of `Vit. Anton.' Prolog., for it could scarcely fall at any later date. At the same time the youthful life of Athanasius seems fully accounted for in such a way as to leave little room for it (so Tillemont). But our ignorance of details leaves it just possible that he may for a time have visited the great hermit and ministered to him as Elisha did of old to Elijah. (Cf. p. 195, note 2.)
4 It is of interest to note the changed conditions. In 260 bishop Dionysius had to check the Monarchian tendency in Libya, and was accused by members of his own flock of separating the Son from the Being (ousia) of the Father. In 319 a Libyan, Atius, cries out upon the Sabellianism of his bishop, and formulates the very doctrine which Dionysius had been accused of maintaining.
5 The chronology cannot be determined with precision. The Memorandum is signed by Colluthus and therefore precedes his schism. The letter to Alex. Byzant. was written after the Colluthian schism had begun. But the proceedings of Eusebius described above had at least begun when the Memorandum was circulated, which must, therefore, have been some time after the Synod of 321. The letter of Alexander to his clergy prefixed to the depositio was drawn up after it. and includes the names of the Mareotic seceders. We may, therefore, tentatively adopt the following series:-321 a.d.: Egyptian Synod deposes Arius. Arius in correspondence with Eusebius, &c Leaves Alexandria for Palestine and Nicomedia. Letters sent abroad by Alexander. Eusebius holds council and writes to Alexander. 322: Memorandum drawn up; Alexandrian clergy assemble to sign it; prefatory address to them by Alexander with reference to the Mareotic defection which has just occurred; circulation of Memorandum; schism, of Colluthus. 323: Letter of Alexander to Alexander of Byzantium; (Sept.) Constantine, master of the East, and ready to intervene in the controversy.
6 So Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 8-over 270, Eustath. in Thdt. i. 8-in fact more than 300 (de Decr. 3), according to Athanasius, who again, toward the end of his life (ad Afr. 2) acquiesces in the precise figure 318 (Gen xiv. 14; the Greek numeral tih combines the Cross with the initial letters of the Sacred Name) which a later generation adopted (it first occurs in the alleged Coptic acts of the Council of Alexandria, 362, then in the Letter of Liberius 'to the bishops of Asia in 365, infr. §9), on grounds perhaps symbolical rather than historical.
7 The name of Secundus appears among the subscriptions (cf. Soz. i. 21) but this is contradicted by the primary evidence (Letter of the Council in Soc. i. 9, Thdt. i. 9); cf. Philost. i. 9, 10. But there is evidence that there were two Secundi.
8 A term first brought into currency in this connection by Mr. Gwatkin (p. 38, note), and since adopted by many writers including Harnack; in spite of the obvious objection to the importations of political terms into the grave questions of this period, the term is too useful to be surrendered, and the `conservatives' of the Post-Nicene reaction were in fact too often political in their methods and spirit. The truly conservative men, here as in other instances, failed to enlist the sympathy of the conservative rank and file.
9 The identity of name has certainly done Eusebius no good with posterity. But no one with a spark of generosity can fail to be moved by the appeal of Socrates (ii. 21) for common fairness toward the dead.
10 Or possibly Theodoret, &c., drew a wrong inference from the words of Eustathius (in Thdt. i. 8), and the gramma was not submitted by Eusebius, but produced as evidence against him; in this case it must have been, as Fleury observes, his letter to Paulinus of Tyre.
11 Hort pp. 138, 139, and 59: the changes well classified by Gwatkin, p. 41, cf. Harnack 2, vol 2, p. 227 The main alterations were (1) The elimination of the word logoj and substitution of uioj in the principal place. This struck at the theology of Eusebius even more directly than at that of Arius. (2) The addition not only of omoousion tw patri, but also of toutestin ek thj ousiaj tou patroj between monogenh and qeon as a further qualification of gennhqenta (specially against Euseb. Nicom.: see his letter in Thdt. i. 6). (3) Further explanation of gennhqenta by g. ou poihqenta, a glance at a favourite argument of Arius, as well as at Asterius. (4) enanqrwphsanta added to explain sarkwqenta, and so to exclude the Christology which characterised Arianism from the first. (5) Addition of anathematisms directed against all the leading Arian doctrines.
12 The events have been related in what seems to be their most likely order, but there is no real certainty in the matter. It is clear that there were at least two public sittings (Soz. i. 17, the language of Eus. V.C. iii. 10, is reconcileable with this) in the emperor's presence, at the first of which the libelli were burned and the bishops requested to examine the question of faith. This was probably. on June 19. The tearing up of the creed of Eus. Nic. seems from the account of Eustathius to have come immediately before the final adoption of a creed. The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, which was the basis of that finally adopted, must therefore have been propounded after the failure of his namesake. (Montfaucon and others are clearly wrong in supposing that this was the `blasphemy' which was torn to pieces!) The difficulty is, where to put the dramatic scene of whisperings, nods, winks, and evasions which compelled the bishops to apply a drastic test. I think (with Kölling, &c.) that it must have preceded the proposal of Eusebius, upon which the omoousion was quietly insisted on by Constantine; for the latter was the only occasion (profasij) of any modification in the Caesarean Creed, which in itself does not correspond to the tests described infr. p. 163. But Montfaucon and others, followed by Gwatkin, place the scene in question after the proposal of Eus. Caes. and the resolution to modify his creed by the insertion of a stringent test,-in fact at the `pause' of the council before its final resolution, This conflicts with the clear statement of Eusebius that the omoousion was the `thin end of the wedge' which led to the entire recasting of his creed (see infr. p. 73. The idea of Kölling, p. 208, that the creed of Eusebius was drawn up by him for the occasion, and that the maqhmah of the council was ready beforehand as an alternative document, is refuted by the relation of the two documents; see Hort, pp. 138, 139). It follows, therefore, from the combined accounts of Ath., Euseb. and Eustathius (our only eye-witnesses) that (1) the fathers were practically resolved upon the omoousion before the final sitting. (2) That this resolve was clinched by the creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia. (3) That Eusebius of Caesarea made his proposal when it was too late to think of half-measures. (4) That the creed of Eusebius was modified at the Emperor's direction (which presupposes the willingness of the Council). (5) That this revision was immediately followed by the signatures and the close of the council. The work of revision, however, shews such signs of attention to detail that we are almost compelled to assume at least one adjournment of the final sitting. When the other business of the council was transacted, including the settlement of the Easter question, the Meletian schism, and the Canons, it is impossible to say. Kaelling suo jure puts them at the first public session. The question must be left open, as must that of the presidency of the council. The conduct of the proceedings was evidently in the hands of Constantine, so that the question of presidency reduces itself to that of identifying the bishop on Constantine's right who delivered the opening address to the Emperor: this was certainly not Hosius (see Vit. C. iii. 11, and vol. 1 of this series, p. 19), but may have been Eusebius of Caesarea, who probably after a few words from Eustathius (Thdt.) or Alexander (Theod. Mops. and Philost.) was entrusted with so congenial a task. The name of Hosius stands first on the extant list of signatures, and he may have signed first, although the lists are bad witnesses. The words of Athanasius sometimes quoted in this connection (p. 256), `over what synod did he not; preside?' must be read in connection with the distinction made by Theodoret in quoting the passage in question (H.E. ii. 15) that Hosius 'was very prominent at the great synod of Nicae, and presided over those who assembled at Sardica. This is the only evidence we possess to which any weight can be attached.
13 It is worth noting that the Nicene arrangement was successful in some few cases. See Index to this vol. s.v. Theon (of Nilopolis), &c.
14 While yet the distinction between the `presence' and `existence' of God in Christ (Newman, Ar. 4. p. 123) is very delicate: both ideas are covered by `Dasein'. The two forms of Monarchianism are related exactly as the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is to the Nestorian.
15 Our authorities are Hippolytus Philosophum., TertullianAgainst Praxeas, and the early fragment `against heresies' printed in Tertullian's works. The statements of Tertullian and Hippolytus agree remarkably, though obviously independent. The first (modalist) Monarchian teacher in Rome was Praxeas (Tert.) from Asia, who was followed by the pupils of Noetus, also an Asiatic (Hippol.), Epigonus (Renan Marc-Aurèle 230, note, identifies `Praxeas' with Epigonus; I cannot undertake to pronounce upon the point, but see Harnack, Dogmg. 11. p. 608) and Cleomenes. Praxeas arrived in Rome under Victor (or earlier, Harnack, p. 610), and combined strong opposition to Montanism, with equally strong modalism in his theology. In both respects his influence told upon the heads of the Church. Montanism was expelled, Modalism tolerated, Theodotus excommunicated; `Duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit: prophetiam expulit et haeresin intulit: Paracletum fugavit et Patrein crucifixit'. (Tert.) `Praxeas haeresin introduxit quam Victor[inus] (perhaps a confusion with Zephyrinus) corroborate curavit' (`Tertullian' adv. Haer.)
16 This point is still in debate. Against it, see Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome (ed. 1890), for it, Döllinger Hipp. and Call., and Neumann, Der Röm. Staat u. d. Allg. Kirche (Leipz. 1890).
17 But only at Aquileia was the rule of faith adapted by the insertion of impassibilis.
18 See Hewman's note Ar. p. 186, where the additions in brackets seriously modify his statement in the text. Also cf. infr. ch. iv. §3, and Bigg, p. 179, note 2.
19 Cels. iii. 34, cf. Alexander's mesiteuousa fusij monogenhj. But observe that the passage insisted on by Shedd, 294, etepoj kat= ousian kai upokeimenon o uioj tou patroj, does not bear the sense he extracts from it. ousia here is not `essence' but `hypostasis'.
20 The formula ktisma o uioj is ascribed to Origen by the anti-Chalcedonists of the sixth century, but is probably a `consequenz-macherei' from the above; see Caspari Alte v. N. Quellen, p. 60, note. But ktisma was sometimes applied to the Son in a vague sense, on the ground of Prov. viii. 22, a text not used in this way by Origen.
21 Compare the strong Origenist rejection of Chiliasm, the spiritualism of Origen as contrasted with the realism of Asia Minor, the Asiatic origin of Roman Monarchianism, of Montanism.
22 The position of Eusebius of Caesarea is at the `extreme left' of the Origenist body. (`A reflex of the unsolved problems of the Church of that time,' Dorner.) It is as though Dionysius instead of withdrawing and modifying his incriminated statements, had involved them in a haze of explanations and biblical phrases which left them where they were. But this is not so much Arianism as confusion. `All is hollow and empty, precarious and ambiguous. With a vast apparatus of biblical expressions and the use of every possible formula, Monotheism is indeed maintained, but practically a created subordinate God is inserted between God and mankind' (Harnack, p. 648). See also Dorner, Lehre der Pers. Chr. Pt. 1, pp. 793-798. The language quoted by Ath. below, p. 459, was doubtless meant by Eusebius in an Origenist sense.
23 The theological genesis of Paul's system is obscure. The theory of Newman that he was under strong Jewish influences is largely based upon the late and apparently quite erroneous tradition that his patroness Zenobia was a Jewess; see p. 296, note 9a, and Gwatkin, p. 57, and note 3. Harnack regards him as the representative of `archaic' East-Syrian adoptionism such as pervades the `Discussion of Archelaus with Manes;' see Routh, Rell. v. especially pp. 178-184. But Paul would not have spoken of Mary as `Dei Genetrix,' p. 128; I cannot see more in these `Acta' than a naive adoptionism homologous to the `naive modalism' of much early Christian language, but like it not representative of the entire view of those who use it; we must also note that the statements of `Archelaus' are coloured by reaction against the docetism of `Manes;' but Paul may well have taken up this naive adoptionism, and, by srict Aristotelian logic, developed it as the exclusive basis of his system. Whether Paul's use of the idea of the Logos betrays the faintest influence of Origen is to me, at least, extremely uncertain.
24 aposunagwgoj emeinen, Alex. Alexand. in Thdt.; the objections of Gwatkin, p. 18, note, are generously meant rather than convincing: the `creed of Lucian' is not usable without discrimination for Lucian's position: see discussion by Caspari A.u.N.Q. p. 42, note.
25 It was pointed out clearly by Newman, Arians, pp. 8, 403, but with an eagerly drawn inference to the discredit of the later Antiochene School and of the genuine principles of exegesis as recognised at the present day by Protestants and Catholics alike (see Wetzer und Welte-Kaulen, Kirchen-Lexicon, i. 953 sqq., iv. 1116, and Patrizzi as abridged in Cornel. a Lap. in Apoc. ed. Par. 1859, pp. xvi. sqq. The Lucianic origin of Arianism was denied by Gwatkin in his Studies, but the denial is tacitly withdrawn in his Arian Controversy. Harnack, Dogmgesch. i???1. 598, ii2. 183 sqq. must, I think, convince any open mind of the fact. Consult his article on Lucian in Herzog???2. viii. 767 (the best investigation), also Neander H.E. ii. 198, iv. 108; Möller K.G. i. 226, D.C.B. iii. 748; Kölling, vol. 1, pp. 27-31, who makes the mistake of taking the `Lucianic creed' as his point of departure.
26 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note 1, 575, note 1.)
27 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note 1, 575, note 1.)
28 aparallakton eikona, which an Arian would be prepared to admit as the result of the prokoph. (See below, §6, on the Creeds of 341). I cannot regard Asterius as a `'semi-Arian;' the only grounds for it are the above phrase and the statement (Lib. Syn.) that he attended the Council of 341 with the Conservative Dianius. But Asterius was as ready to compromise with conservatism as he had formerly been with heathenism, and his anxiety for a bishopric would carry him to even greater lengths in order to attend a council under influential patronage.
29 The letter of Alexander to his namesake of Byzantium in Thdt. i. 4, cannot be exempted from this generalisation
30 They appear to have comprised the Arian appeal to Scripture of which (considering the Biblical learning of Lucian and what we hear of the training of Aetius, to say nothing of the exegetical chair held by Arius at Alxa.) their use must be pronounced meagre and superficial. In the O.T. they harped upon three texts, Deut. vi. 4 (Monotheism), Ps. xlv. 8 (Adoptionism), and Prov. viii. 22, LXX. (the Word a Creature). In the N.T. they appeal for Monotheism (in their sense) to Luke xviii. 19, John xvii. 3; The Son a Creature, Acts ii. 36, 1 Cor. i. 24, Col. i. 15, Heb. iii. 2; Adoptionism, Matt. xii. 28; prokoph, Luke ii. 52; also Matt. xxvi. 41, Phil. ii. 6, sq., Heb. i. 4; The Son treptoj, &c., Mark xiii. 32, John xiii. 31, John xi. 34; inferior to the Father, John xiv. 48, Matt. xxvii. 46, also Matt. xi. 27 a, Matt. xxvi. 39, Matt. xxviii. 18, John xii. 27, and 1 Cor. xv. 28 (cf. pp. 407, sq.). In this respect Origen is immeasurably superior.
31 They are regarded by Athan., a generation after they were written, as the representative statement of `the case' for Arianism (pp. 459 sq.; 324 sqq., 361, 363, 368, &c., from which passages and Eus. c. Marcell. a fragmentary restoration might be attempted). For what is known of his history (not in D.C.B.) see Gwatkin, p. 72, note; for his doctrinal position see above, p. xxviii.
32 A theology which aims at consistency most borrow a method, a philosophy, from outside the sphere of religion. The most developed system of Catholic theology, that of S. Thomas Aquinas, borrows its method from the same source as did Arius,-Aristotle.
33 This illustrates the famous paradox of Cardinal Newman (Development, ed. 1878, pp. 142-4), that the condemnation of Arian Christology left vacant a throne in heaven which the medieval Church legitimately filled with the Blessed Virgin; that the Nicene condemnation of the Arian theology is the vindication of the medieval; that `the rotaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son come up to it.' But the qestion here was one of worship, not of theology. The Arians worshipped Christ, whom they regarded as a created being: therefore, the Nicene fathers urge with one consent, they were idolaters. The idea of a created being capable of being worshipped was as Arian legacy to the Church, no doubt. But this very idea, to Athanasius and Hilary, marked them out as idolaters. It was reserved for later times `to find a subject for an Arian predicate' (Mozley). The argument is an astonishing admission.
34 The enormous literature of the subject is partly given by Harnack, ii. p. 182, Schaff, Nicene Christ. §§119, 120. The student will find great help from Bigg, Bampt. Lect. pp. 179, note 163-165, Gwatkin, Studies, p. 42, sqq.; Newman's Arians 4, pp. 185 to 193, and his notes and excursus embodied in this volume, especially that appended to Epist. Euseb. p. 77; Zahn's Marcellus, pp. 11-27 (also p. 87), perhaps the best modern discussion; Harnack ii. pp. 228-230, and note 31; Loofs §§32-34; Shedd i. 362-37a; and the Introduction to the Tomus and ad Afros in this volume pp. 482, 488. The use of ousia in Aristotle is tabulated by Bonitz in the fifth volume (index) to the Berlin edition: its use in Plato is less frequent and less technical, but see the brief account in Liddell and Scott.
35 Gregory Thaumaturgus was the great Origenist influence in northern Asia Minor: the Cappadocian fathers were also influenced in the direction of the omoousion by Apollinarius: see the correspondence between Basil and the latter Bas. Epp. 8, 9, edited by Dräseke in Ztschr. für K.G. viii. 85 sqq. Apollinarius was of course equally opposed to Arianism and to Origen: see also p. 449 sq.
36 They were probably not yet bishops at this time, as they were young bishops at Tyre in 335; evidently they are `the fairest of God's youthful flock' (!) alluded to in Eus. V.C. iv. 43.
37 At the same time Arius himself and all his fellow Lucianists (unlike the obscure Secundus and Theonas, and the later generation of Eunomians) are open to the charge of subserviency at a pinch.
38 Alexander of Thessalonica had been at Nicaea, Dianius of Caes. Capp. had not. The two are typical of the better sort of conservatives.
39 For Asia besides Marcellus we have only Diodorus of Tenedos, not at Nicaea, but expelled soon after 330, p. 271; signs at Sardica, p. 147, banished again p. 276, not in D.C.B.; for Syria the names p. 271, cf. p. 256.
40 Always an important factor in the stability of the Byzantine throne, see, on Justinian, D.C.B. iii. 545a, sub fin. Newman, Arians, Appendix v., brings no conclusive proof of strong Nicene feeling among the masses of the laity in this region. But `the people' in Galatia, according to Basil, remained devoted to Marcellus.
41 At the same time he adopts a certain reserve in speaking of Marcellus, and his name is absent from the roll of the orthodox, p. 227.
42 But he is condemned by name in the alleged Coptic Acts of the Council of 362; moreover Eustathius appears to have written against him, see Cowper, Syr. Misc. 60.
43 Eager opposition, however, was not lacking. The accounts are confused, but the statement of the bishops leaves room for a strong minority of malcontents, who may have elected `Theonas' (was he the exiled Arian bishop of Marmarica? the electors of `Theonas' in Epiph. Haer. 68 are Meletians, but there is no Theonas in the Meletian catalogue of 327; the Arians and Meletians very likely combined; the latter properly had no votes, but they were not likely to regard this; see Gwatkin, p. 66, note, Church Quarterly Review. xvi. p. 393). The protests of the poposition were apparently disregarded and Athanasius consecrated before the other side considered the question as closed, (The statement of Epiph. Haer. 69, that the Arians chose one Achillas, is unsupported.) Athanasius was probably only just thirty years old, and his opponents did not fail to question whether he were not under the canonical age.
44 Soz. ii. 21, 22: the account is not very clear; probably there was a gradual approximation, the first step being the Meletian support of the Arian Theonas against Athanasius in 328, if the view suggested above is correct.
45 Fest. Ind. iii. The Index is of course right in giving 330-331 as the year of his departure for Nicomedia, but makes a slip in assigning his absence as the cause of delay in the despatch of the Letter for that year instead of for the following one. See p. 512 note 1.
46 Who perhaps visited Tyre himself at this time, according to an allusion in Hist. Aceph. xii., see Sievers, Einl. p. 131.
47 The conduct of Constantine will appear fairly consistent if we suppose that after ordering the investigation at Antioch, supr. (332?) he received proofs (333) of the falsehood of the Arsenius story, but that, finding that the complaints were constantly renewed, and that Ath. refused to meet his accusers at Caesarea, he yielded to the suggestion (Eus. Nic. ?) that the assembly of so many bishops at Jerusalem might be a valuable opportunity for finally dealing with so troublesome a matter. He desired peace, and had not lost his faith in councils. Hefele follows Socrates i. 29, in his error as to the date of the discovery of Arsenius (E. Tr. ii. 21).
48 p. 107: Euseb. V.C. iv. 43, calls them `the fairest of God's youthful flock.' The Council of Sardica in 343 describes them as `ungodly and foolish youths,' Hil. Frag. ii., cf. pp. 120, 122.
49 Soz. ii. 25. But Callinicus was a Meletian all along: pp. 132, 137, 517.
50 The Greek Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep. 13; the Chron. Pasch. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But if the Mareotic Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly did (Soz. l.c.), these dates are untrustworthy.
51 The philosopher Sopater had been put to death on a similar charge a few years before, D.C.B. i. 631.
52 The courier Palladius, who was considered a marvel, could carry a message from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days, about 250 miles a day, Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight miles an hour for 12 1/2 hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from Nicomedia to Treveri would be easily covered by a horseman in the time specified; see Gibbon quoted p. 115, note 1, and for other examples, Gwatkin, p. 137.
53 This date is certain (Gwatk., 108, note), but the meeting at Sirmium may possibly fall in the following summer.
54 As he had previously referred the Donatist schism to the commission of Rome and the Council of Arles.
55 But they complain, p. 104, §8, of coercion not of Erastianism.
56 The ordinary time for the entry of the Prefect upon his duties seems to have been about the end of the Egyptian Year (end of August). Accordingly the prefectures and years in Fest. Ind. roughly correspond: Philagrius was already Prefect when the Mareotic Commission arrived (Aug. 335). According to the headings to the Festal Letters vi., vii., he had superseded Paternus in 334: either the Index or the headings are mistaken. For the popularity of Philagrius, see Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 28, who mentions that his reappointment was due to the request of a deputation from Alex. (this must have come from the Arians!) and that the rejoicings which welcomed his return exceeded any that could have greeted the Emperor, and nearly equalled those which had welcomed the return of Athanasius himself. But Gregory is a rhetorician; see p. 138, and Tillem. viii. 664.
57 It is possible, however, that these carried a second letter, after the arrival of Ath. See pp. 110, 273.
58 Gregory shewed his Arianism by employing Ammon as his secretary, see p. 96. The curious parallelism between Gregory and George (infr. §8),-the names differing (in Latin) by a single letter only, both Arians, both Cappadocians, both intruded bishops of Alexandria, both arriving from court, both arriving in Lent, both exercising violence, both charged by Ath. with the storming of churches, with similar scenes of desecration, maltreatment of virgins, &c., in either case,-is one of the strangest examples of history repeating itself within a few years. What wonder that the fifth-century historians confuse the two still further together, and that they still find followers? The most important point of confusion is the alleged murder of Gregory (due to Theodoret), who really died a natural death. It is none too soon for this time-honoured blunder to do the like. On the inveterate tendency of Georges and Gregories to coalesce, and exchange names in transcription (to say nothing of modern typography), see D.C.B. ii. pp. 640-650, 778 sq., 798 sq., passim.
59 In some church other than `Theonas,' probably `Quirinus,' which latter, however, was stormed on Easter Day, pp. 273, 95, note 3. The statement, Hist. Ar. 10, that he sailed for Rome before Gregory's arrival is in any case verbally inexact, but it may refer to his flight from `Theonas.'
60 Bitter complaint in Hil. Fragm. iii. 27; cf. infr. p. 462, Soz. iii. 10, who wrongly gives `Italy' as the place.
61 This may have been in the autumn, after the close of the campaign, but see infr. ch. v. §3, c, d
62 Hefele i. 91, is singular in placing it in the empire of Constantius. The Ichtiman range between Sophia and Philippopolis was the natural boundary between Thrace and Moesia, or `Dacia. Media.'
63 On the one hand the deputation after the council reached Constantius at Antioch about Easter (April 15), 344. They were, however sent not directly by the Council, but by Constans after its close (Thdt. ii. 8). We may be certain that their arrival at Antioch was at the very least two months after the close of the council; but in all probability the interval was much longer. Again, the course of events described above forbids us to put the council earlier than the early summer of 343. But according to the Festal Index xv. the council at any rate began before the end of August in that year. If the bishops left their churches after Easter (a very natural and usual arrangement, compare Nicaea, the Dedication, &c.), they could easily assemble by the end of June. The Orientals came somewhat later. The beginning of July is accordingly our terminus a quo, the end of January our terminus ad quem. What exact part of the interval the council occupied we cannot decide.
64 The statement in the synodal letter of Philippolis that Asclepas had been deposed `seventeen' years before is clearly corrupt. The true reading may be `seven' (council of CP. in 336) or xiii, which might easily be changed to xvii. (Cf. Hefele, pp. 89, 90).
65 The `ten months' of Hist. Ar. 21, p. 277, are to be reckoned, not from Easter 344, but from the letters of Const. to Alexandria some months after.
66 It must be observed that the Index is loose in its statement here: see Gwatkin, p. 105, Sievers, p. 108. The statement of Thdt., &c., that he was murdered is simply due to the usual confusion of Gregory with George (cf. p. xliii. note 5).
67 This visit cannot have been between May 7 and Aug. 27, when Const. was at CP. Nor can it well have been before May 7. We must, therefore, with Sievers, p. 110, put it in September. Yet see Gwatkin, p. 127, note.
69 In de Sent. Dion. 23, 24, Arius is spoken of in a way consistent with his being still alive. But the phase of the Arian controversy to which the tract relates begins a decade after Arius' death, and we therefore follow the indications which class the de Sent. with the de Decr.
70 All the following dates are affected by Leap-Year, 355-6, see Table C, p. 501, and correct p. 246, note 3, to Jan. 6.
71 Definite information came only after Feb. 8, see p. 248.
72 The envoys of Magnentius had come from Italy through Libya in 350-351. The `desert' (Apol. Const. 27, 32) must be the region between Alxa. and Cyrenaica, not Palestine as Tillem. viii. 186, infers from Ep. Aeg. 5. There is no evidence that Ath. left his province during this exile, and Palestine was a most dangerous territory to venture into. The cautious vagueness of his language, Ep. Aeg. 5, while it baffles even our curiosity, yet favours the hypothesis that the events referred to belong to the Egyptian persecution.
73 This date, coming from the common source of the Historia Acephala and Festal Index (i.e. from the accredited Alexandrian chronology of the period), must be accepted unless there is cogent proof of its incorrectness. No such proof is offered: we have no positive statement to the contrary, but only (1) the fact that the intrusion of George is related, Apol. Fug. 6, immediately after an attack on the great church, possibly the coup de main of Syrianus, but more probably that of p. 290, note 9, without any hint of a long interval. This is true, and if there were no evidence the other way might justify a guess that George came in Lent, 356; but no one would claim that the passage is conclusive by itself; (2) the `improbability' of George delaying his arrival so long. Improbability is a relative term; we know too little of George's consecration or movements to justify its use in the present connection. All the evidence goes to shew that the court party were far from sanguine as to the nature of his reception, and that their misgivings were well-founded. The above considerations look very small when we compare them with the mass of positive evidence the other way. (1.) The civil Governor had changed: Maximus held the post on Feb. 8, 356 (Hist. Ar. 81, &c.), Cataphronius when the churches were transferred to the party of George, see below, 6. (2.) The military Commander had changed: Syrianus was replaced by Sebastian, who appears just after the transfer of churches, Hist. Ar. 55-60 (Dr. Bright in D.C.B. i. 194, note, seems to admit that Sebastian belongs to a later date than the Lent of 356). (3.) The Wednesday (and Thursday) of Hist. Ar. 55 were not `in Lent.' They suit the data of Hist. Aceph. perfectly well. (4.) Had George arrived before Easter 356, Athan. would have heard of it `in the Desert,' Apol. Const. 27; but he has only heard of his nomination wnomasqh 28, probably from the letters given in §§30, 31). (5.) The Letter to the Egyptian bishops was written from Libya or Cyrenaica, when the coercion of the episcopate had begun: it postulates some time since his expulsion, but George was then (§7) only in contemplation. (6.) There is no evidence that the coup de main of Syrianus was other than unpopular in the city. This was reported to Const., who after the (Easter) outrages on the Virgins (Ap. Const. 27; Hist. Ar. 48), and after the expulsion of the sixteen bishops (Hist. Ar. 54, this was probably about Easter, Ap. Const. 27) sent Heraclius (with the `discreditable' letter), in whose company (Hist. Ar. 55) the new Prefect Cataphronius first appears. This let loose the refuse of the heathen population as described, ib. 55-60. (7.) Hare the precise statement of the Hist. Aceph. fits in exactly. The Presbyters and people of Ath. remained in possession of the Churches until the arrival of the new Prefect, with Count Heraclius, on June 10. (8.) Heraclius is expressly called the precursor of George (p. 288) and is evidently sent to disarm the reported hostility of the (even heathen) public to the appointment. It may be added that if we are to take `probabilities' into account, it is easier to imagine a reason for a court nominee like George having been slow to take up a dangerous post, than for the Alexandrian chronologists of the day having invented a year's interval when none had existed. Montfaucon had already noticed that `a good deal must have happened' between the irruption of Syrianus and the entry of George. The data of Athanasius are for the first time clearly explained by the light thrown on them by the chroniclers. I should also have urged the fact that the commemoration of George's Pentecost Martyrs on May 21 in the Roman Martyrology suits 357 and not 356, had I succeeded in tracing the history of the entry, which has, however, so far eluded my efforts.
74 We are quite in the dark as to when, and by whom, George was consecrated bishop. The statement of Sozomen iv. 8, that he was ordained by a council of thirty bishops at Antioch, including Theodore of Heraclea, who had died before the exile of Liberius in 355 (Thdt. H.E. ii. 16, p. 93. 13), is involved in too hopeless a tangle of anachronisms to be of any value for our enquiry. But that George was ordained in Antioch is in itself likely enough, and if so, his ordination would probably follow close upon the expulsion of Athanasius. But the repeated assurances of Ath. that George came from court would imply that after his ordination George went to Italy. That at once puts his arrival in Alxa. in Lent 356 out of the question.
75 The statements of Ath. as to George are made at secondhand, and must be taken cum grano. He is `notoriously wealthy,' yet `hired' by the Arians. (Cf. p. 249; but apparently he combined wealth and avarice.) That he was `a heathen' is certainly untrue. His `ignorance' is equally so: we know that he was a well-read man and possessed a remarkably good library (D.C.B. ii. 638). That he had `the temper of a hangman' (p. 227) is in keeping with all that we know of him, and as to his general character, the statements of Athanasius and other churchmen are not stronger than Amm. Marcell. XXII. xi. 4 (cf. Gibbon, iii. 171 sqq., ed. Smith, but correct his jeu d'esprit on `S. George and the Dragon' by Bright, in D.C.B. ubi supra; yet see Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. vii. III..).
76 p. 497. George was at Sirmium in the Spring of 359 (Soz. (v. 16). Paul Catena came to Alxa. from a similar commission at Scythopolis. He was apparently aided in both places by Modestus the Comes Orientis. From Liban. Ep. 205, we gather, to the credit of George, that he was the intermediary of requests for mitigation or some of the sentences. He was at this time at Antioch, from whence also `Ex Comitatu Principis,' Amm. XXII. xi., he returned to Alxa. in 361, evidently before he had heard of the Emperor's death. (Sievers, pp. 138 sq.)
77 We Cannot fix the date when this word was first adopted as a shibboleth. It occurs, but not conspicuously, in the `Macrostich' of 344, but not in any other creed till the `dated' symbol of 359. But if (as Krüger, Lucif, p. 42, note, assumes) the omoiousion was adopted as a protest against the bald omoion, the latter must have been current long before 357, when the former was proscribed. I incline to regard the omoion (as a test word) as a later rival to the omoiousion.
78 Apparently it began with the quarrel over the election to the bishopric of Antioch, which Eudoxius managed to seize after the death of Leontius. George was aggrieved at his rights as an elector being ignored, and may have had hopes of the see for himself. See Soz. iv. 13; but Philost. iv. 5 with much less likelihood puts this down to Basil.
79 The discussions, reported with every appearance of substantial accuracy by Thdt. ii. 27, may have taken place at this time, or at the council of the succeeding month (Thdt. fails to distinguish the two meetings). Gwatkin, p. 180, appears to be right in adopting the former alternative, viz. that the party of Basil prudently abstained from attending a council in which they would be overpowered: cf. Soz. iv. 24, who however contradicts himself in the next chapter, sub fin. But the case is not quite clear.
80 He always used amanuenses, but we have no evidence that he entrusted them with actual composition, p. 242.
81 He states (1) That a rigorist party in the council were at first opposed to all conciliatory measures; this is highly probable, see Hieron. adv. Lucif. 20; (2) that former active Arians were to be admitted to lay communion only; this is not unlikely; (3) by implication, that Eusebius and Lucifer went first to Antioch, and agreed to take no step till after the Council which Eus. was to attend in person, and Luc. by deputy, at Alxa., but that Luc. broke his promise. This may contain a grain of truth, i.e. that Lucifer promised to do nothing before he heard from Alxa., but Eusebius can scarcely have gone to Antioch. I owe these notices to the excellent analysis of our sources of information in Krüger, Lucif. p. 46 sq.; but he makes an odd slip, p. 48, in saying that Soz. `schweigt von der Synode zu Alex. uberhaupt.'
82 This is placed later in 363 by Dr. Bright, D.C.B. i. 199, on the ground of a statement of Epiphanius, Haer. 77. 20, which, however, is not quite decisive on the point.
83 Krüger, in Theol. Litzg. 1890, p. 620 sqq., fixes the death of Theodore for Easter 363, on the ground, as I venture to think, of a date (345) for the death of Pachomius too early by one year. The question is too intricate to discuss here, but with all deference to so competent a critic, I am confident that Theodore lived till at any rate the following Easter. See infr. p. 569, note 3.
84 This is certainly true of men like Athanasius of Ancyra, Eusebius of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, Titus of Bostra, &c.
85 The tract de Hypocrisi Meletii et Eusebii printed among the `dubious' works of Athanasius may well express the sentiments of some of his friends of the party of Paulinus on this occasion. Tillem. viii. 708.
86 So Hist. Aceph., Fest. Ind. Socrates iv. 13 says he hid four months `in his Father's tomb.' Soz. vi. 12, mentions the story, but finding it contradicted by the Hist. Aceph., adopts the vague compromise eij ti xwrion ekrupteto. The `New River' divided Alexandria from its Western suburbs.
87 For the best treatment of the document, see Zahn, p, 95. I am quite unable to follow the theory advanced in D. C. B. iii 812; least of all the writer's suggestion that Athanasius was `egregiously duped' (!) by Marcellus.
88 Fest. Ind. xlv. The Hist. Aceph. give May 3; probably he died after midnight; but May 2 is kept as his feast by the Copts and by the Western Church.
89 Of his personal appearance little is known. Gregory Naz. praises his beauty of expression, Julian sneers at his small stature. Later tradition adds a slight stoop, a hooked nose and small mouth, short beard spreading into large whiskers, and light auburn hair, (See Stanley ubi supr).
90 To begin with, we have the interesting fact that Alexander studied the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up his tract peri yuxhj kai swmatoj eij to paqoj into a homiletical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to savour of `modalism,' (see Krüger in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1888, p. 434, sqq.: his grounds are convincing). Secondly, the expressions attributed to him by Arius (in his letter to Euseb. Nic.), and his letter to his namesake of Byzantium, bear out the above statement.
91 The reader is requested to supplement the necessarily very slender treatment of the Athanasian theology in this chapter by referring to the General Index to this volume, as well as to the Index of Texts, for guidance to the passages of Athanasius which are needed to check, fill out, and qualify what is here presented only in broad outline.
92 The above is strikingly illustrated by the discussion (pp. 381-383) of prwtotokoj pashj ktisewj (Col. i. 15). At first sight Ath. appears to contradict himself, explaining prwtotokoj as he does first solely of the Saviour as Incarnate, and then of the cosmic and creative function of the Word. But closer examination brings out his view of creation itself (p. 383) as an act of Grace, demanding not (as the current Eastern theology held, in common with Arius) the mediation of a subordinate Creator, but an act of absolutely Divine condescension analogous to, and anticipatory of, the Incarnation. The apparently disturbing persistence in the argument of the cosmological explanation of prwtotokoj is really therefore due to a subtle change in it, by virtue of which it comes into relation with the Soteriological idea,-which is the pivot of the entire anti-Arian position of Athanasius on this question,-and with the ultimate scheme in which (cf. Rom. viii.) the effects of the Incarnation are to embrace the whole creation. Because creation as such involves the promise of adoption, and tends to deification as its goal, the Son is prwtotokoj in the region of Grace and of Creation alike.
93 On the subject of §2, see also Pell. Lehre des h. Athan. and Shedd ii. pp. 37, sqq., 237, sqq. The former demonstrates his full accord with modern Roman Catholic teaching, the latter, his exact harmony with the modern Protestant view of the doctrine. It is at least a tribute to the greatness of Athan. that advocates of all sides are so eager to claim him.
94 Athanasius is not always innocent of the method of which he complains; e.g. when he uses Isa. i. 11, plhrhj eimi, as a proof of the Divine Perfection.
95 The idea, of a mysterious unwritten tradition is a legacy ot Gnosticism to the Church. Irenaeus, in order to meet the Gnostic appeal to a supposed unwritten Apostolic tradition, confronts it with the consistency of the public and normal teaching of the Churches everywhere, of which the Roman Church is a convenient microcosm or compendium. The idea of a paradosij agrafoj is adopted by Clement and Origen, and passes from the latter to Eusebius, and to the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil de Sp. S. 27, applies it only to practical details), Epiphanius, and later writers. Details in Harnack ii. 90, note, cf. Salmon, Infallibility, Lect. ix. On the somewhat different subject of the `Disciplina Arcani,' see Herzog-Plitt. s.v. `Arkan-Disciplia'
96 What is conspicuously true of the Second General Council is in reality not less true of the First. Its high authority to later ages is due not to its formal character as a council, but to the character of its work; the consent of the Church, and that not readily given, but as the result of a long process of searching and sifting, has given to it its `irreformable' authority. Its authority is expressly put on a par with that of the Antiochene Synod of c. 269, by Ath. de Syn. 43 (consult the whole discussion, pp. 473, 475, &c.). Short of a council which should include every bishop of the entire Church, in unanimous agreement,-an impossible contingency,-the claims of any given council to be truly ecumenical are relative, not absolute; and no consistent theory is possible of the conditions under which a council could by virtue of its constitution claim infallibility for its decisions. The supposed infallibility of general councils lies in reality outside them, in the authority which sanctions and consecrates their decisions. According to the precedent of Nicaea this is the Church `diffusive' (cf. p. 489, and Pusey, Councils, p. 225, sq.), and such consent, again, must necessarily be partial and relative. If a more tangible and expeditious theory is wanted, we have it in the Roman system, according to which a council is infallible if ratified by the Pope. This at once puts all such councils, whether local or general, on one level, and affords a ready criterion. In other words, the only consistent (mechanical) theory of the infallibility of councils is one which makes councils superfluous. If such a theory had been known to the Church in the age of councils, the councils would not have been held.
97 The doctrine of Athanasius is, not formally but none the less really, the doctrine of Chalcedon, which again stands or falls together with that of Nicaea. Like the latter, it transcends the power of human thought to do more than state it in terms which exclude the (Nestorian and Monophysite) alternatives. The Man Jesus Christ is held to have lacked nothing that constitutes personality in man; the human personality which therefore belongs to it ideally, being in fact merged in the Divine personality of the Son. The `impersonality,' as it is sometimes called, of Christ qua man is therefore better spoken of as His Divine Personality. Personality and will are correlated but not identical ideas.
98 The candid, but friendly, and often just, criticisms on Mr. Gwatkin's book do not concern us here. But the Reviewer's chronological strictures are his weakest point: he uses his texts without criticism, and falls far short of Mr. Gwatkin's standard of searching historical method.
99 E.g. that he died five months after his return home from the council (Tillem.), or after the reconciliation of Meletius (Montf.). As neither event is dated, both hypotheses render the `five months' useless for chronology.
100 The above resumé of the details of the evidence makes it clear that Mr. Gwatkin's alleged oversights are in reality those of his critic. The proposal of the latter to correct `Epiph.' in Fest. Ind. to `Pharmuthi' is especially gratuitous.
1 In heathen countries the case is different. An English translation was made a few years since for dissemination in India by the members of the Oxford Mission at Calcutta.
1 See de Incarn. 1 and note there.
2 Constantly insisted on by Athan. Cf. de Incarn. 5, and note on de Decr. 32.
3 De Incarn. 56. 2; he may also be referring to works from the Alex. school, such as Orig. de Princ.
4 Cf. de Incarn. 47. 2, 48. 3, Vit. Ant. passim.
5 Cf. de Incarn. 50. 3, 51. 3, &c.
6 See Orig. C. Cels. vii. 42 sqq. de Princ. I. 1.
7 Restored in Christ, see §34.
8 Cf. Ep. Aeg. 15, Apol. Fug. passim, Orat. iii. 37.
11 Cf. Plato Phaedrus 246 C, 248 A, 253 E, 254.
18 For the following chapters Döllinger, `The Gentile and the Jew,', is a rich mine of illustration. The recently published `Manual of the History of Religions,' by Prof. Chaptepie de la Saussaye (Eng. Tra. pub. by Longmans), summarises the best results of recent research.
20 Constantine was the last Emperor officially deified (D.C.B., I. 649), but even Theodosius is raised to heaven by the courtly Claudian Carm. de III Cons. Honor. 163 sqq.; cf. Gwatkin, p. 54, note.
21 This is probably a reference to the iera anagrafh of Euhemerus, which Christian apologists commonly took as genuine history: see §12, note 1.
22 Cf. de la Saussaye, §51. Isis, as goddess of the earth, corresponded to Demeter; as goddess of the dead, to the Korh (Persephone).
23 The Newtera is a puzzle. The most likely suggestion is that of Montfaucon, who refers it to Cleopatra, who nea !Isij exrhmatize (Plut. Vit. Anton.). He cites also a coin of M. Antony, on which Cleopatra is figured as qea newtera. Several such are given by Vaillant, de Numism. Cleopatr. 189. She was not the first of her name to adopt this style, see Head Hist. Num. pp. 716, 717. The text might be rendered `Isis, both the Maid and the Younger.'
24 Cf. Wisd. xiv. 12 sqq. quoted below.
25 Cf. Greg. Naz. Or. v. 32, p. 168 c, and Dict. G. and R. Geog. I. p. 783a.
28 This explanation of gods as deified men is known as Euhemerism, from Euhemerus, who broached the theory in the third century, b.c. (supra, 10, note 1); but `there were Euhemerists in Greece before Euhemerus' (Jowett's Plato, 2. 101). The Fathers very commonly adopt the theory, for which, however, there are very slight grounds. Such cases as those of Antinous and the Emperors as well as the legends of heroes and demigods, gave it some plausibility (see Döllinger; Gentile and Jew, vol. i. p. 344. Eng. Tr.).
31 Wisd. xiv. 21. Cf. Isa. xlii. 8, and xlviii. 11.
32 fusij is here used in a double sense.
33 By Aristotle, Top. V. ii.-iv. where man is defined as zwonepisthmhj dektikon compare Metaph. I. i. `All men by nature desire to know.'
35 This may refer to Maximus of Tyre (Saussaye, §11), or to the lost treatise of `the divine Iamblichus' IIeri agalmatwn, which was considered worth answering by Christian writers as late as the seventh century (Philoponus in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 215).
36 This is in effect the defence of the `Scriptor de Mysteriis' (possibly Iamblichus, see Bernays `2 Abhandlungen' 1880, p. 37): material means of worship are a means of access directly to the lower (or quasi-material) gods, and so indirectly to the higher. Few men can reach the latter without the aid of their manifestation in the lower; parestin aulwj toij enuloij ta aula (v. 23, of. 14).
38 Hdt. ii. 69; cf. Juv. Sat. xv. 36, `numina vicinorum Odit uterque locus.'This is one of the few places where Athanasius has any Egyptian `local colour' (cf. supra 9 and so). M. Fialon is certainly too imaginative (p. 86 contradicted p. 283), when he sees in the contra Gentes an appreciation of the higher religious principles which the modern science (`toute Francaise') of Egyptology has enabled us to read behind the grotesque features of popular Egyptian poly theism.
39 On human sacrifice see Saussaye, §17, and Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 343 sqq., especially p. 347, note 1, for references to examples near the time of this treatise.
40 Reading eidwleioi" conj. Marr.
41 i.e. among the licentious worshippers the lifeless image is the only one free from vice, although the worshippers credit him with divine attributes, and therefore, according to their superstition, with a licentious lite.
5 Compare the somewhat analogous argument in Butler, Serm. ii.
6 Cf. Plato Paedr. 245 C-E., Legg. 896, A, B. The former passage is more likely to be referred to here as it is, like the text, an argument for immortality. Athan, has also referred to Phaedrus above. §5. (Against Gwatkin, Stuaies, p. 101.
5 umin and umwn below are read by several mss., and are probably correct as in the original passage.
6 The `fixed' stars as distinct from the planets. For the argument. cf. Plato, Legg. 966 E.
7 Or, perhaps, "innate, self-evident maxim" (logoj fusikoj).
8 lit. "the steering-paddles."
9 Cf. above 2.2 and note, also 35. 1.
12 neuma, i.e. act of will, or fiat.
15 epibebhkenj, see for the sense Incarn. 43.4, &c.
16 Plato Timaeus 29 E, quoted also de Incarn. 3. 3. This explanation of Divine Creation is also adopted by Philo de Migratione Abrah. 32 (and see Drummond's Philo, vol. 2, pp. 56, sqq.).
17 Plato Politic. (see de Incarn. 43. 7, note).
27 Deut. vi. 4, Deut. vi. 5, Deut. vi. 13.
36 metoxh, cf. de Syn. 48, 51, 53. This was held by Arians, but in common with Paul Samos, and many of the Monarchian heretics. The same principle in Orig. on Ps. 135 (Lomm. xiii. 134) ou kata metousian alla kat ousian qeoj.
39 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (§17).
1 See Contra Gentes, i. The word (Makarie) may be an adjective only, but its occurrence in both places seems decisive. The name was very common (Apol. c. Ar. passim). `Macarius' was a Christian, as the present passage shews: he is presumed (c. Gent. i. 7) to have access to Scripture.
2 thj eusebeiaj. See 1 Tim. iii, 16, and note 1 on De Decr. 1.
3 Or, "been made in one way only." In the next clause I formerly translated the difficult words wj epi swmatoj enoj `as in the case of the universe;' but although the rendering has commended itself to others I now reluctantly admit that it puts too much into the Greek (in spite of §41.5).
10 c. Gent. xli. and Plato, Timoeus 29 E.
14 Eccles. vii. 29; Rom. i. 21, Rom. i. 22.
18 Cf. Concil. Araus. II. Can. 23. `Suam voluntatem homines faciunt, non Dei, quando id agunt quod Deo displicet.'
22 Gal. iii. 19 (verbally only).
23 Cf. Anselm cur Deus Homo, II. 4, `Valde alienum est ab eo, ut ullam rationalem naturam penitus perire sinat.'
24 Literally "what is reasonable with respect to God," i.e. what is involved in His attributes and in His relation to us, cf. Rom. iii. 26, cf. Anselm, ib. I. 12, who slightly narrows down the idea or Athan. `Si peccatum sic dimittitur impunitum, similiter erit apud Deum peccanti et non peccanti, quod Deo non convenit .... Inconvenientia autem iniustitia est.'
30 Cf. Orat. iii. 33, note 5, also ib. 31, note 10.
31 Cf. Orat. iii. 33, note 5, also ib. 31, note 10.
32 The simile is inverted. Men are the `straw,' death the `fire.' cf. xliv. 7.
34 Possibly suggested by the practice of the emperors. Constantinople was thus dignified a few years later (326). For this simile compare Sermo Major de Fide, c. 6.
35 Or, "to put an end to death."
44 autwn may refer to the daimonej, in which case compare c. Gent. 25. sub fin.
45 See c. Gent. 25. 1, ta omoia toij omoioij. Or the text may mean simply "as their due."
46 The Bened. text is corrected here on the ground (1)of ms. evidence, (2) of construction (for which see 6, 7, and c. Gent. 20. 3).
48 See John iii. 3, John iii. 5.
50 Lit. "draws toward Himself."
52 Lit. "draws toward Himself."
55 dia toutou, perhaps, in both places-"by it," viz. His body.
56 dia toutou, perhaps, in both places-"by it," viz. His body.
57 Cf. St. Aug. de Fid. et Symb. 10, Rufin. in Symb. Apost. 12. So also Tertull. adv. Marc. `Quodcunque induerit ipse dignum fecit.'
59 Compare Orat. iii. 31, note 11.
62 autozwh, see c. Gent. 40, 46, and Orat. iv. 2, note 4.
64 e.g. viii. 4; x. 5, &c. `It is quite a peculiarity of Ath. to repeat, and to apologise for doing so,' (Newman in Orat. ii. 80 note 1).
65 epibasij, compare epibainein, 43. 4, &c.
66 epibasij, compare epibainein, 43. 4, &c.
69 Cf. Joh. x. 17, Joh. x. 18.
71 i.e. when sustained by its union with Him.
74 i.e. suggested as endocon (supra, 1); a reading par eautou has been suggested: (devised) "by Himself."
79 Eph. ii. 2, and see the curious visions of Antony, Vit. Ant., 65, 66.
81 Cf. Lightfoot on Coloss. ii. 15, also the fragment of Letter 22, and Letter 60. 7.
84 Literally `at an even' [distance], as contrasted with (a) the same day (2, above), (b) the third day (en tritaiw diasthmati (6, below). en isw must therefore be equivalent in sense to deuteraiou. Possibly the literal sense is `[had the Resurrection taken place] at an equal interval between the Death and the [actual day of] the Resurrection.'
85 Cf. Ps. lv. 4, Ps. lxxxix. 47; Job. xviii. 14.
88 kata tou puroj. kata appears to have the predicative force so common in Aristotle. The Bened, translation `the weakness of fire against the asbestos' is based on a needless conjecture.
90 Cf. Luc. iv. 34, and Marc. v. 7.
98 thn uper autou dunamin. The Ben. version simplifies this difficult expression by ignoring the uper. Mr. E. N. Bennett has suggested to me that the true reading may be uperaulon for iper autou (auloj supra 8. 1, uperaulwj in Philo). I would add the suggestion that autou stood after uperaulon, and that the similarity of the five letters in ms. caused the second word to be dropped out. `His' exceeding immaterial power would be the resulting sense. (See Class. Review, 1890, No. iv. p. 182.)
100 Deut xxviii. 66, see Orat ii. 16, note 1.
102 Properly "let us destroy the tree with its bread" (i.e. fruit). The LXX, translate b???elahmô `upon his bread,' which is possible in itself; but they either mistook the verb, or followed some wrong reading. Their rendering is followed by all the Latin versions. For a comment on the latter see Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 19, iv. 40.
105 Or `only after he had grown great,' i.e. to man's estate.
106 Isa. viii. 4, where note LXX.
109 Isa. lxv. 1, Isa. lxv. 2; cf. Rom. x. 20, sq.
113 Lit. "answer," a misrendering of the Hebrew.
115 Matt. xi. 13 cf. Luc. xvi. 16.
116 Cf. Ps. cxviii. 27, and for the literal sense, Num. vi. 25.
118 Isa. lxiii. 9 (LXX.), and the note in the (Queen's Printers') `Variorum' Bible.
119 Athan. here assumes, for the purpose of his argument, the principles of the Neo-platonist schools. They were influenced, in regard to the Logos, by Philo, but even on this subject the germ of their teaching may be traced in Plato, especially in the Timoeus, (See Drummond's Philo, i. 65-88. Bigg's Bamp. Lect. 14, 18, 248-253, and St. Aug. Confess. in `Nicene Fathers,' Series 1, vol. 1, p. 107 and notes.)
120 Especially Plato, Tim. 30, &c.
121 epibebhkenai, cf. above, 20. 4, 6. The Union of God and Man in Christ is of course `hypostatic' or personal, and thus (supra 17. 1), different in kind from the union of the Word with Creation. His argument is ad homines. It was not for thinkers who identified the Universe with God to take exception to the idea of Incarnation.
123 epibainwn, see supra, note 3.
124 The superfluous pepoihkenai is ignored, being untranslateable as the text stands. For a less simple conjecture, see the Bened. note.
125 This thought is beautifully expressed by Keble :-
`All true, all faultless, all in tune, Creation's wondrous choir
Opened in mystic unison, to last till time expire.
And still it lasts: by day and night with one consenting voice
All hymn Thy glory Lord, aright, all worship and rejoice:
Man only mars the sweet accord" ....
(`Christian Year,' Fourth Sunday after Trinity.)
127 Cf. Orig. c. Cels. vi. 64, where there is the same contrast between metexein and metexesqai.
128 Ath. paraphrases loosely Plat. Politic. 273 D. See Jowett's Plato (ed. 2) vol. iv. pp. 515, 553.
129 Lit. "sate down", as four lines above.
130 With this discussion compare that upon `repentance' above 7. (esp. 7. 4).
131 Restoration by a mere fiat would have shewn God's power, the Incarnation shews His Love. See Orat. i. 52, note 1, ii. 68, note 1.
132 Cf. Orat. i. 56, note 5, 65, note 3.
133 See above 28. 3. He appears not to have seen the substance.
134 Isa. xi. 9. For the arguments, compare §§11-14.
135 See Döllinger, Gentile and Jew, i. 449.
137 The Incarnation completes the circle of God's self-witness and of man's responsibility.
138 Cf. notes on c. Gent. 10, and 12. 2.
139 On the following argument see Döllinger ii. 210 sqq., and Bigg, Bampt. Lect. 248, note 1.
140 On the local character of ancient religions, see Döllinger i. 109, &c., and Coulanges, La Cité Antique, Book III. ch. vi., and V. iii. (the substance in Barker's Aryan Civilisation).
141 On these, see Döllinger, i. 216, &c., and Milton's Ode on the Nativity, stanza xix.
145 See Döllinger, i. 73, 164-70: the Cabiri were pre-Hellenic deities, worshipped in many ancient sanctuaries, but principally in Samothrace and Lemnos.
146 Cf. Vit. Ant. xvi.-xliii., also Döllinger, ii. 212, and a curious catena of extracts from early Fathers, collected by Hurter in `Opuscula SS. Patrum Selecta,' vol 1, appendix.
147 For this opinion, see note 1 on c. Gent. 12.
148 See Döllinger, ii. 210, and (on Julian) 215.
149 In Plato's ideal Republic, the notion of any direct influence of the highest ideals upon the masses is quite absent. Their happiness is to be in passive obedience to the few whom those ideals inspire. (Contrast Isa. liv. 13, Jer. xxxi. 34.)
150 Cf. Hist. Arian. 25, Apol. Const. 33.
151 e.g. Iamblichus, &c., cf. Introd. to c. Gent.
152 Cf. Thucy. i. 5 6: `pasa gar h #Ellaj esidhroforei,' &c.
154 St. Augustine, Civ. D. IV. xvi. commenting on the fact that the temple of `Repose' (Quies) at Rome was not within the city walls, suggests `qui illam turbam colere perseveraret ...doemoniorum, cure Quietem hahere non posse.'
156 qeopoihqwmen. See Orat. ii. 70, note 1, and many other passages in those Discourses, as well as Letters 60. 4, 61 2. (Eucharistic reference), de Synodis 51, note 7. (Compare also Iren. IV. xxxviii. 4, `non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii,' cf. ib. praef. 4. fin. also V. ix. 2, `sublevat in vitam Dei.' Origen Cels. iii. 28 fin. touches the same thought, but Ath. is here in closer affinity to the idea of Irenaeus than to that of Origen.) The New Test. reference is 2 Pet. i. 4, rather than Heb. ii. 9 sqq; the Old Test., Ps. lxxxii. 6, which seems to underlie Orat. iii. 25 (note 5). In spite of the last mentioned passage, `God' is far preferable as a rendering, in most places, to `gods,' which has heathenish associations. To us (1 Cor. viii. 6) there are no such things as `gods.' (The best summary of patristic teaching on this subject is given by Harnack Dg. ii. p. 46 note.)
158 Cf. Matt. xxiv 42; Marc. xiii. 35.
159 2 Cor. v. 10; cf Rom. xiv. 10.
2 (Eph. iv. 4.) St. Alexander in Theod. begins his Epistle to his namesake of Constantinople with some moral reflections, concerning ambition and avarice. Athan. indeed uses a similar introduction to his Ep. Aeg., but it is not addressed to an individual.
3 paranomoi. vid. Hist. Ar. §71 init. 75 fin. 79.
4 prodromon AntiXriotou. vid Orat. i. 7. Vit. Ant. 69. note on de Syn. 5.
5 kai eboulomhn men siwph <\=85_epeidh de <\=85_anagkhn esxon. vid. Apol. contra. Ar. §1 init, de Decr. § 2. Orat. i. 23, init. Orat. ii. init. Orat. iii. 1. ad Serap. i. 1. 16. ii. 1 init. iii. init. iv. 8 init. Letters 52. 2, 59. 3 fin. 61. 1. contra Apollin. i. 1 init.
6 rupwoh, and infr. rupon. vid Hist. Ar. §3. § 80, de Decr. §2. Ep. Aeg. 11 fin. Orat. i 10.
7 akoaj, and infr. akoaj buei. vid. Ep. Aeg. §13. Orat. i. §7. Hist. Ar. §56.
8 akeraiwn. Apol. contr. Ar. §1. Ep. Aeg. §18. Letters 59. 1, 60. 2 fin. Orat. i. 8.
9 epofqalmisa" also used of Eusebius Apol. contr. Ar. §6. Hist. Ar. §7.
10 rhmatia vid. de Decr. §8, 18. Orat. i. 10. de Sent. §23 init S. Dionysius also uses it. Ibid. §18.
11 kakonoian. vid Hist. Ar. §75. de Decr. §1. et al.
12 ouk aei pathr. This enumeration of Arius's tenets, and particularly the mention of the first, corresponds to de Decr. §6. Ep. Aeg. §12. as being taken from the Thalia. Orat. i. §5. and far less with Alex. ap. Theod. p. 731, 2. vid. also Sent. D. §16. kataxrhstikwj, which is found here, occurs de Decr. §6.
13 ousian. ousia tou logou or tou uiou is a familiar expression with Athan. e.g. Orat. i. 45, ii. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18 init. 22, 47 init 56 init. &c., for which Alex. in Theod. uses the word upostaij e.g. thn idiotropon autou upostasin thj upostasewj autou aperiegastou newteran thj upostasewj gensin h tou uonogenouj anekdihghtoj upostasij thn tou logou upostasin.
14 (2 Cor vi. 14.) koinwnia fwti. This is quoted Alex. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 738; by S. Athan. in Letter 47. It seems to have been a received text in the controversy, as the Sardican Council uses it, Apol Ar. 49, and S. Athan. seems to put it into the mouth of St. Anthony, Vit. Ant. 69.
15 tij gar hkouse. Ep. Aeg. 7 init. Letter 59. §2 init. Orat. i. 8. Apol. contr. Ar. 85 init. Hist. Ar. §46 init. §73 init. §74 init. ad Serap. iv. 2 init.
20 (Joh. xiv. 9, Joh. xiv. 10, Joh. x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
21 alogon kai asofon ton qeon. de Decr. §15. Orat. i. §19. Ap. Fug. 27. note, notes on Or. i. 19, de. Decr. 15, note 6.
22 (Joh. xiv. 9, Joh. xiv. 10, Joh. x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
23 (Joh. xiv. 9, Joh. xiv. 10, Joh. x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
24 (Mal. iii. 6.) This text is thus applied by Athan. Orat. i. 30. ii. 10. In the first of these passages he uses the same apology, nearly in the same words, which is contained in the text.
27 xamaileontej. vid. de Decr. §1. Hist. Ar. §79.
28 Prov. xviii. 3 [cf. Orat. iii. 1, c. Gent. 8. 4, &c.]
31 (1 Tim. iv. 1.) Into this text which Athan. also applies to the Arians (cf. note on Or. i. 9.), Athan. also introduces, like Alexander here, the word ugianoushj, e.g. Ep. Aeg. §20, Orat. i. 8 fin. de Decr. 3, Hist. Arian. §78 init. &c. It is quoted without the word by Origen contr. Cels. v. 64, but with ugiouj in Matth. t. xiv. 16. Epiphan, has ugiainoushj didaskaliaj, Hoer. 78. 2. ugiouj did. ibid. 23 p. 1055.
32 propeteusainto. vid. de Decr. §2.
33 fqoreaj twn yuxwn. but S. Alex. in Theod. uses the compound word. fqoropoioj. p. 731. Other compound or recondite words (to say nothing of the construction of sentences) found in S. Alexander s Letter in Theod., and unlike the style of the Circular under review, are such as h filarxoj kai filarguroj proqesi: xristemporian: frenoblabouj: idiotropon: omostoixoij oullabaij: qehgorouj apostolouj: antidiastolhn thj patrikhj maieusewj: melagxolikhn: filoqeoj safhneia anosiourgiaj: flhnafwn mufwn. Instances of theological language in S. Alex. to which the Letter in the text contains no resemblance are axwriota pragmata duo: o uioj thn kata panta ouoiothta autou ek fusewj apomacamenoj: di esoptrou akhlidwtou kai euyuxou qeiaj eikonoj: mesiteuousa fusij monogenhj: taj th upostasei duo fuseij.
35 Vid. Presbysters, Apol. Ar. 73.
36 Vid. Presbysters, Apol. Ar. 73.
37 Vid. Presbysters, Apol. Ar. 73.
38 Vid. Presbysters, Apol. Ar. 73.
39 Vid. Presbysters, Apol. Ar. 73.
1 This Letter is also found in Socr. H. E. i. 8. Theod. H. E. i.Gelas. Hist. Nic. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii.
2 And so infr. "most pious," §4. "most wise and most religious," ibid. "most religious," §8. §10. Eusebius observes in his Vit. Const. the same tone concerning Constantine, and assigns to him the same office in determining the faith (being as yet unbaptized), E.g. "When there were differences between persons of different countries, as if some common bishop appointed by God, he convened Councils of God's ministers; and not disdaining to be present and to sit amid their conferences," &c. i. 44. When he came into the Nicene Council, "it was," says Eusebius, "as some heavenly Angel of God," iii. 10. alluding to the brilliancy of the imperial purple. He confesses, however, he diet not sit down until the Bishops bade him. Again at the same Council, "with pleasant eyes looking serenity itself into them all, collecting himself, and in a quiet and gentle voice" he made an oration to the Fathers upon peace. Constantine had been an instrument in conferring such vast benefits, humanly speaking, on the Christian Body, that it is not wonderful that other writers of the day besides Eusebius should praise him. Hilary speaks of him as "of sacred memory," Fragm. v. init. Athanasius calls him "most pious," Apol. contr. Arian. 9; "of blessed memory," ad Ep. Aeg. 18. 19. Epiphanius "most religious and of ever-blessed memory," Haer. 70. 9. Posterity, as was natural, was still more grateful.
3 "The children of the Church have received from their holy Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; and withal to deliver and preach it to their own children... Cease not, faithful aud orthodox men, thus to speak, and to teach the like from the divine Scriptures, and to walk, and to catechise, to the confirmation of yourselves and those who hear you; namely, that holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the holy and only Virgin of God received its custody from the holy Apostles of the Lord; and thus, in the case of each of those who are under catechising, who are to approach the Holy Laver, ye ought not only to preach faith to your children in the Lord, but also to teach them expressly, as your common mother teaches, to say: `We believe in One God,'" &c. Epiph. Ancor. 119 fin., who thereupon proceeds to give at length the [so-called] Constantinopolitan Creed. And so Athan. speaks of the orthodox faith, as "issuing from Apostolical teaching and the Fathers' traditions, and confirmed by New and Old Testament." Letter 60. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as "declared by the Church and established from all Scripture." Cat. v. 12. "Let us guard with vigilance what we have received ...What then have we received from the Scriptures but altogether this? that God made the world by the Word," &c., &c. Procl. ad Armen. p. 612. "That God, the Word, after the union remained such as He was, &c., so clearly hath divine Scripture, and moreover the doctors of the Churches, and the lights of the world taught us." Theodor. Dial. 3 init. "That it is the tradition of the Fathers is not the whole of our case; for they too followed the meaning of Scripture, starting from the testimonies, which just now we laid before you from Scripture." Basil de Sp. §16. vid. also a remarkable passage in de Synod. §6 fin. infra.
5 [Or. `taking the addition as their pretext.']
6 The only clauses of the Creed which admit of any question in their explanation, are the "He was not before His generation," and "of other subsistence or essence." Of these the former shall be reserved for a later part of the volume; the latter is treated of in a note at the end of this Treatise [see Excursus A.].
7 Eusebius does not commit himself to any positive sense in which the formula "of the essence" is to be interpreted, but only says what it does not mean. His comment on it is "of the Father, but not as a part;" where, what is not negative, instead of being an explanation, is but a recurrence to the original words of Scripture, of which ec ousiaj itself is the explanation; a curious inversion. Indeed it is very doubtful whether be admitted the ec ousiaj at all. He says, that the Son is not like the radiance of light so far as this, that the radiance is an inseparable accident of substance, whereas the Son is by the Father's will, kata gnwmhn kai proairesin, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 3. And though he insists on our Lord being alone, ek qeon, yet he means in the sense which Athan. refutes, supr. §6, viz. that He alone was created immediately from God, vid. next note 6. It is true that he plainly condemns with the Nicene Creed the ec ouk ontwn of the Arians, "out of nothing," but an evasion was at hand here also; for he not only adds, according to Arian custom, "as others" (vid. note following) but he has a theory that no being whatever is out of nothing, for non-existence cannot be the cause of existence. God, he says, "proposed His own will and power as `a sort of matter and substance' of the production and constitution of the universe, so that it is not reasonably said, that any thing is out of nothing. For what is from nothing cannot be at all. How indeed can nothing be to any thing a cause of being? but at all that is, takes its being from One who only is, and was, who also said `I am that I am.'" Demonstr. Ev. iv. 1. Again, speaking of our Lord, "He who was from nothing would not truly be Son of God, `as neither is any other of things generate.'" Eccl. Theol. i. 9 fin. [see, however, D.C.B. ii. p. 347].
8 Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord is a creature. "This offspring," he says, "did He first produce Himself from Himself as a foundation of those things which should succeed, the perfect handy-work, dhmiourghma, of the Perfect, and the wise structure, arxitektonhma, of the Wise," &c. Accordingly his avowal in the text is but the ordinary Arian evasion of "an offspring, not as the offsprings." E.g. "It is not without peril to say recklessly that the Son is originate out of nothing `similarly to the other things originate.'" Dem Ev. v. 1. vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And he considers our Lord the only Son by a divine provision similar to that by which there is only one sun in the firmament, as a centre of light and heat. "Such an Only-begotten Son, the excellent artificer of His will and operator, did the supreme God and Father of that operator Himself first of all beget, through Him and in Him giving subsistence to the operative words (ideas or causes) of things which were to be, and casting in Him the seeds of the constitution and governance of the universe;... Therefore the Father being One, it behoved the Son to be one also; but should any one object that He constituted not more, it is fitting for such a one to complain that He constituted not more suns, and moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other things." Dem. Ev. iv. 5 fin. vid. also iv. 6.
9 Eusebius does not say that our Lord is "from the essence of" the Father, but has "an essence from" the Father. This is the Semi-arian doctrine, which, whether confessing the Son from the essence of the Father or not, implied that His essence was not the Father's essence, but a second essence. The same doctrine is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra, though they seem to have confessed "of the essence." And this is one object of the omoousion, to hinder the confession "of the essence" from implying a second essence, which was not obviated or was even encouraged by the omoiousion. The Council of Ancyra, quoting the text "As the Father hath life in Himself so," &c., says, "since the life which is in the Father means essence, and the life of the Only-begotten which is begotten from the Father means essence, the word `so' implies a likeness of essence to essence." Haer. 73. 10 fin. Hence Eusebius does not scruple to speak of "two essences," and other writers of three essences, contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 25. He calls our Lord "a second essence." Dem. Ev. vi. Praef. Praep. Ev. vii. 12. p. 320, and the Holy Spirit a third essence, ibid. 15. p. 325. This it was that made the Latins so suspicions of three hypostases, because the Semi-arians, as well as they, understood upostasij to mean essence [but this is dubious]. Eusebius in like manner [after Origen] calls our Lord "another God," "a second God." Dem. Ev. v. 4. p. 226. v. fin. "second Lord." ibid. 3 init. 6. fin. "second cause." Dem. Ev. v. Pr...f. vid. also eteron exousa to kat ousian upokeimenon Dem. Ev. v. 1. p. 215. kaq eauton ousiwmenoz ibid. iv. 3. And so eteroj para ton patira. Eccl. Theol. i. 60. p. 90. and zwhn idian exwn. ibid. and zwh kai ufestwj kai tou patroj uparxwn ektoj ibid. Hence Athan. insists so much, as in de Decr., on our Lord not being external to the Father. Once admit that He is in the Father, and we may call the Father, the only God, for He is included. And so again as to the Ingenerate, the term does not exclude the Son, for He is generate in the Ingenerate.
10 This was the point on which the Semi-arians made their principal stand against the "one in essence," though they also objected to it as being of a Sabellion character. E.g. Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d.p. 149. a, b. v. 1. pp. 213-215. contr. Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl. Theol