besides, to ‘the Father not being always Father,’ de Sent. D. 15. and ‘the Word being brought to be by the true Word, and Wisdom by the true Wisdom;’ ibid. 25. 2. The same special text is used in defence of the heresy, and that not at first sight an obvious one, which is found among the Arians, Prov. viii. 22. 3. The same texts were used by the Catholics, which occur in the Arian con- troversy. e.g. Deut. xxxii. 6. against Prov. viii. 22. and such as Ps. cx. 3. Prov. viii. 25. and the two John x, 30. and xiv. 10. 4. The same Catholic symbols and statements are found, e.g. ‘ begotten not made,’ ‘ one in essence,’ ‘Trinity,’ advaiperov, avapxov, aevyevés, ‘light from light,’ &c. Much might be said on this circumstance, as forming part of the proof of the very early date of the develop- ment and formation of the Catholic theology, which we are at first sight apt to ascribe to the 4th and sth centuries. [But see Introd. to de Sent. Dion.)
8 gidomdvov, and so Serap. iv. 9. [This place is referred to by Sacer. Vi. 13.)
9& Mev ws CyT@y Kal yunvacwY Epyae, TADTA hy ws a’TOD ppovodvros SexecOw Tis, AAG THY Mpos ep ioverKodYTMY ev TS Gnretv, Ades opiSwv amogatverat, ToVTO Tov pidromdvou Td ppdvnua éott. ‘adda. Certe legendum aad’ a, idque omnino exigit sensus. Montfaucon. Rather for ade@s read & Se ws, and put the stop at Cnrety instead of SexérOw Ts.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
a ee aa irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council?, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us? For the faith which the Council has con- fessed in writing, that is the faith of the Cath- olic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them*, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies.
CHAPTER. VII. ON THE ARIAN SYMBOL “ UNORIGINATE.” This term afterwards adopted by them; and why; three senses of it. A fourth sense. Unoriginate denotes God in contrast to His creatures, not to His Son; Father the scrip- tural title instead; Concluston.
28. THIS in fact was the reason, when the I vid. supr. § 4. Orvat. i. § 7. Ad Afros. 2, twice. Apol. contr. Arian. 7. ad Ep. 42g. 5. Epiph. Her. 70. 9. Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 6. The Council was more commonly called weyday, vid. supr. § 26. The second General Council, a.p. 381, took the name of ecumenical. vid. Can. 6. fin. but incidentally. The Council of Ephesus so styles itself in the opening of its Synodical Letter.
2 The profession under which the decrees of Councils come to us is that of setting forth in writing what has ever been held orally or implicitly in the Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases as éyypadws éferéGy with reference to them. Thus Damasus, Theod. H. £. v. 10. speaks of that ‘apostolical faith, which was set forth in writing by the Fathers in Nicza.’ On the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch speaks of the doctrine of our Lord’s perfect humanity being ‘inculcated by our Holy Fathers, but not as yet [i.e. till the Council of Chalcedon] being confirmed by the decree of an ecumenical Council.’ Phot. 229. p. 801. (éyypagas, however, sometimes relates to the act of subscribing. Phot. zézd. or to Scripture, Clement. S¢;o7. i. init. p. 321.) Hence Athan. says ad Afros. 1. and 2. that ‘the Word of the Lord which was given through the ecumenical Council in Nice#a remaineth for ever;’ and uses against its opposers the texts, ‘Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set’ (vid. also Dionysius in Eus. H. £. vii. 7.), and ‘ He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.’ Prov. xxii. 28. Ex. xxi. 17. vid. also Athan. ad Efpict.1. And the Council of Chalcedon professes to drive away the doctrines of error by a common decree, and vexew the unswerving faith of the Fathers,’ Act. v. p. 452. [t. iv. 1453 ed. Col.] ‘ as,’ they proceed, ‘ from of old the prophets spoke of Christ, and He Himself instructed us, and the creed of the Fathers has delivered to us,’ whereas ‘other faith it is not lawful for any to bring forth, or to write, or to draw up, or to hold, or to teach.’ p- 456. [1460 ed. Col.] vid. S. Leo. supr. p.5. notem. This, how- ever, did not interfere with their adding without undoing. ‘For,’ says Vigilius, ‘if it were unlawful to receive aught further after the Nicene statutes, on what authority venture we to assert that the Holy Ghost is of one substance with the Father, which it is notorious was there omitted?’ contr. Eutych. v. init.; he gives other instances, some in point, others not. vid. also Eulogius, apud Phot. Cod. 23. pp. 829. 853. Yet to add to the confession of the Church is not to add to the faith, since nothing can be added to the faith. Leo, #f. 124. p. 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the Nicene faith is sufficient to refute every heresy, ad Max. s. fin. (also Leo. Ef. 54. p.956. and Naz. EZ. 102. init.) excepting, how- ever, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; which explains his meaning. The Henoticon of Zeno says the same, but with the intention of dealing a blow at the Council of Chalcedon. Evagr. iil. 14. p. 345. Aetius at Chalcedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon the Fathers did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and that Cyril and Leo did but interpret the Creed. Conc. t. 2. p. 428. [t. iv. 1430, 1431 ed. Col. See this whole subject very amply treated in Dr. Pusey's On the Clause, And the Son, pp. 76 sqq.] Leo even says that the Apostles’ Creed is sufficient against all heresies, and that Eutyches erred on a point ‘ of which our Lord wished no one of either sex in the Church to be ignorant,’ and he wishes Eutyches to take the plentitude of the Creed ‘ puro et simplici corde.’ ZZ, 31. p. 857, 8. 2a Supr. § 21. init.
unsound nature of their phrases had been exposed at that time, and they were hence- forth open to the charge of irreligion, that they proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term Unoriginate*, that, under shelter of it, they might reckon among the things originated and the creatures, that Word of God, by whom these very things came to be; so unblushing are they in their irreligion, so obstinate in their blasphemies against the Lord. If then this want of shame arises from ignorance of the term, they ought to have learned of those who gave it them, and who have not scrupled to say that even intellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul which proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be known, are notwithstanding unoriginated, for they understand that by so saying they do not disparage that first Origin of which the others come?. This being the case, let them say the like themselves, or else not speak at all of what they do not know. But if they consider they are acquainted with the subject, then they must be interrogated; for? the expression is not from divine Scripture4, but they are contentious, as elsewhere, for un- scriptural positions. Just as I have related the reason and sense, with which the Council and the Fathers before it defined and published ‘of the essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ agree- ably to what Scripture says of the Saviour; so now let them, if they can, answer on their part what has led them to this unscriptural phrase, and in what sense they call God Unoriginated? In truth, I am told#, that the name has I ayévyjtov. Opportunity will occur for noticing this celebrated word on Ovat. i. 30—34. where the present passage is partly re- written, partly transcribed. Mention is also made of it in the De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius would seem to have been but partially acquainted with the writings of the Anomceans, whose symbol it was, and to have argued with them from the writings of the elder Arians, who had also made use of it. [On Newman's unfortunate confusion of ayévqtov and ayévyyrov, see Lightfoot, as quoted in the note on H.xp. Fid. § 1. ewman’s reasons are stated in note 7 to Orat. i. 56.] f 2 Montfaucon quotes a passage from Plato’s Pheedrus, in which the human soul is called ‘unoriginate and immortal [246 a.];’ but Athan. is referring to another subject, the Platonic, or rather the Eclectic [i.e. Neo-Platonic] Trinity. Thus Theodoret, ‘Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining the sense of Plato, say, that he taught Three principles beyond time and eternal, Good, Intellect, and the Soul of all,’ de Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750. And so Plotinus himself, ‘It is as ifone were to place Good as the centre, Intellect like an im- moveable circle round, and Soul a moveable circle, and moveable by appetite.’ 4 Zumnead. iv. c. 16. vid. Porphyry in Cyril. contr. Julian. viii. t. ult. p. 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennead. v. 2 and 3. Athan.’s testimony that the Platonists considered their three troordces all unoriginate is perhaps a singular one. In 5 Ennead. iv. x. Plotinus says what seems contrary to it, n 6€ apxyn ayévyntos, speaking of his Tayadov. Yet Plato, quoted by Theodoret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of etre apyny etre apxds.
3 émet padcora, oe padcota, Ora. 1. § 36. de Syn. § 21. fin. érav pardvota, Apol. ad Const. 23. kat padvota, de Syn. § 42, 54.
42 And so de Syn. § 46. ‘we have on careful inquiry ascer- tained, &c.’ Again, ‘I have acquainted myself on their account [the Arians’] with the meaning of ayévytov.’ Orat. i. § 30. This is remarkable, for Athan. was a man of liberal education, as his Orat. contr. Gent. and de Incarn. shew, especially, his acquaint- ance with the Platonic philosophy. Sulpicius too speaks of him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. H7s¢. ii. 50. S. Gregory Naz. says, that he gave some attention, but not much, to the subjects of general education, Tov éyxukAtwy, that he might not be altogether ig- DET DECRETS Ob DET DECRETS Ob different senses; philosophers say that it means, first, ‘what has not yet, but may, come to be;’ next, ‘what neither exists, nor can come into being;’ and thirdly, ‘what exists indeed, but was neither originated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and in- destructibles.’ Now perhaps they will wish to pass over the first two senses, from the absurdity which follows; for according to the first, things that already have come to be, and things that are expected to come to be, are un- originated; and the second is more absurd still; accordingly they will proceed to the third sense, and use the word in it; though here, in this sense too, their irreligion will be quite as great. For if by unoriginated they mean what has no origin of being, nor is originated or created, but eternal, and say that the Word of God is contrary to this, who comprehends not the craft of these foes of God? who but would stone® such madmen? for, when they are ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases which they fabled, and which were condemned, the wretches have taken another way to signify them, by means of what they call unoriginate. For if the Son be of things originate, it follows, that He too came to be from nothing; and if He has an origin of being, then He was not before His generation; and if He is not eternal, there was once when He was not?.
norant, of what he nevertheless despised, Ovad, 21. 6. In the same way S. Basil, whose cultivation of mind none can doubt, speaks slightingly of his own philosophical knowledge. He writes of his ‘neglecting his own weakness, and being utterly unexercised in such disquisitions;’ contr. Eunom. init. And so in de SP. § 5. he says, that ‘they who have given time’ to vain philosophy, ‘divide causes into principal, cooperative? &c. Elsewhere he speaks of having ‘expended much time on vanity, and wasted nearly all his youth in the vain labour of pursuing the studies of that wisdom which God has made foolishness,’ Ep. 223.2, In truth, Christianity has a philosophy of its own. Thas in the com- mencement of his Vze Dux Anastasius says, ‘It is a first point to be understood, that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not proceed upon, or follow, the philosophical definitions in all re- spects, and especially as regards the mystery of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, but a certain rule of its own, evangelical and apostolical.’ p. 20.
5 Four senses of ayévyrov are enumerated, Ovat. i. § 30. x. What is not as yet, but is possible; 2. what neither has been nor can be; 3. what exists, but has not come to be from any cause; 4. what is not made, but is ever. Only two senses are specified in the de Sym. § 46. and in these the question really lies; 1. what is, but without a cause; 2. uncreate.
_ © Baddobwoav mapa mévrwv, Oras. ii. $28. An apparent allu- sion to the punishment of blasphemy and idolatry under the Jewish Law. vid. [ix. xix. 13. and] reference to Ex. xxi. 17, in§ 27, note. Thus, e.g. Nazianzen: ‘While 1 go up the mount with good heart, that I may become within the cloud, and may hold converse with God, for so God bids; if there be any Aaron, let him go up with me and stand near. And if there be any Nadab or Abihu, or of the elders, let him go up, but stand far off, according to the measure of his purification...But if any one is an evil and savage beast, and quite incapable of science and theology; let him stand off still further, and depart from the mount: or he will be stoned and crushed; for the wicked shall be miserably destroyed. For as stones for the bestial are true words and strong. Whether he be leopard, let him die spots and all,’ &c. &e. Ovat. 28, 2.
7 The Arians argued that the word wnoriginate implied originate or creature as its correlative, and therefore indirectly signified Creator; so that the Son being not unoriginate, was not the Creator. Athan. answers, that in the use of the word, whether there be a Son does not come into the question. ‘As the idea of Father and Son does not include creation, so that of creator and creature does not include generation; and it would be as 29. If these are their sentiments they ought to signify their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to hide their perverseness under the cloke of the Unoriginate. But in- stead of this, the evil-minded men do all things with craftiness like their father, the devil; for as he attempts to deceive in the guise of others, so these have broached the term Un- originate, that they might pretend to speak piously of God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against the Lord, and under a veil might teach it to others. However, on the detecting of this sophism, what remains to them? ‘We have found another,’ say the evildoers; and then proceed to add to what they have said already, that Unori- ginate means what has no author of being, but stands itself in this relation to things originated. Unthankful, and in truth deaf to the Scriptures! who do everything, and say everything, not to honour God, but to dishonour the Son, ignorant that he who dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father. For first, even though they denote God in this way, still the Word is not proved to be of things originated. For again, as being an offspring of the essence of the Father, He is of consequence with Him eternally. For this name of offspring does not detract from the nature of the Word, nor does Unoriginated take its sense from contrast with the Son, but with the things which come to be through the Son; and as he who addresses an architect, and calls him framer of house or city, does not under this designation allude to the son who is begotten from him, but on account of the art and science which he displays in his work, calls him artificer, signifying thereby that he is not such as the things made by him, and while he knows the nature of the builder, knows also that he whom he begets is other than his works; and in regard to his son calls him father, but in regard to his works, creator and maker; in like manner he who says in this sense that God is unoriginate, names Him from His works, signifying, not only that He is not originated, but that He is maker of things which are so; yet is aware withal that the Word is other than the things originate, and alone a proper offspring of the Father, through whom all things came to be and consist®.
30. In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of God as All-ruling, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were included in that All; (for they knew that the Son was illogical to infer that there are no creatures because there is a Scn as that there is no Son because there are creatures, 8 The whole of this passage is repeated in Ovat. i. 32. &c. vid. for this particular argument, Basil also, contr. Eunovt. i. 16.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
other than things originated, and Sovereign over them Himself, according to His likeness to the Father); but because He is Ruler over all things which through the Son He has made, and has given the authority of all things to the Son, and having given it, is Himself once more the Lord of all things through the Word. Again, when they called God, Lord of the powers9, they said not this as if the Word was one of those powers, but because, while He is Father of the Son, He is Lord of the powers which through the Son have come to be. For again, the Word too, as being in the Father, is Lord of them all, and Sovereign over all; for all things, whatso- ever the Father hath, are the Son’s. This then being the force of such titles, in like manner let a man call God unoriginated, if it so please him; not however as if the Word were of ori- ginated things, but because, as I said before, God not only is not originated, but through His proper Word is He the maker of things which are so. For though the Father be called such, still the Word is the Father’s Image, and one in essence with Him; and being His Image, He must be distinct from things originated, and from everything; for whose Image He is, His property and like- ness He hath: so that he who calls the Father unoriginated and almighty, perceives in the Unoriginated and the Almighty, His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But these wondrous men, and prompt for irre- ligion, hit upon the term Unoriginated, not as caring for God’s honour, but from malevolence towards the Saviour; for if they had regard to honour and reverent language, it rather had been right and good to acknowledge and to call God Father, than to give Him this name; for in calling God unoriginated, they are, as I said before, calling Him from things which came to be, and as a Maker only, that so they may imply the Word to be a work after their own pleasure; but he who calls God Father, in Him withal signifies His Son also, and cannot fail to know that, whereas there is a Son, through this Son all things that came to be were created.
31. ‘Therefore it will be much more accurate to denote God from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him and call Him Un- originated from His works only; for the latter term refers to the works that have come to be at the will of God through the Word, but the name of Father points out the proper offspring from His essence. And whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more also doth calling God Father surpass 9 i.e. of hosts.
9 i.e. of hosts.
the calling Him Unoriginated; for the latter is non-scriptural and suspicious, as it has various senses; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and alone implies the Son. And ‘Unoriginated’ is a word of the Greeks who know not the Son: but ‘ Father’ has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord; for He knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Met;’ and, ‘ He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father;’ and, ‘I and the Father are one?;’ but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginated. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, ‘When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginated,’ but rather, ‘When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven3.’ And it was His Will, that the Summary of our faith should have the same bearing. For He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit+, for with such an initiation we too are made sons verily5, and using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name 4 And so S. Basil, ‘Our faith was not in Framer and Work, but in Father and Son were we sealed through the grace in baptism.’ contr. Eunom. it, 22. And a somewhat similar passage occurs Orat. it. § 41.
5 viorovovme0a &ANOGs. This strong term ‘truly’ or ‘verily’ seems taken from such passages as speak of the ‘grace and truth’ of the Gospel, Johni. r2—17. Again S. Basil says, that we are sons, kupiws, ‘properly,’ and mpétws ‘ primarily,’ in opposition to Tpomikas, ‘figuratively,’ cozty. Eunom. ii. 23. S.Cyril too says, that weare sons ‘naturally’ Pua.x@s as well as kara xapuv, vid. Suicer Thesaur. v. vids. i. 3. Of these words, ddAyOads, puorK@s, Kupiws, and mpwtws, the first two are commonly reserved for our Lord; e.g. Tov dAnOas vidv, Orat. ii. § 37- jmets viol, odK ws ExEtvos HYTEL kal GAnOela, iii. § 19. Hilary seems to deny us the title of * proper’ sons; de Trin. xii. 15; but his ‘ proprium’ is a translation of tévov, not kupiws. And when Justin says of Christ 0 povos Acyoxevos Kupiws vios, Afol. ii. 6. kupiws seems to be used in reference to the word x¥pios, Lord, which he has just been using, kvptoAoyety bein sometimes used by him as others in the sense of * naming as Lord, like Ocodoyetv. vid. Tryfh. 56. There is a passage in Justin’s ad Grec. 21. where he (or the writer) when speaking of éy# eime 6 Sv, uses the word in the same ambiguous sense; ovdév yap bvoma emi Ocod Kuprodoyetaba Suvarov, 21; as if Kvptos, the Lord, by which ‘ I am’ is translated, were a sort of symbol of that proper name of God which cannot be given. But to return; the true doctrine then is, that, whereas there is a primary and secondary sense in which the word Son is used, primary when it has its formal meaning of continuation of nature, and secondary when it is used nominally, or for an external resemblance to the first meaning, it is applied to the regenerate, not in the secondary sense, but in the primary. S. Basil and S. Gregory Nyssen con- sider Son to be ‘a term of relationship according to mature’ (vid. supr. § 10, note r.), also Basil 7 Psadmz xxviil. 1. The actual pre- sence of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate in substance (vid. Cyril, Dial. 7. p. 638.) constitutes this relationship of nature; and hence after the words quoted from S. Cyril in the beginning of the note, in which he says, that we are sons, dvouxas, he proceeds, ‘natur- ally, because we ave in Hin, and in Him alone.’ vid. Athan.’s words which follow in the text at the end of § 31. And hence Nyssen lays down, as a received truth, that ‘to none does the term “proper,” Kkupitarov, apply, but to one in whom the name responds with truth to the nature,’ contr. Hunom. iii. p. 123. And he also implies, p. 117, the intimate association of our sonship with Christ’s, when he connects together regeneration with our Lord’s eternal generation, neither being 6cé maous, or, of the will of the flesh. If it be asked, what the distinctive words are which are incommunicably the Son’s, since so much is man’s, it is obvious to answer, idvos vios and povoyevys, which are in Scripture, and the symbols ‘ of the essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ of the Council; and this is the value of the Council’s phrases, that, while they guard the Son’s divinity, they allow full scope, without risk of en- trenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the Christian privileges. vid. supr. § 19, note.
DE DECRBTISH ETC.
the Word in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own Father our Father, we must not on that account measure our- selves with the Son according to nature, for it is because of the Son that the Father is so called by us; for since the Word bore our body and came to be in us, therefore by reason of the Word in us, is God called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us names through us His own Father as ours, which is the Apostle’s meaning when he says, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father®.’
32. But perhaps being refuted as touching the term Unoriginate also, they will say ac- cording to their evil nature, ‘It behoved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is there written of Him, and not to introduce non- scriptural expressions.’ Yes, it behoved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources?; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which over- threw their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shewn to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shewn to be corrupt in their phrases, and evil in their dispositions. The term Un- originate, having its own sense, and admitting of a religious use, they nevertheless, accord- ing to their own idea, and as they will, use for the dishonour of the Saviour, all for the sake 7 Cf. contr. Gent. init.
Incarn. 57. ad Ep. Eg. 4. Vit.
And fassiz in Athan.
,and unto endless ages of ages.
of contentiously maintaining, like giants®, their fight with God. But as they did not escape condemnation when they adduced these former phrases, so when they misconceive of the Unoriginated which in itself admits of being used well and _ religiously, they were detected, being disgraced before all, and their heresy everywhere proscribed. This then, as I could, have I related, by way of explaining what was formerly done in the Council; but I know that the contentious among Christ’s foes will not be disposed to change even after hearing this, but will ever search about for other pretences, and for others again after those. For as the Prophet speaks, ‘If the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots, then will they be willing to think religiously, who have been instructed in irreligion. Thou however, be- loved, on receiving this, read it by thyself; and if thou approvest of it, read it also to the brethren who happen to be present, that they too on hearing it, may welcome the Council’s zeal for the truth, and the exactness of its sense; and may condemn that of Christ’s foes, the Arians, and the futile pre- tences, which for the sake of their irreligious heresy they have been at the pains to frame among themselves; because to God and the Father is due the glory, honour, and worship with His co-existent Son and Word, together with the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, now Amen.
8 And so, Orat. ii. § 32, kata TOUS mubevomévous ylyavras. And so Nazianzen, Ovat. 43. 26. speaking of the disorderly Bishops during the Arian ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10. Sometimes the Scripture giants are spoken of, sometimes the mythological.
9 Jierexil. 23° eee NENT A DELON Y SIT: THE following tract, like the last, is a letter to a person engaged in discussion with Arians, who were openly finding fault with the Definition of Nicaea, and especially with the word Co-essential (§ 19). Montfaucon suggests that both epistles were addressed to the same person, the de Decretis (§ 25) having as it were challenged the Arians to cite passages from Dionysius on behalf of their own doctrine, whereupon their opponent came back to Athanasius with a request for further help’ But the language of the first sentence of our present tract seems to imply that Athanasius had not previously heard of the discussions in question. However, slender as such grounds are, the tract furnishes no more decisive indication of date. (On certain expressions which might seem to carry the date back to the lifetime of Arius, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 7.)
Dionysius ‘the Great,’ Bishop of Alexandria 233—265, was a pupil of Origen (Eus. 7 Z. vi. 29), and equally distinguished as a ruler of the Church and as a theologian. In all the controversies of his age (the lapsed, rebaptism, Easter, Paul of Samosata, Sabellianism, the authorship of the Apocalypse) his influence made itself felt, and his writings were very numerous (Westcott in D. C. B. i. p. 851 sq.; a good account of Dionysius in vol. I. of this series, p. 281, note). The most celebrated controversy in which he was involved was that which, a century later, gave rise to the tract before us.
About the period when personal attacks on the Nicene leaders began to be exchanged for overt objections to the Nicene Definitions, the claim was freely made that ‘the fathers’ had been condemned by the latter: in other words, that they had held with the Arians (see below §1, det pév mpopaces...viv d€ kai diaBdddew ros matépas reroApjKact). Accord- ingly we find Athanasius at about the same date, viz. early in the sole reign of Con- stantius, vindicating on the one hand the work of the Council, on the other the orthodox reputation of Dionysius. The Arians found material for their appeal to the latter in a letter addressed by him to certain bishops in Pentapolis, called Ammon and Euphranor. Whether or no Sabellius had been a native of that province, at any rate his doctrine was at that time so popular there ‘that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the Churches.’ Exercising the right of supervision over those districts which had already become vested by prescription in the Alexandrian See, Dionysius wrote to Ammon, Bishop of Berenice, (Euseb. #. £. vii. 26, who enumerates three several letters to Ammon, Telesphorus, and Eu- phranor, and a fourth to Ammon and Euporus: he also refers to his letters to Dionysius of Rome: Montfaucon is therefore scarcely fair in charging Eusebius with suppressing the episode ‘ne verbum quidem de hac historia fecerit!’) insisting on the distinctness of the Son from the Father. In doing so he used strong expressions akin to the language of Origen on the subordination of the Son. These expressions were at once objected to by certain orthodox churchmen (§ 13, it is not clear whether they belonged to Pentapolis or Alexandria), who without consulting Dionysius went to Rome (about 260), and spoke against him in the presence of his namesake, the Roman Bishop. ‘The latter, true to the traditions of his See since the time of Callistus (see Hipp. Pz/os IX. vii. didco gore), while steering clear of Sabellianism, was especially jeaious of error in the opposite direction. Accordingly he assembled a synod (de Syned. 44), and drew up a letter to Alexandria, in which he rebuked firstly the Sabellians, but secondly and more fully those who separate the Godhead or speak of the Son as a work, including under this category certain w#named catechists and teachers of Alexandria (De Decr. 26). At the same time he wrote personally to Dionysius, informing him that he was accused