13 On the Making of Man, c. xiv.
14 Or. Cat. c. xxvi.
15 Or. Cat. c. iii.
16 In Sermon On the Baptism of Christ.
17 A. 1560 fol.; also Antwerp, p. 1562 (Latine).
18 His comparison of the hidden meaning of the proverb or parable (III. c. Eunom. p. 236) to the `turned up` side of the peacock's feather is beautiful in itself for language (e.g. `the varied painting of nature0', `the half-circle shining in the midst with its dye of purple,0' `the golden mist round the circle0'): but it rather fails as a simile, when applied to the other or the literal side, which cannot in the case of parables be said to `lack beauty and tint0'.
19 Cf Dallaeus, de panis et satisfactionibus, I. IV. c. 7, p. 368.
20 Cf. De An. et Resurr., 227 C.D.
21 Collected by Ceillier in his Introduction (Paris, 1860).
23 c. Cels. VI. 64.
24 In Joann., tom. 32, 18.
25 Comment. in Rom. ii. 9, P. 486.
26 De Hom. Op. c. viii.; De An. et Resurr. 205.
27 De Hom. Op. c. viii.
28 He does so De Principus I. praef. 5. C. Cels. II. 77, VIII. 49 sq.
29 De Anim. et Ressurectione, p. 198, 199, 213 sq.
30 Oratio Cat. 55 A.
31 Orig. II. 314 sq.
32 This is an independent division to that mentioned above.
33 De la Philosophie D'Origene (Paris, 1884).
34 De eo quod immut., p. 30.
35 See De iis premature abripiuntur, p. 231, quoted above, p. 4.
36 See Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. I. vol. ii. p. 314 (English Trans.).
37 It is to be noted further that the use of the terms ""Persona"" and proswpon by those who avoided the phrase treij upostaseij no doubt assisted in the formation of this suspicion. At the same time the Nicene anathema favoured the sense of upostasij as equivalent to ousia, and so appeared to condemn the Eastern use.
38 S. Athanasius, Tom. ad Antioch, 5.
39 Ad Afr. Episc. §4. S. Athanasius, however, does not shrink from the phrase treij upostaseij in contradistinction to the mia ousia: see the treatise, In illud, `Omnia mihi tradita sunt.0'§6.
40 S. Bas. Ep. 125 (being the confession of faith drawn up by S. Basil for the subscription of Eustathius)
41 It appears on the whole more probable that the treatise is the work of S. Gregory; but it is found, n a slightly different shape, among the Letters of S. Basil. (Ep. 189 in the Benedictine Edition.)
42 In what sense this language was charged with "novelty" is not very clear. But the point of the objection appears to lie in a refusal to recognize that terms expressive of the Divine Nature, whether they indicate attributes or operations of that Nature, may be predicated of each upostasij severally, as well as of the ousia, without attaching to the terms themselves that idea of plurality which, so far as they express attributes or operations of the ousia, must be excluded from them.
43 S. Bas. Ep. 214, §4.
44 The differentia here assigned to the Third Person is not, in S. Basil's own view, a differentia at all: for he would no doubt have been ready to acknowledge that this attribute is common to all Three Persons. S. Gregory, as it will be seen, treats the question as to the differentiation of the Persons somewhat differently, and rests his answer on a basis theologically more scientific.
45 S. Bas. Ep. 38 (Benedictine Ed.).
46 De Spir. Sancto, §18.
47 On S. Basil's language on this subject, see Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. 1. vol. ii. pp. 309-11. (Eng. Trans.)
48 This statement strikes at the root of the theory held by Eunomius, as well as by the earlier Arians, that the agennhsia of the Father constituted His Essence. S. Gregory treats His agennhsia as that by which He is distinguished from the other Persons, as an attribute marking His hypostasis. This subject is treated more fully, with special reference to the Eunomian view, in the Ref. alt. libri Eunomii.
49 S. Gregory would apparently extend this argument even to the operations expressed by the names of "Redeemer," or "Comforter;" though he would admit that in regard of the mode by which these operations are applied to man, the names expressive of them are used in a special sense of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, yet he would argue that in neither case does the one Person act without the other two.
50 See Dorner, ut sup., pp. 317-18.
51 Especially in the treatise, De Anima et Resurrectione, and in that De Conditione Homisis. A notable instance is to be found in the former (p. 242 A.).
52 See Dorner, ut sup., p. 315, and p. 319, note 2.