1 kuliomenoi, Orat. iii. 16.
2 Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i. 53 and infr. 19-72.
3 Heb. iii. 2.
4 Vid. infr. note on 35.
5 Cf. Rom. xi. 32.
6 twn nun 'Ioudaiwn, means literally `the Jews of this day,' as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being Used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.
7 erwtwntej emanqanon; and so maqwn edidasken, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p. 13, note a.
8 John i. 14.
9 Acts ii. 36.
10 Prov. viii. 22.
11 Heb. i. 4.
12 Phil. ii. 7.
13 Heb. iii. 1, Heb. iii. 2; Sent. D. 11.
14 By laubanontej par' autwn to lhmma, `accepting the proposition they offers,' he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32-34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18-43. 73. 77. iii 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, toutw [tw skopw,the general drift of Scripture doctrine] wsper kanoni xrhsamenoi prosexwmen th anagnwsei thj qeopneustou grafhj, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a `good,' `pious,' `orthodox' sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58.
15 §22, note.
16 i.e. in any true sense of the word `image;' or, so that He may be accounted the aparallaktoj eikwn of the Father, vid. de Syn 23, note 1. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists. that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1.
17 For karpogonoj h ousia, de Decr. 15. n. 9. gennhtikoj, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. agonoj. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. h fusikh gonimothj, Damasc. F. O. i. 8 p. 133. akarpoj, Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Haer. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the gennhsij and the ktisij contrasted together Orat i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Oral. iv. 4 fin. ei agonoj kai anenerghtoj.
18 Oral. iii. 59, &c.
19 Orat. iii. 63. c.
20 enousioj, infr. 28.
21 §1. note 13.
22 1 Kings i. 19.
23 ver. 1 Kings i. 26.
24 Ps. cxvi. 16.
25 pollakij apolwlenai oikaioi, vid. infr. §28.
26 Prov. xx. 23
27 Apol. c. Ar. 36.
28 Is. xxxviii. 19, LXX.
29 2 Kings xx. 18; Is. xxxix. 7.
30 Gen. iv. 1, and infr. 44. note on Qanâ.
31 Gen. xlviii. 5, LXX.
32 Job i. 2, LXX.
33 Cf. Deut. xxi. 15; vid. Lev. xxv. 21, LXX.
34 Serap. ii. 6. b.
35 That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus interpreting the word `made,' doctrinal truth obliges us to do so. He considers the Regula Fidel the principle of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid. supr. §1, note 13.
36 leceidia, Orat. iii. 59. a Sent. D. 4. c.
37 Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. §22, note.
38 Ps. civ. 24; John i. 3.
39 Eccles. xii. 14.
40 Combines Greek of Deut. xxxii. 4 and Ex. xxxiv. 6; cf. Rev. iii. 14.
41 1 Cor. x. 13.
42 Ps. cxlv. 14. LXX.
43 I Tim. v. 16.
44 Tit. iii. 8, &c.
45 atreptoj kai uh alloioumenoj; vid. supr. de Decr. 14. it was the tendency of Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such change actually was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first maintained in the abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature treptoj, He was in fact alloioumenoj. This was implied in the doctrine that His superhuman nature supplied the place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the semi-Arian Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who said, tou logon trophn upomemenh-kota, vid. De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue !Atreptoj.
46 Exod. xxix. 5.
47 anergastou ghj is an allusion to Adam's formation from the ground; and so Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 21. fin. and many later fathers.
48 This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as teritiqemenoj thn esqhta, ekalupteto, endusamenoj swma, were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Haer. v. 11. p. 422. to the word prokalumma, as applied to our Lord's manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. parapetasma is used to denote an Apolliharlan idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has parapepetasmenhn and kalumma, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros. katapetasma, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. x. 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. parapetasma, Eran. i. p. 22. and prokalumma, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and otolh, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen. Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serum. 22. p. 70. Serum. 25. p. 84.
49 h logoj esti. cf. i. 43. Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f.
50 The Arians considered that our Lord's Priesthood preceded His Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in this text did but confirm them in their interpretation of the words made, &c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Haer. 69, 37. Eusebius too had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei: qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei. advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. b. vid. also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. p. 193. v. 3. p. 223. contr. Marc. pp. 8 and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls the Word, plenum justitiae sacerdotalis, de fug. saec. 3. 14. S. Clement Alex. before them speaks once or twice of the logoj arxiereuj, e.g. Strom. ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Somniis p. 597. vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nestorius on the other hand maintained that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest, relying on the text which has given rise to this note; Cyril, adv. Nest. p. 64. and Augustine and Fulgentius may he taken to countenance him, de Consens. and Evang. i. 6. ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the parallel use of prwtotokoj, infr. 62-64. `As He is called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity,' says S. Cyril Alex. `so also Priest.' Glaph. ii. p. 58. and so Epiph. loc. cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between a divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be said to sustain between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly one for the sake of sinners. vid. also Huet Origenian. ii. 3. §4, 5. For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn. xii. 3. 4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]
51 [One of the few passages in which Ath. glances at the Arian Christology. A long note is omitted here on the subject of Or. i. 8, note 3.]
52 Heb. ii. 14-18; Heb. iii. 2.
53 Or, answer, vid. infr. iii. 27.
54 1 Pet. iv. 19.
55 Vid. Jer. ix. 3. and Jer. xv. 18; Deut. xxxii. 20, LXX.; ib. Deut. xxxii. 39; Mal. iii. 6.
56 1 Thess. v. 24.
57 2 Tim. ii. 13.
58 Heb. xiii. 8.
59 Heb. iii. 5, Heb. iii. 6.
60 Here is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doctrine, but such anticipations of various heresies are too frequent, as we proceed, to require or bear notice.
61 qeoj en sarki, vid. logoj en j iii. 54. a. q en swmati, ii. 12. c. 15. a. l. en swm. Sent. D. 8 fin.
62 kat' eudokian Orat. iii. 64. init.
63 Brucker de Zenon. §7. n. 14.
64 §1, note 13.
66 meta parathrhsewj. vid. infr. 44. e. 59. b. 71. e. Orat. iii. 52. b.
67 Acts ii. 22.
68 John v. 16, John v. 18.
69 John x. 38. not to the letter.
70 Gen. xix. 24.
71 Ps. cx. 1.
72 Ps. xlv. 6.
73 Ps. cxlv. 13.
74 §62, cf. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 1.
75 Ps. lxxi. 3. stony rock, E. V. Ps. ix. 9. dejence.
76 Gal. iv. 8.
77 James i. 21.
78 Rom. viii. 26.
79 Is. xxvi. 13. LXX.
80 ouk edoulon ton logon: though, as he said said supr. §10, the Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He says the same thing Ep. Aeg 17. So say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad Simpl. (t. 2. p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar. de Trin. xi. Ambros. 1. Epp. 46, 3.
81 Ps. cx. 1.