he never would have done, if he had thought that such variations made any difference in the sense: but believing that the Father and the Son were one, he thought that a Revelation given by God was given by Jesus Christ, and that the testimony of Jesus Christ was the testimony of God. 299. Dionysii de Promissionibus c. 6. p. 81. In this part of the work Dionysius points out the close resemblance which exists between the Gospel of St. John and his First Epistle, both as to the doctrine and expressions: and among other doctrines common to both, he mentions the ubiquity of the Father and the Son." The Father and the Son are "every where 9." From these words it seems impossible to understand the ubiquity of the Son in any figurative or restricted sense, unless we conceive the same of the ubiquity of the Father. But since we believe that the Father is really present every where, we must conceive, that Dionysius meant to assert the same concerning the Son. 66 The ubiquity of the Son is also asserted by Novatian in the following terms: " If Christ be merely a man, how is he present every where when invoked? "For this is not the nature of man, but of God, to "have the power of being present every where '." 300. Dionysii ex Elencho et Apologia p. 87. The following quotations are taken from the work mentioned above, which Dionysius wrote to his namesake the bishop of Rome. χου. In the first book he expressed himself thus: "For 4 Ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς παντα- ubique invocatus, cum hæc ho C. 14. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest minis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut adesse omni loco possit? p. 707. "there never was a time when God was not a Fa"thers;" which is the same as saying, that there never was a time when the Son did not exist; which is an assertion that denies in express terms the leading tenet of the Arians. Other of the Fathers have expressed the same doctrine in nearly the same words. Origen, as we have already seen, (p. 345.) says, "There never was a time when the Son was "not a Son;" and Novatian, "The Son was always "in the Father, lest the Father should not always "be a Father t." Father and son are relative terms; and the existence of the one necessarily implies the existence of the other. Thus a man may have lived many years, and filled various relations of life, before he became a father; but at the same instant of time in which he was entitled to be called a father, his son also had existence: and if we were to say of any man, that he has been a father for twenty years, it follows that at the commencement of that period his son was in existence. But if we say that God has been a Father from all eternity, we must necessarily mean, that from all eternity He has had a Son. The mind might perhaps conceive that God had existed from all eternity, and that His Son had had a beginning: but then we could not have said, as Dionysius does, that God had been a Father from all eternity. The same sentiment is expressed in the two next passages, which follow close upon the former. · Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἦν Tarp. vid. Athanas. vol. I. p. 253. isse dicendus est. Nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est. Semper enim in Patre, ne Pater non semper sit Pater. p. 729. 301. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 87. "For it is not, that God was without a Son, and "then begat one, but the term Son means that he "has his existence not of himself, but of the Fa"ther "." 66 302. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 87. Being the effulgence of eternal light, it follows "that he is himself also eternal: for if light always "exists, it is plain that the effulgence always exists. "For the existence of light is conceived by its shin 66 ing; and light cannot exist without giving light : "for let us again come to examples. If there is a "sun, there is light, there is day; if there be nei"ther of the latter, the sun cannot be present. If "therefore the sun was eternal, the day also would "be without end: but since it is not so, it begins "when the sun begins, and ends when the sun ends. "But God is eternal light, neither ever beginning "nor ending. Therefore the effulgence proceeds "from and is with Him eternally, without beginning and eternally generated *." 66 This is the favourite illustration which the Fathers used for explaining the union of the Father and the Sony and though it is better not to pry too deeply into such subjects, it is perhaps the closest and « Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τούτων ἄγονος ὢν ὁ Θεὸς εἶτα ἐπαιδοποιήσατο· ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι μὴ παρ' ἑαυτοῦ ὁ υἱὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς Пaτpòs éxei tò eiva. vid. Athanas. ib. X ̓Απαύγασμα δὲ ὢν φωτὸς ἀϊδίου πάντως καὶ αὐτὸς ἀΐδιός ἐστιν· ὄντος γὰρ ἀεὶ τοῦ φωτὸς, δῆλον ὡς ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα. dé ye Θεὸς αἰώνιόν ἐστι φῶς, οὔτε ἀρξάμενον, οὔτε λῆξόν ποτε· οὐκοῦν αἰώνιον πρόκειται καὶ σύνεστιν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀπ αύγασμα άναρχον καὶ ἀειγενές. Athanas. ib. y Thus Tertullian, (Apol. c. 21.) cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius, nec separatur substantia, sed extenditur. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, ut lumen de lumine accensum. See Hippolytus, p. 270. and Origen, p. 344. plainest illustration which can be found. It is in fact the same which is used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Son is called απαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, the brightness or effulgence of his Father's glory : and if it be true, as it surely is, that the mind cannot conceive the idea of fire without the light which emanates from it, then we have found among sensible and visible objects two things which are coeval, though one proceeds from the other. We can never tell why in the nature of things fire produces light: but we know, that it cannot exist without producing it; for the fire does not exist first by itself, and then the light emanates from it: but both exist simultaneously, though the one is the cause of the other 2. So also though we cannot tell in what manner the Son was generated of the Father, we cannot say, that the mind refuses the idea of their coeternal existence: and when we read the passage quoted above, we must surely allow, that Dionysius held in the fullest and highest sense of the terms the eternal generation of the Son, and his eternal coexistence with the Father. 303. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 88, 89. "The Father therefore being eternal, the Son is "eternal, being light of light: for where there is a parent, there is also a child: and if there be no “child, in what way and of what can he be a pa"rent? But both exist, and exist eternally.—God "therefore being light, Christ is the effulgence from "it" We may observe, that the same word is used here to express the eternity of the Father and the Son; and in the same sentence we cannot take the same term in two different senses. Whatever Dionysius conceived of the eternity of the Father, he must also have conceived of the eternity of the Son. 304. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 89. "The Son alone always existing with the Father, " and filled with him that is essentially b, himself also " is essentially, being of the Father." 305. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 90. Having appealed to the line of argument which he adopted in his book against Sabellius, he says, "In which I have proved that the accusation, which they bring against me is false, of saying that Christ "was not of one substance with Godd" 66 This testimony of Dionysius is particularly valuable, because it contains the word poovaios, of one substance, which caused such vehement disputes at and after the council of Nice. It is also to be found in another work of Dionysius, in the letter which he wrote against Paul of Samosata, where he says of Christ, that " He was by nature Lord and the Word "of the Father, by whom the Father made all things, " and said by the holy Fathers to be of one substance "with the Father":" from which words we may col a Ὄντος οὖν αἰωνίου τοῦ Πατρὸς, αἰώνιος ὁ υἱός ἐστι, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς ὤν· ὄντος γὰρ γονέως, ἔστι καὶ τέκνον· εἰ δὲ μὴ τέκνον εἴη, πῶς καὶ τίνος εἶναι δύναται γονεύς ; ἀλλ ̓ εἰσὶν ἄμφω, καί εἰσιν ἀεί- φωτὸς μὲν οὖν ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἀπαύ γασμα. Athanas. p. 254. See note p. 80. d προ Πατρὶ, καὶ τοῦ ὄντος πληρούμενος, - Τὸν φύσει Κύριον, καὶ Λόγον τοῦ • Μόνος δὲ ὁ υἱὸς ἀεὶ συνὼν τῷ Πατρὸς, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν ὁ |