This is in fact the objection which Arius urges against the Coessential, supr. §16, when he calls it the doctrine of Manichæus and Hieracas, vid. §16, note 11. The same objection is protested against by S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. in his account of the reason of the Council’s rejection of the word, S. Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a Sabellian sense, and therefore the Council rejected it. ‘Male homoüsion Samosatenus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt.’ de Syn. 86.
{"context":{"$text_sha256":"90fe9bc4f512ce20908941277ba4ea2b8d4820a4c9e13f25bde34befbe9095dd"},"context_xpath":"/ThML/ThML.body/div1[22]/div2[2]/div3[3]/p[15]","kind":"whole-historical-note","source_family":"athanasius-bounded-remainder","title":"On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. (De Synodis.)","work":"xxii.ii","xpath":"/ThML/ThML.body/div1[22]/div2[2]/div3[3]/p[15]/note[1]"}