Arianism was in the dilemma of denying Christ’s divinity, or introducing a second God. The Arians proper went off on the former side of the alternative, the Semi-Arians on the latter; and Athan., as here addressing the Semi Arians, insists on the greatness of the latter error. This of course was the objection which attached to the words ὁμοιούσιον, ἀπαράλλακτος εἴκων, &c., when disjoined from the ὁμοούσιον; and Eusebius’s language, supr. p. 75, note 7, shews us that it is not an imaginary one.
{"context":{"$text_sha256":"76440a9f5e072f175dee7fc7438dd67473c65342fcc7954377bbce0d92b77917"},"context_xpath":"/ThML/ThML.body/div1[22]/div2[2]/div3[3]/p[20]","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[20]/note"}