[ Antidosis ton idiomaton ]

 SINCE God and man are one Person, we are saved from the confusion which would otherwise follow from the union of two contrary natures. We may say intelligibly that God is man and man is God, because the attributes of those two contrary natures of Christ do not rest and abide in, and thereby destroy, each other, but belong to the one Person, and become one because they are His; and when we say that God becomes man, we mean that the Divine Person becomes man; and when we say that a man is the object of our worship, we mean that He is worshipped who is Himself also truly a man.

 The word "Person," as the received term for expressing this union of natures, is later than Athan., who uses instead "He" and "His," the personal pronouns; but no writer can bring out the theological idea more forcibly than he.

 [ ouk allou, alla tou kuriou ;] and so [ ouk heterou tinos ], Incarn. 18; also Orat. i. § 45, and iv. 35. Cyril. Thes. p. 197, and Anathem. 11, who defends this phrase against the Orientals.

 [ idion ] is another word by which Athan. signifies the later word "Person." "For when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His; and when He did divinely His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them," etc. ... [ meta ton idion pathon ], etc. Orat. iii. § 31, 32, 3.

 For [ idion ], which occurs so frequently in Athan., vid. also Cyril. Anathem. 11. [ idiopoioumenon ], Orat. iii. § 33 and 38. ad Epict. 6. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275, ed. Ben.) Cyril. in Joann. p. 151. And [ oikeiotai ], contr. Apoll. ii. 16, Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. t. v. p. 782, Concil. Eph. t. 1, pp. 1644, 1697, (Hard.) Damasc. F. O. iii. 3, p. 208, (ed. Ven.) Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15.

 For [ koinon ], opposed to [ idion ], vid. Orat. iii. § 32, 51. Cyril. Epp. p. 23; "communem," Ambros. de Fid. i. 94.

 Vid. Orat. iv. 6. This interchange is called theologically the [ antidosis ] or communicatio [idiomaton]. "Because of the perfect union of the flesh which was assumed, and of the Godhead which assumed it, the names are interchanged, so that the human is called from the divine and the divine from the human. Wherefore He who was crucified is called by Paul, Lord of glory, and He who is worshipped by all creation of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, is named Jesus," etc. Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2, pp. 697, 8.

 "And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body. The Word bore the infirmities of the flesh as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's." Orat. iii. § 31.

 "The birth of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature, the bearing of the Virgin a token of divine power. The infancy of a little one is shown in the lowliness of the cradle, the greatness of the Highest is proclaimed by the voices of Angels. He has the rudiments of men whom Herod impiously plots to kill, He is the Lord of all whom the Magi delight suppliantly to adore, etc., etc. To hunger, thirst, weary, and sleep are evidently human; but to satisfy five thousand on five loaves, and to give the Samaritan living water," etc., etc. ... Leon. Ep. 28, 4. Serm. 51. Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. t. 1, p. 767. Cassian. Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8. Plain and easy as such statements seem in this and some parallel notes, they are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.

 "If any happen to be scandalised by the swathing bands, and His lying in a manger, and the gradual increase according to the flesh, and the sleeping in a vessel, and the wearying in journeying, and the hungering in due time, and whatever else happen to one who has become really man, let them know that, making a mock of the sufferings, they are denying the nature; and denying the nature, they do not believe in the economy; and not believing in the economy, they forfeit the salvation." Procl. ad Armen. p. 2, p. 615, ed. 1630. The [ Aparallakton ]

 Unvarying or exact, i.e. Image. This was a word used by the Fathers in the Nicene Council to express the relation of the Son to the Father, and if they eventually went farther, and adopted the formula of the Homoüsion, this was only when they found that the Arians explained its force away. "When the Bishops said that the Word ... was the Image of the Father, like to Him in all things and [ aparallakton ], etc. ... the party of Eusebius were caught whispering to each other that 'like' etc. were common to us and to the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these ... So the Bishops were compelled to concentrate the sense of the Scriptures, and to say that the Son is 'consubstantial,' or 'one in substance,' that is, the same in likeness with the Father." Decr. § 20.

 The Eusebian party allowed that our Lord was like, and the image of, the Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original, differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed the strong word [ aparallaktos ], exact image, which, as I have said, had been used by the Catholics, (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 740,) as by the Semi-Arians afterwards, who even added the words [ kat' ousian ], or "according to substance." Even this strong phrase, however, [ kat' ousian aparallaktos eikon ], or  [aparallaktos homoios ], or [ aparallaktos tautotes ], did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices, Syn. § 53, that "like" applies to qualities rather than to substance. Also Basil. Ep. 8, n. 3. "In itself it is frequently used of faint similitudes, and falling very far short of the original." Ep. 9, n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word [ homoousion ] as implying, as Athan. Decr. § 20 expresses it, " the same in likeness," [ tauton tei homoiosei ], that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. Cyril. in Joan. 1. iii. p. 302.

 Athan. says that in consistency those who professed the [ aparallakton ] should go further one way or the other. Syn. § 38. When they spoke of "like," Athan. says, they could not consistently mean anything short of "likeness of substance," for this is the only true likeness; and while they used the words [ aparallaktos eikon ], unvarying image, to exclude all essential likeness, they were imagining instead an image varying utterly from its original. While then he allows it, he is far from satisfied with the phrase [ homoios kat' ousian ] or [ homoiousios ]; he rejects it on the very ground that when we speak of "like," we imply qualities, not substance. Every image varies from the original, because it is an image. Yet he himself frequently uses it, as do other Fathers; vid. Orat. i. § 26, [ homoios tes ousias ]. And all human terms are imperfect; and "image" itself is used in Scripture.

 [ Aparallaktos eikon kat' ousian ] was practically the symbol of Semi-Arianism, not because it did not admit of a religious explanation, but because it did admit of a wrong one. It marked the limit of Semi-Arian approximation to the absolute truth. It was in order to secure the true sense of [ aparallakton ] that the Council adopted the word [ homoousian ]. [ Aparallakton ] is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. supr. § 20, 24. Orat. iii. § 36. contr. Gent. 41, 46 fin. Provided with a safe evasion of its force, the Arians had no difficulty in saying it after him. Philostorgius ascribes it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing it. (vid. Epiph. Hær. 72, 6.) Acacius at the same time forcibly expresses what is meant by the word, [ to ektupon kai tranes ekmageion tou theou ousias ]. In this he speaks as S. Alexander, [ ten kata panta homoioteta autou ek physeos apomaxamenos ], Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 740. [ Charakter ], Hebr. i. 3, contains the same idea. "An image not inanimate, not framed by the hand, nor work of art and imagination, ([ epinoias ],) but a living image, yea, the very life ([ autoousa ]); ever preserving the unvarying ([ to aparallakton ]), not in likeness of fashion, but in its very substance." Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. The Auctor de Trinitate says, speaking of the word in the Creed of the Dedication, "Will in nothing varying from will ([ aparallaktos ]) is the same will; and power nothing varying from power is the same power; and glory nothing varying from glory is the same glory." The Macedonian replies, "Unvarying I say, the same I say not." Dial. iii. p. 993 (Theod. t. v.); Athan. de Decr. 1. c. seems to say the same. That is, in the Catholic sense, the image was not [ aparallaktos ], if there was any difference, if He was not one with Him of whom He was the image. vid. Hil. de Syn. 91. ad Const. ii. 5. And the heretical party saw that it was impossible to deny the [ homoousion ] and [ perichoresis ], and yet maintain the [ aparallakton ], without holding two Gods. Hence the ultimate resolution of the Semi-Arians, partly into orthodox, partly into AnomSans.

 "What sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor writing, but alter and change everything according to the season? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you do not decline the faith published at the Dedication, and in it is written that the Son is 'Exact Image of God's substance,' why is it ye write in Isauria, We reject 'the Like in substance?' for if the Son is not like the Father in respect of substance, how is He 'exact image of the substance?' But if you are dissatisfied at having written 'Exact Image of the substance,' how is it that ye anathematise those who say that the Son is unlike? for if He be not according to substance like, He is altogether unlike: and the Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does not hold that he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, there being then the greatest difference possible between Them, or rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other. And Unlike cannot possibly be called Like. By what artifice then do ye call unlike like, and consider Like to be unlike, and so pretend to say that the Son is the Father's Image? for if the Son be not like the Father in substance, something is wanting to the Image." Syn. § 38.