^{page 335 note 1} I have attempted to make a full examination of the interpretation of Johannine texts in the Trinitarian controversies in a thesis, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Arian Controversy, presented to the University of St Andrews in 1956 for the degree of Ph.D.; in it I have sought to demonstrate that it was the Fourth Gospel that raised in their most acute form the problems which forced the Church to work out its doctrine of the Trinity, and that, at the same time, it was the Fourth Gospel that provided the Church with the data, in their clearest form, from which to construct that doctrine.

^{page 335 note 2} It is impossible to say definitely whether Hippolytus is dependent on Tertullian or vice versa or whether they are independent of each other. Dr E. Evans (Tertullian's Treatise against Praxeas, pp. 23f.) argues that Hippolytus is dependent on Tertullian, but, against this, it seems unlikely that the rather nave writings of Hippolytus could be dependent on the well-reasoned and strongly developed arguments of Tertullian. On the possibility that the two writers independently set forth a point of view already traditional in the Church, cf. B. B. Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine, pp. 16 ff.

^{page 335 note 3} C. Noet. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 4} Ibid. 7.

^{page 335 note 5} Idem.

^{page 335 note 6} Idem.

^{page 336 note 1} Adv. Prax. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 2} Dr Evans (op. cit. p. 302) remarks that the phraseology here does not necessarily imply more than a moral unity.

^{page 336 note 3} Adv. Prax. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 4} De Trin. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} Ibid. 27.

^{page 337 note 2} Ibid. 31.

^{page 337 note 3} Ibid. 27.

^{page 337 note 4} The discovery of Origen's Dialogue with Heraclides demands that this statement be modified; it is true, however, that in his hitherto known works he makes only passing reference to Monarchianism.

^{page 337 note 5} In Joh. ii. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 6} Ibid. xiii. 36.

^{page 337 note 7} Ibid. xix. 2.

^{page 338 note 1} I have not had access to the Greek text of the Dialogue which was published by J. Scherer in 1949, and have had to rely on the Rev. Henry Chadwick's translation in Alexandrian Christianity (in Library of Christian Classics, vol. III). References to the Dialogue are given according to the pagination of Scherer's text as given in the margin of Chadwick's translation.

^{page 338 note 2} Dial. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Idem.

^{page 338 note 4} Ibid. 126.

^{page 338 note 5} Idem.

^{page 338 note 6} Cf. Crouzel, H., Thologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origne, p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} Alexandrian Christianity (LCC, vol. III), p. 433.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} See above.

^{page 339 note 3} Apud Athanasius, de Decretis, 26.

^{page 339 note 4} Apud Athanasius, de Sent. Dion. 17.

^{page 339 note 5} Quoted by Marie Comeau, Saint Augustin, exgte du quatrime vangile, p. 288 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 1} Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Thessalonica. All the extant documents from the early stages of the controversy have been conveniently collected by H. G. Opitz, Athanasius' Werke, Bd. III, Teil 2: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites. This letter is Urk. 14.

^{page 340 note 2} Urk. 14 (p. 25, ll. 22 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 3} Ibid. (24, 3 ff.).

^{page 341 note 1} Apud Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. iii. 10 (PG, xxvi. 341).Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 2} de Synodis, 48 (PG, xxvi. 777 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 3} Or. c. Ar. iii. 10 (PG, xxvi. 341 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 4} Ibid. iii. 11 (PG, xxvi. 345).

^{page 341 note 5} Ibid. iii. 12 (PG, xxvi. 345 f.).

^{page 341 note 6} Ibid. iii. 14 (PG, xxvi. 352).

^{page 342 note 1} Or. c. Ar. 18 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Ibid. iii. 16 (PG, xxvi. 356 ff.).

^{page 342 note 3} Ibid. iii. 17 (PG, xxvi. 357 f.).

^{page 342 note 4} Idem. (PG, xxvi. 360).

^{page 342 note 5} Ibid. iii. 20 (PG, xxvi. 364 f.).

^{page 343 note 1} Athanasius reads ἓ ὦ with , , , vg, sin, pesh, boh; the is omitted by B, C, D, it; cf. C. K Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, in loc. p. 427.

^{page 343 note 2} Or. c. Ar. iii. 21 (PG, xxvi. 365 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 3} Idem (PG, xxvi. 368).

^{page 343 note 4} Ibid. iii. 22 (PG, xxvi. 369).

^{page 343 note 5} Ibid. iii. 25 (PG, xxvi. 372).

^{page 343 note 6} Ibid. iii. 24 (PG, xxvi. 373); cf. iii. 23 (PG, xxvi. 372): The Son himself is simply and unconditionally in the Father, for he has this by nature () we do not have it by nature.

^{page 344 note 1} See Loofs, F., Die Trinittslehre von Marcells von Ancyre and ihr Verhaltniss zur lteren Tradition, in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1902), pp. 76481; W. Gericke, Marcell von Ancyra: der Logos-Christologe und Biblizist (Halle, 1940).Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} The Fragments of Asterius' writings have been collected by G. Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son cole; they may also be found in Bardy's article, Asterius le Sophiste, Revue d'Histoire Ecclsiastique, XXII (1926), 22172. Marcellus' fragments are collected by E. Klostermann at the end of his edition of Eusebius' Contra Marcellum and de Ecclesiastica Theologia (GCS, Eusebius Werke, vol. IV).Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 1} Marcellus, Fr. 63, 74. All references are given according to Klostermann's numeration.

^{page 345 note 2} Fr. 82, 83.

^{page 345 note 3} Fr. 66, 69.

^{page 345 note 4} Fr. 81.

^{page 345 note 5} Fr. 63.

^{page 345 note 6} Fr. 73.

^{page 345 note 7} Asterius, apud Marcellus, Fr. 72.

^{page 345 note 8} Fr, 41, 42, 43, 48.

^{page 345 note 9} Fr. 73.

^{page 346 note 1} Fr. 73.

^{page 346 note 2} Fr. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 3} Idem.

^{page 346 note 4} Cf. Berkhof, H., Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939).Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 5} de Ecc. Theol. iii. 18 (GCS, IV, 179, 9 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 6} Ibid. iii. 19 (GCS, IV. 180, I ff.).

^{page 347 note 1} Ibid. iii. 19, 4 (GCS, iv. 180, 30 ff.).

^{page 347 note 2} Although the weight of critical opinion is against Athanasius' authorship of Oratio iv, the arguments are not entirely convincing; the view stated by J. H. Newman, that the treatise was edited from rough notes left by Athanasius, has much to commend it.

^{page 347 note 3} Or. c. Ar. iv. 2 (PG, xxvi. 469); cf. Eusebius, de Ecc. Theol. 14, 5 (GCS, IV. 115, 14).Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 4} Idem.

^{page 347 note 5} Ibid. iv. 3 (PG, xxvi. 472).

^{page 348 note 1} Or. C. Ar. iv. 9 (PG, xxvi. 480).Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 2} Ibid. 16 (PG, xxvi. 489).

^{page 348 note 3} Ibid. 17 (PG, xxvi. 492).