2. John 10.33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
3. Athanasius, De decr., 1; cf Con Ar., 1.39f; Con Apol., 2.7. This was evidently indebted to Alexander of Alexandria, De an et cor., 5 & 7. It was surely to this Athanasian question διατὶ σὺ θεὸς ὤν ἄνθρωπος γέγονας; that the Anselmian Cur Dues homo? must be traced.
5. Athanasius De Decr., 1
6. E.g., Athanasius Con Ar., 2.55
9. Athanasius Ad Epic., 5-9
11. See again the discussion by Athanasius in De syn., 51
16. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Nest., MPG, 77.3 (N/A), 116BC; Adv. Nest., MPG, 76.1, 17B; 20D; 21AB; 28C; 35A, etc.; or Quod unus sit Christus, MPG, 75, 1257A 1272B; 1277C, etc. For further references see Theol. in Reconcil., 163ff.
17. This is very evident in the way that Athanasius in his later writings spoke of Christ’s body as his own personal instrument (ὅργανον) in effecting the restoration and sanctification of our nature in himself — Con. Ar., 2.30; 3.31, 35, 53. Cf. also Con. Apol., 1.2, 15; Gregory Naz., Ep., 102.
20. See especially Con Apol., 1 & 2, which are of Athanasian provenance and probably Athanasian authorship. The theory they were not written by Athanasius has not been subjected to a convincing critical examination by George Dragas, St Athanasius Contra Apollinarem, Athens, 1985.
21. Cited by Athanasius in Con Apol., 1.2. The extant fragments of Apollinarus have been compiled by Hans Leitzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seiner Schule, Texte und Untersuchungen, 1904. See also Theol. in Reconcil., pp. 143-50.
22. Athanasius Ad Epict., 7
23. Athanasius Ad Ant., 7
25. Basil Ep., 261.2
26. Gregory Nyss., Or. cat., 14
28. Cf. Alexander of Alexandria: ‘For they, retaining in their memory all that they can collect concerning the passion, his abasement, his κένωσις, and what they call his poverty, and in short all those things to which the Saviour submitted as Saviour for our sakes, bring them forward to refute his eternal existence and Godhead.’ Theodoret, Hist. eccl., 1.3.
32. Athanasius Con Ar., 4.6; also 2.7ff, 16, 31, 71; 3.31f, 38f; 43ff. For an earlier instance on this two-fold activity of God, see Irenaeus, Adv. haer., 3.19.6 (3.18.7), vol 2, p.100f; 4.34.5 & 7 (4.20.4), pp. 215f, 218; 5.17.1, p. 369
37. Athanasius De inc., 7-10. See the discerning exposition of these chapters by G. D. Dragas, op cit., pp. 228-242.
38. Athanasius De inc., 54.3
39. Irenaeus Adv. haer., 1.2.1 (1.10.1), vol 1, p. 90f; 2.33.2 (2.22.4), p. 330f; 3.11.1f (3.10.2), vol. 2 p. 35f; 3.11.10 (3.11.8), p. 47f; especially 3.17.6-3.24.2 (3.16.6–3.21.3), pp. 87-133; 4.11.2 (4.6.2), p. 159; 4.18.1 (4.9.1), pp. 168f; 4.34.4f (4.20.4), pp. 215f; 4.62-63.2 (4.38.1ff), pp. 292ff; 5.1.1ff, pp.314ff; 5.2.1ff, pp. 317ff; 5.14.2ff, pp. 360ff; 5.16.1-17.1 (5.16.2ff), pp. 368ff; 5.19.1f , pp. 375f; 5.21.1f, pp. 380f; 5.23.2, p. 387f; Dem., 31ff.
40. Irenaeus Adv. Haer., 3.11.2 (3.10.3), vol. 2, p. 36; agnitio salutis erat agnitio Filli Dei, qui et Salus, et Salvator, et Salutare vere et dicitur et est. Cf. 3.19.3, p. 97f