Athanasius 16301
16301
The fourth Discourse, as has been already observed (p. 304), stands on a footing of its own. To begin with, it is not quoted in antiquity, as the first three are, as part of the work of Ath. against the Arians (details in Newman, p. 499). Again, the fact that not only the Ep. Aeg., but even the dubious de Incar. c. Arian., are in some mss. included in the Orationes, while our present oration appears sometimes as the ‘fifth’ sometimes as the ‘sixth,’ cast a shade of doubt upon its claim to be included in the ‘Pentabiblus against the Arians’ referred to by Photius. In addition to these external considerations, Newman lays stress on the apparent want of continuity in its argument; on its non-conformity to the structural plan of Orat. i.-iii., on the use of the term omoousion (§§10, 22, contrast Orat. i.§9, p. 311, note 12); on certain peculiarities of style which seem characteristic of disjointed notes rather than of a systematic treatise; on the reference to ‘Eusebius’ (of Caesarea) as apparently still living (§8); and on the general absence of personal reference to opponents, while yet a definite and extant system seems to be combated.
Now a comparison with the works of Eusebius against Marcellus leaves little doubt that the system combated by Athan. is that of the latter (described briefly Prolegg. ch. ii.§3 (2) c).
After laying down as a thesis (§1) the substantive existence of the divine Word or Wisdom, Athan. proceeds to combat the idea that the Word has no personality distinct from that of the Father. Setting aside the alternative errors of Sabellius (§2) and Arius (§3), he taxes with the consequence of involving two jArcai a view that the Word had a substantive existence and was then united to the Father (cf. Euseb). c. Marcell. 32 A, 108 A, 106 C, D). This consequence can only be avoided by falling into the Sabellian alternative of a qeo" difuh" cf. Tertullian’s ‘Deum versipellem’), unless the true solution, that of the eternal divine gennhsi", be accepted (§3 worked out in 4, 5). The argument, apparently interrupted by an anti-Arian digression §§6, 7, is resumed §8, whence it proceeds without break to §24. Eusebius, insisting against Marcellus on the eternity of Christ’s Kingdom, inconsistently defends those who deny the eternity of His Person. But if so, how inconsistent are those who deny the Son any pre-existence, while yet repelling the Arian formulae with indignation! In §§9–12, taking Joh. 10,30 as his text, Athan. asks his opponents in what sense Christ and the Father ‘are one,’ distinguishing from his own answer that of Sabellius (9, 10), and that of Marcellus (11, 12), whom he presses with the paradoxical character of his explanation of the divine gennhsi". In §§13, 14, he examines the (Marcellian, not Sabellian) doctrine of platusmo" and sustolh, charging it with Sabellianism as its consequence. Next (§§15–24) Ath. turns upon the radically weak point of the system of Marcellus (Prolegg. ubi supra), and asks What do his followers mean by ‘the Son?’ Do they mean merely (a) the man, Christ (§20, Photinus), or (b) the union of Word and Man, or (c) the Word regarded as Incarnate? The latter was the answer (§22) of Marcellus himself. This last point leads to a discussion (§24) of those O. T. passages on which Marcellus notoriously relied. §25, which Zahn understands as a direct polemic against Sabellius, is far more probably, as Newman maintains in his note, a supplemental argument against Marcellianism, for the view combated is said to lead inevitably to Sabellianism. The concluding portion, §§26–36, turns the argument of §24, that Scripture declares the identity of Son and Word, against those who (adopting alternative (a) supra) drift from Marcellianism toward the Samosatene rather than toward the Sabellian position (on the connection of the two see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) a and c). Even here, the name of Photinus, to whose position the section specially applies, is significantly withheld.
Such is the course of the argument in the Fourth Oration; and with the exception of §§6, 7, and again possibly §25, it forms a homogeneous, if not a finished and elaborated piece of argument. Its date and composition may be left an open question; but its purpose as an appendix to Orat. i.-iii., is we think open to little doubt (supr. p. 304). Of Sabellius, who left no writings489 , the age of Athanasius knew little, except that he identified Father and Son (uiopatwr), and denied the Trinity of Persons. Most that is told us of Sabellius from the fourth century onwards requires careful sifting, in order to eliminate what really belongs to Marcellus, Photinus, or others who were taxed with Sabellianism, and combated as ‘Sabellians.’ But with the simple patri-passianism which is the one undoubted element in the teaching of Sabellius, Marcellus had little or nothing in common. The criticism of Marcellus that Sabellius ‘knew not the Word’ reveals the true difference between them. To Sabellius, creation and redemption were the work of the one God under successive changes of manifestation; to Marcellus, they were the realisation of a process eternally latent in God; but both Marcellus and apparently Sabellius referred to the divine Nature what the theology of the Church has consistently referred to the divine Will.
1 (Pr 18,3, LXX.
2 (Jr 3,3,
3 Supr. ch. xix.
4 Ch. xiii.
5 Ch. xxi.
6 Ch. xiv.
7 ii. 44, n. 1.
8 (Jn 14,10,
9 (Ac 17,28, . supr. ii. Ac 41, note Ac 11 doctrine of the pericwrhsi", which this objection introduces, is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism. Cf). de Syn. 15, n. 4. This is seen clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language approaches to Catholic more nearly than Arians in general. After all his strong assertions, the question recurs, is our Lord a distinct being from God, as we are, or not? he answers in the affirmative, vid). supr. p. 75, n. 7, whereas we believe that He is literally and numerically one with the Father, and therefore His Person dwells in the Father’s Person by an ineffable union. And hence the language of Dionysius [of Rome] supr. de Decr. 26. ‘the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God,’ emfilocwrein tw qew kai endiaitasqai. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), ‘Filius locus eat Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.’ in Ez 3,12. So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are en memerismenoi" topoi" and the Son). Serap. 3,4. Cf. even in the Macrostich Creed, language of this character, viz. ‘All the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father’s breast continually.’ De Syn. 26 (7), where vid. note 3).
10 This is not inconsistent with S. Jerome as quoted in the foregoing note. Athan. merely means that such illustrations cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects. The Father is the topo" or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as olo" qeo", we merely view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is; our mind abstracts His Essence which is the Son for the moment from Him, and regards Him merely as Father, Thus in Illud. Omn. 4, supr. p. 89. It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really and eternally distinct from each other; and Each is full of the Other, that is, their Essence is one and the same. This is insisted on by S. Cyril, in Joan. p. 28. And by S. Hilary, Trin. 7,fin. vid. also 3,23. Cf. the quotation from S. Anselm made by Petavius, de Trin. 4,16 fin). [Cf. D.C.B). s.v. Metangismonitae.]
11 Vid). de Decr. 10, n. 4, 19, n. 3; Or. 1,15, n. 6. On the other hand Eusebius considers the Son, like a creature, ex auth" th" patrikh" [not ousia", but] metousia", wsper apo phgh", epAE auton proceomenh" plhroumenon). (Qo Theol. i. 2. words which are the more observable, the nearer they approach to the language of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid). infr. by way of contrast, oude kata metousian autou, allAE olon idion autou gennhma. 4.
12 De Decr. 15, n. 9.
13 i.e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and does but give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses different language with the same meaning, de Trin. 2,11. Other modes of expression for the same mystery are found infr. 3. also 6 fin. Vid). de Syn. 45, n. 1. and Didymus h patrikh qeoth". p. 82. and S. Basil, ex ou ecei to einai). contr. Eunom. 2,12 fin. Just above Athan. says that ‘the Son is the fulness of the Godhead.’ Thus the Father is the Son’s life because the Son is from Him, and the Son the Father’s because the Son is in Him. All these are but different ways of signifying the pericwrhsi".
14 sunhgorou, infr. §60.
15 panta ginwskein epaggellomeno". Gorgias, according to Cicero de fin. 2,init. was the first who ventured in public to say proballete, ‘give me a question.’ This was the epaggelma of the o Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks). Rhet. 2,24 fin. Vid. Cressol). Theatr. Rhet. 3,11.
16 (1Co 2,4,
17 (1Tm 1,7,
18 paranomo"). infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79). Ep. Aeg. 16, d. Vid). anomo". 2Th 2,8.
19 en uiw, but en tw uiw). Ep. Aeg. 14 fin vid). Or 2,22, note 2.
20 (Ps 85,8, LXX.
21 (1R 8,59, or 1 Kings x. 24?
22 (2R 5,8 2R 5,15,
23 Or. ii. 19, n. 6.
24 Since the Father and the Son are the numerically One God, it is but expressing this in other words to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, for all They have and all They are is common to Each, excepting Their being Father and Son. A pericwrhsi" of Persons is implied in the Unity of Essence. This is the connexion of the two texts so often quoted; ‘the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son,’ because ‘the Son and the Father are one.’ And the cause of this unity and pericwrhsi" is the Divine gennhsi". Thus S. Hilary, Trin. 2,4. vid). Or. 2,33, n. 1.
25 eidou". Petavius here prefers the reading idiouÉ qeoth" and to idion occur together infr. 6. and 56). eido" occurs Orat. 1,20, a). de Syn. 52. vid). de Syn. 52, n. 6). infr. 6, 16, Ep. Aeg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid). infr. §§6, 16, notes.
26 In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherenee or indwelling of the Three Blessed Persons is meant ‘not a commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with body, nor as the union of our Lord’s Godhead and humanity, but it is such that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom, essence, of the Father, should he the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and power of the Son.’ de Trin. 28,1. S. Cyril adopts Athan.’s language to express this doctrine in Joan. p. 105). de Trin. 6,p. 621, in Joan. p. 168. Vid). infr. tautoth" ousia", 21). patrikh qeoth" tou uiou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc). F. O. 1,8. pp. 139, 140.
27 (Jn 10,30,
28 De Syn. 45, n. 1.
29 Infr. Orat. 4,9.
30 Infr. 11.
31 anomoion; and so anomoio" kata panta). Orat. 1,6). katAE ousian. 17). Orat. ii. 43). th" ousia"). infr. 14. vid). anomoioth"). infr. 8, c.
32 Cf). in illud. Omn. 4. ‘As the Father is I am (o wn) so His Word is I Am and God over all.’ Serap. 1,28, a; ib. ii. 2.
33 Cf. 1,6.
34 Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. 1.
35 Ib. 49, n. 4.
36 Parallel to de Syn. 49.
37 (Jn 1,1,
38 (Ap 1,8 Ap 1,
39 (1Co 8,6,
40 (Jn 8,12,
41 (Lc 5,24,
42 (Jn 16,15 Jn 17,10).
43 (Jn 10,30 Jn 10,38 Jn 14,10
44 Jn 14,9.
45 Here these three texts, which so often occur together, are recognized as ‘three;’ so are they by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. 3,19; and he says that Marcellus and ‘those who Sabellianize with him,’ among whom he included Catholics, were in the practice of adducing them, qrullounte"; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the pericwrhsi" was the great criterion between orthodox and Arian. Many instances of the joint use of the three are given supr. 1,34, n. 7. to which may be added Orat. ii. 54 init. 3,16 fin. 67 fin. 4,17, a). Serap. 2,9, c. Serm). Maj. de fid. 29. Cyril). de Trin. p. 554). in Joann. p. 168. Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil). Trin. 9,1. Ambros). Hexaem. 6. August). de Cons. Ev. 1,7.
46 aparallakto", de Syn. 23, n. 1.
47 Vid. Basil). Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros). in Psalm 118,25 10,25. vid. also Chrysost). Hom. on Statues, passim, fragm. in Act. Conc. 7,(t. 4, p. 89. Hard). Socr. 6,18. The Seventh Council speaks of the images sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of their coming in person; Ducange in 5,Lauratum. Vid. a description of the imperial statutes and their honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. 12,12. vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197.
48 Athanasius guards against what is defective in this illustration in the next chapter, but independent of such explanation a mistake as to his meaning would be impossible; and the passage affords a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize is the unity of the Father and Son, for the Image is not a Second Emperor but the same. vid. Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who bowed before the Emperor’s Statue can be supposed to have really worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme worship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose Image He is. From the custom of paying honour to the Imperial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the Eastern Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil custom, resisted. rid. Döllinger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 55. E. Tr. The Fathers, e.g. S. Jerome, set themselves against the civil custom, as idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. vid. Hieron. in Da 3,18. Incense was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards before the images of the Saints.
49 (Ph 2,6,
50 eido", vid). infr. 16, note.
51 Here first the Son’s eido" is the eido" of the Father, then the Son is the eido" of the Father’s Godhead, and then in the Son is the eido" of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, olo" qeo". vid). infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word opisqia (Ex 33,23), which forms a contrast to eido", for the Divine Works). Orat. 28, 3.
52 (2Co 5,19,
53 (Jn 14,10 Jn 10,30,
54 Vid). supr. de Decr. 30; Or. i 33. This is in opposition to the Arians, who said that the title Father implied priority of existence. Athan. says that the title ‘Maker’ does, but that the title ‘father’ does not. vid). supr. p. 76, n. 3; Or. i. 29, n. 10: 2,41, n. 11.
55 Athan). de Incarn. c. Ar. 19, c. vid. Ambros). de fid. 3,cap. 12, 13. Naz). Orat. 23, 8. Basil). de Sp. S. n. 64.
56 (Mc 12,29,
57 (Ex 3,14 Dt 32,39, LXX.; Is 44,6,
58 De Decr. 19, n. 6.
59 Vid). supr. 1, note 10; 2,41 fin. also infr. 4,1. Pseudo-Ath. c). Sab. Greg. 5–12. Naz). Orat. 40, 41. Synes). Hymn. 3,pp. 328, 9. Ambros). de Fid. 1,n. 18. August). Ep. 170, 5. vid). Or. 2,38, n. 6. and infr. note on 36 fin.
60 (Dt 32,39 Dt 6,4, &c.
61 qeomacoi. vid. Ac 5,39.
62 (2S 15,13 1R 1,11,
63 (Lc 18,19, and vid. Basil). Ep. 236, 1.
64 (Mc 12,29,
65 (Jn 6,38 Jn 14,28,
66 (Jn 5,23 Jn 13,20,
67 §58, note).
68 oi nun, cf). Or 2,1, note 6, and Hist. Ar. 61, fin.
69 diabolikoi. vid). supr. p. 187, and de Decr. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. 2,38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Aeg. 4 and 6. In the passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; diaballwn occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius diabolo", it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was ton diabolou propon analabwn, where the word has no article, and diabeblhmai and dieblhqhn have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians’ ‘father the devil,’ 3, c. is explained 4, b, by tou" patera" diaballontwn and th" ei" ton episkopon diabolh".
70 para, vid. §24 end, and Jn 15,26.
71 ou" hqelon, infr. §10, n. 1.
72 Who worship one whom they themselves call a creature, vid). supr. Or. 1,8, n. 8, 2,14, n. 7, 21, n. 2, and below, ??? 16 notes.
73 (Jn 14,6,
74 Jn 17,3.
75 maqwn edidaxe, de Decr. 7, n. 8; Or. 2,1, note 6 a.
76 (1Jn 5,20,
77 Is 44,24.
78 (He says that in ‘I the first’ the question of time does not come in, else creatures would come ‘second’ to the Creator, as if His and their duration admitted of a common measure. ‘First’ then does not imply succession, but is equivalent to arch; a word which, as ‘Father,’ does not imply that the Son is not from eternity.
79 ii. 62, n. 2.
80 It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, and the Son first also, for comparison or number does not enter into mystery. Since Each is olo" qeo", Each, as contemplated by our finite reason, at the moment of contemplation excludes the Other. Though we ‘say’ Three Persons, Person hardly denotes one abstract ‘idea,’ certainly not as containing under it three individual subjects, but it is a ‘term’ applied to the One God in three ways. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, that, though we use words expressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number, and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though eternally distinct from each other, can scarcely be viewed together in common, except as ‘One’ substance, as if they could not be generalized into Three Any whatever; and as if it were, strictly speaking, incorrect to speak of ‘a’ Person, or otherwise than of ‘the’ Person, whether of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The question has almost been admitted by S. Austin, whether it is not possible to say that God is ‘One’ Person (Trin. vii. 8), for He is wholly and entirely Father, and at the same time wholly and entirely Son, and wholly and entirely Holy Ghost. Some references to the Fathers shall be given on that subject, infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. §6, n. 11. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will account for such expressions as ‘God from God,’ i.e. the One God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father); vid). supr. de Syn. 52, note 8. Again, h ousia auth th" ousia" th" patrikh" esti gennhma). de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. 4,1 and 2.
81 w" autoi felousi. vid. §8, n. 12. ‘not as you say, but as we will.’ This is a common phrase with Athan. vid). supr. Or. 1,13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4. (vid. also Sent Dion. 4, 14). It is here contrasted to the Church’s doctrine, and connected with the word idio": for which de Syn. 3, n. 6; Or. 1,37, n. 1. Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Apoll. 2,5 init. in contrast with the euaggeliko" oro".
82 sumfwno". vid). infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian sumfwnia is touched on de Syn. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned in the former of these notes, ‘one’ is explained as oneness of will by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains Jn 10,30. by Jn 17,22. like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius (Qo Theol. 3,p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb). contr. Marc. pp. 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are collected by Maldonat). in loc.
83 Asterius, §2, init.
84 wra. vid). de Syn. 34, n. 4. also Orat. 2,6, b. 4,19, c. d. Euseb). contr. Marc. p. 47, b. p. 91, b. Cyril). Dial p. 456. Thesaur. p. 255 fin.
85 This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril). de Trin. 1,p 407.
86 (Is 14,12,
87 (Lc 6,36, loc. )
88 (Ep 5,1-2,
89 (1Co 11,1,
90 (Jn 10,30 Jn 14,10,
91 Vid. Ps 86,8 Ps 89,6.
92 Aug). de Trin. 7,fin.
93 Cf). Serap. 1,16). de Syn. 51. and infr. §19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf). Or. 1,21–24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz). Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. 2,23. ‘One must not say,’ he observes, ‘that these names properly and primarily, kuriw" kai prwtw" belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure katacrhstikw" (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings says, “Call no one your father upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven.”’ He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decr. 31, n. 5), much more is He the pathr tou kata fusin uiou. Vid. also Euseb). contr. Marc. p. 22, c). (Qo Theol. i, 12. fin. 2,6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kuriw" logo", not kuriw" uio" Qo 2,10 fin. vid. supr. 2,19, note 3.
94 katAE ousian omoio", Or. 1,21, n. 8.
95 Supr. §6.
96 And so epgazomenou tou patro", ergazesqai kai ton uion). In illud Omn. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater). Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one kata thn dunamin, they are one also in ousia). in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hoer. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so S. Athan). tria" adiaireto" th fusei, kai mia tauth" h energeia). Serap. 1,28, f). en qelhma patro" kai uiou kai boulhma, epei kai h fusi" mia). In illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentiae, de Sp. 2,12. fin. and of S. Basil, wn mia energeia, toutwn kai ousia mia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex). are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil). Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius Trin. 4,15.
97 (Jn 14,23,
98 (1Th 3,11 1Th 3,
99 Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col 2. And Theodoret on Col 3,17. says, ‘Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living. Word and God. …But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.’ Origen contr. Cels. 5, 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss). de Idololatr. 1,9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.
100 (Gn 48,15-16, . Serap. Gn 1,14, on the doctrine vid). de Syn. 27 (15, 16)). Infr. §14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, ‘what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in him,’ i.e. sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Proescar. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.
101 (Is 9,6, LXX.
102 (Gn 32,26, Gn 32,30).
103 (Gn 28,15, LXX.
104 Gn 31,7 Gn 32,11.
105 (Ps 120,1-2,
106 (Ps 18,1-2,
107 Vid. 2Tm 3,11 2Co 1,10.
108 (Gn 28,3-4, LXX.
109 (Rm 1,7, &c.
110 (1Co 1,4,
111 Or. ii. 21, n. 2.
112 (He 1,14,
113 th" qeotokou Maria"). [Prolegg. ch. 4,§5.] vid. also infr. 29, 33). Orat. 4,32). Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22). supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (twn palai kai propalai) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord qeotokon, according to ‘the Apostolical tradition.’ Hoer. 4,12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known, writes to the former. ‘This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it.’ Concil. Eph. part 1,c. 25 (Labb).. Socrates Hist. 7,32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rm lib. 1,5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. ‘Interpreting,’ he says, ‘how qeotoko" is used, he discussed the question at length.’ Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3)., have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently over-looked, in arguing from Ephrem). ap. Phot). Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase ‘Mother of God’ originated in S. Leo). [See vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]
114 Vid. .
115 §12, note 2.
116 Serap. 1,28 fin. Naz). Orat. 23, 8. Basil). Hom. 24 init. Nyssen). Orat. Catech. 3. P. 481.
117 Infr. §64). Ep. Aeg. 14.
118 Infr. §16, notes.
119 eido".
120 And so infr. 25, 36 fin). Serap. i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, d. 3,1, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot). cod. p. 865. Damascen). F. O. 1,7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr). Cat. 16,4. ibid. 24. Pseudo-Dion). de Div. Nom. 1,p. 403. Pseudo-Athan). c. Sab. Greg. 10, e.
121 polueidou".
122 Vid. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note 5. The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and worship. vid). de Decr. 6, note 5, Or. 1,30, n. 1. But ‘every substance,’ says S. Austin, ‘which is not God, is a creature, and which is not a creature, is God.’ de Trin. i 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz). Orat. 31, 6. Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,31.
123 §11, n. 4.
124 epiceirhma, de Decr. 1, note.
125 Vid). supr. 2,14, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de Trin. 2,12. §5. from the Fathers in proof of the worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as idolaters vid). supr. Or. 1,8, n. 8. also Ep. Aeg. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init). Serap. 1,29, d. Theodoret in Rom. i. 25.
126 Or. i. 30, n. 1).
127 sugkuliontai, vid). Orat. 1,23. 2,1 init.; Decr. 9 fin.; Gent. 19, c. cf. 2P 2,22.
128 qeostugei", infr. Letter 54. 1 fin.
129 eido": also in Gn 32,30-31. Sept). [a substitute for He ‘face.’] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56, n. 6. for the meaning of the word. It was just now used for ‘kind.’ Athan. says, de Syn. ubi supr. ‘there is but one form of Godhead;’ yet the word is used of the Son as synonymous with ‘image.’ It would seem as if there are a certain class of words, all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more appropriate application either ordinarily or under circumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance. Thus ‘Being’ is more descriptive of the Father as the phgh qeothto", and He is said to be ‘the Being of the Son;’ yet the Son is really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words morfh and eido" [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] are rather descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He is called ‘the form of the Father,’ yet there is but one Form and Face of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons; while ‘Spirit’ is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus again S. Hippolytus says ek [tou patro"] dunami" logo", yet shortly before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, dunamin de mian, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word ‘Subsistence,’ upostasi", which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed personally. Other words may be used correlatively of either Father or Son; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of the Father; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Others in common, as ‘the Father’s Godhead is the Son’s,’ h patrikh uiou qeoth", as indeed the word ousia itself. Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or That Person only, as ‘Word,’ ‘Image,’ &c.
130 (Jn 5,37,
131 (Gn 32,31, LXX.
132 (Jn 14,9-10 Jn 10,30
133 §10. n. 1.
134 (Jn 17,11,
135 .
136 oi dolioi. crafty as they are, also infr. 59.
137 Or. i. 21, n. 8, cf). infr. §67.
138 diabolikhn vid. §8, n. 10., cf. Is 14,14.
139 Supr. p. 171, note 5.
140 (Jn 8,44,
141 ii. 73, n. 7).
142 De Decr. 10; Or. 1,26, n. 1.
143 Cf). Hist. Ar. 80, n. 11.
144 periergazesqai: vid). Or. 2,34, n. 5.
145 Orat. 2,53, n. 4; Orat. 4,33 init.
146 (Ps 32,9 Ps 49,20,
147 (Jr 5,8,
148 (Lc 13,32,
149 (Mt 10,16,
150 (Lc 6,36,
151 (Mt 5,48,
152 qeoi, §§23 end, 25, and 2,70, n. 1.
153 ii. 44, n. 1.
154 (1Jn 5,20,
155 (Jn 1,12,
156 Jn 14,6 Jn 17,17.
157 kata mimhsin. Clem. Alex. Poedag. 1,3. p. 102. ed. Pott. Naz). Ep. 102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben). Leo in various places, supr. ii. 55, n. 1. Iren). Hoer. 5,1. August). Serm. 101, 6. August). Trin. iv. 17. also 9,21. and Eusebius, kata thn autou mimhsin). (Qo Theol. iii. 19, a. For inward grace as opposed to teaching, vid). supr. Orat. ii. 56, n. 5, and 79, n. 10.
158 enaretoi so panareto" Clem). (Rm Ep. 1,
159 (Ac 4,4 Ac 4,32,
160 Cf. 2,23, 42.
161 diaqesei, de Decr. 2, note 5; Ep. ad Mon. (1) init). Hipp. c. Noet. 7.
162 (Mt 11,29,
163 (1Co 4,6,
164 Vid. 1Co 1,10.
165 (Ps 60,12; Ps 18,29,
166 (Ps 44,5, Olear). de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. 1702)). [Winer. 48,a.]
167 This remark which comes in abruptly is pursued presently, vid. §23.
168 Cf). de Decr. 31. fin).
169 Vid. Ep 4,13.
170 Cf. 2,62, n. 13.
171 Vid). de Decr. 11, n. 5, which is explained by the present passage. When Ath. there says, ‘without all in nature,’ he must mean as here, ‘far from all things in nature.’ S. Clement loc. cit. gives the same explanation, as there noticed. It is observable that the contr. Sab. Greg. 10 (which the Benedictines consider not Athan.’s) speaks as de Decr. supr. Eusebius says the same thing, de Incorpor. i. init). ap. Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros. Quomodo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c). de Fid. 1,106. and supr. §1, n. 10.
172 Vid. Glass). (Ph Sacr. iii. 5. can. 27. and Dettmars, de Theol. Orig. ap. Lumper). Hist. Patr. t. 10, p. 212. Vid. also supr. 2,55, n. 8.
173 (Mt 12,40,
174 omoiothta pw", and so at the end of 22). kata ti qewroumenon). [A note, discussing certain views of Coplestone, Toplady, and Blanco White, is omitted here.]
175 sumfwnia, 10, n. 2.
176 Cyril in Joan. p. 227, &c.
177 Cf. 2,65, n. 3.
178 qeoforoumenou". 2,70, n. 1.
179 §19. n. 3.
180 sundesmon th" agaph", 21. circ. fin.
181 Ez 28,2 Pr 23,4, LXX.
182 (1Jn 4,13,
183 Cf. 22, n. 6).
184 [i.e. not by grace] Vid. the end of this section and 25 init). supr. Or. 1,15. also Cyril Hier. Cat. xvi. 24. Epiph). Ancor. 67 init. Cyril in Joan. pp. 929, 930.
185 (1Jn 4,15,
186 beltiwsei praxew", and so ad Afros. tropwn beltiwsi". 8). Supr. Or. 1,37, 43. it is rather some external advance.
187 §8, note 11.
188 ek.
189 Cf. 2,63, n. 8.
190 kata fusin, supr. de Decr. 31, n. 5.
191 (Rm 8,35 vid. Rm 11,29,
192 qeoi, Or. 2,70, n. 1.
193 Cf. 2,59, n. 5.
194 Cf). Or. 1,37, end.
195 (1S 16,11,
196 (Pr 29,7). noei, Ath). sunhsei.
197 This Oration alone, and this entirely, treats of texts from the Gospels; hitherto from the Gospel according to St. John, and now chiefly from the first three. Hence they lead Athan. to treat more distinctly of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to anticipate a refutation of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
198 §1, n. 13).
199 (Mt 28,18 Jn 5,22 Jn 3,35-36 Mt 11,27 Jn 6,37 infr. §§35–41.
200 (Jn 12,27-28,
201 (Mt 26,39 Jn 13,21 infr. §§53–58.
202 (Lc 2,52 infr. §§50–53.
203 (Mt 16,13 Jn 11,34 Mc 6,38 infr. §27.
204 (Mt 27,46 Jn 12,28 Jn 17,5 Mt 26,41 Mc 13,32 infr. §§42–50.
205 dianoian, 2,44, a. 53, c.; 4,17, d. &c.
206 De Decr. 1; Or. 1,4.
207 (Jn 6,42 Jn 8,58,
208 epakouousin. Montfaucon (Onomasticon in t. 2 fin). so interprets this word. vid). Apol. contr. Ar. 88. note 7).
209 Or. i. 38.
210 Apol. Fug. 27, n. 10.
211 De Decr. 2, n. 9, c). Sab. Greg. 6 fin.
212 Cf). de Decr. 25, n. 4. The peculiarity of the Catholic doctrine, as contrasted with the heresies on the subject of the Trinity, is that it professes a mystery. It involves, not merely a contradiction in the terms used, which would be little, for we might solve it by assigning different senses to the same word, or by adding some limitation (e.g. if it were said that Satan was an Angel and not an Angel, or man was mortal and immortal), but an incongruity in the ideas which it introduces. To say that the Father is wholly and absolutely the one infinitely-simple God, and then that the Son is also, and yet that the Father is eternally distinct from the Son, is to propose ideas which we cannot harmonize together; and our reason is reconciled to this state of the case only by the consideration (though fully by means of it) that no idea of ours can embrace the simple truth, so that we are obliged to separate it into portions, and view it in aspects, and adumbrate it under many ideas, if we are to make any approximation towards it at all; as in mathematics we approximate to a circle by means of a polygon, great as is the dissimilarity between the two figures). [Cf. Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (2) b.]
213 ouc aplw" aidio", i.e). aidio" is not one of our Lord’s highest titles, for things have it which the Son Himself has created, and whom of course He precedes. Instead of two aidia then, as the Arians say, there are many aidia; and our Lord’s high title is not this, but that He is ‘the Son,’ and thereby ‘eternal in the Father’s eternity,’ or there was not ever when He was not, and ‘Image’ and ‘Radiance.’ The same line of thought is implied throughout his proof of our Lord’s eternity in Orat. 1,ch. 4 6. This is worth remarking, as constituting a special distinction between ancient and modern Scripture proofs of the doctrine, and as coinciding with what was said supr. Or. 2,1, n. 13, 44, n. 1. His mode of proof is still more brought out by what he proceeds to say about the skopo", or general bearing or drift of the Christian faith, and its availableness as a kanwn or rule of interpretation.
214 (Ps 24,7,
215 Cf. 26, n. 9.
216 skopo", vid. 58. fin.
217 (Rm 9,32,
218 Or. i. 28, n. 5.
219 qeotokou. vid). supr. 14, n. 3. Vid. S. Cyril’s quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c.; and Cyril himself, Adv. Nest. 1,p. 18. Procl). Hom. 1,p. 60. Theodor). ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe). Cassian). Incarn. 4,2. Hil Trin. 2,25. Ambros). Virgin. i. n. 47. Chrysost. ap. Cassian). Incarn. 7,30. Jerom. in Ez 44 init. Capreolus of Carthage, ap. Sirm). Opp. t. 1,p. 216. August). Serm. 291, 6. Hippolytus, ap. Theod). Eran. 1,p. 55, &c. Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. 7.
220 (Jn 5,39,
221 .
222 v. 14.
223 ().
224 Cf. 26, n. 9.
225 (Gn 1,3 Gn 1,6 Gn 1,26 de Syn. 28
226 (Mt 1,23,
227 (Jn 1,14,
228 toutw crwmeno" organw infr. 42. and organon pro" thn energeian kai thn eklamyin th" qeothto". 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord’s manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid). Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid). schma organikon in Apoll. 1,2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb). Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan. e.g). infr. 35, 53). Incarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of organon must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that fanerwsi" is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund). Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman). B. O. t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid). supr. Or. i. 60, n. 5; 2,8, n. 4.
229 Ad Epict. 11, ad Max. 2.
230 (1Co 1,24,
231 Infr. 4,33 init.
232 (Jl 2,28 Bel and Dr 5
233 Or. i. 39, n. 4.
234 (Ga 4,4 1P 4,1,
235 kata to boulhma. vid). Orat. 1,63). infr. §63, notes. Cf). supr. 2,31, n. 7, for passages in which Ps 33,9. is taken to shew the unity of Father and Son from the instantaneousness of the accomplishment upon the willing, as well as the Son’s existence before creation. Hence the Son not only works kata to boulhma, but is the boulh of the Father. ibid. note 8. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is highest, vid Euseb). (Qo Theol. 3,3. quoted 2,64, n. 5. In that passage the Father’s neumata are spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75, a). de Laud. Const. p. 528, Eunom). Apol. 20 fin. The word is used of the Son’s command given to the creation, in Athan). contr. Gent. e.g. 42, 44, 46. S Cyril. Hier. frequently as the Arians, uses it of the Father). Catech. x. 5, 11,passim, 15,25, &c. The difference between the orthodox and Arian views on this point is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr. Eunom. i. 21.
236 (Col 2,9,
237 toutw crwmeno" organw infr. 42. and organon pro" thn energeian kai thn eklamyin th" qeothto". 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord’s manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid). Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid). schma organikon in Apoll. 1,2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb). Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan. e.g). infr. 35, 53). Incarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of organon must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that fanerwsi" is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund). Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman). B. O. t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid). supr. Or. i. 60, n. 5; 2,8, n. 4.
238 Orat. 4,6. and fragm. ex Euthym. p. 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange [of language] is called theologically the antidosi" or communicatio idiwmatwn. Nyssen). in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon). Ep. 28, 51. Ambros). de fid. 2,58. Nyssen). de Beat. p. 767. Cassian). Incarn. vi. 22. Aug). contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init. Plain and easy as such statements seem, they are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.
239 qeou hn swma. also ad Adelph. 3). ad Max. 2. and so thn ptwceusasan fusin qeou olhn genomenhn). c. Apoll. 2,11). to paqo" tou logou. ibid. 16, c). sarx tou logou). infr. 34). swma sofia" infr. 53. also Or. 2,10, n. 7). paqo" Cristou tou qeou mou. Ignat). Rom. 6). o qeo" peponqen. Melit). ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones. Tertull). de Carn. Christ. 5. Dei interemptores. ibid. caro Deitatis. Leon). Serm. 65 fin. Deus mortuus et sepultus. Vigil). c. Eut. 2,p. 502. vid). supr. Or. 1,45, n. 3. Yet Athan. objects to the phrase, ‘God suffered in the flesh,’ i.e. as used by the Apollinarians. vid). contr. Apoll. 2,13 fin). [Cf. Harnack, Dogmg. ed. 1. vol. 1,pp. 131, 628. notes.]
240 (Is 53,4,
241 ouden eblapteto. (1P 2,24). Cf). de Incarn. 17, 54, 34.; Euseb). de Laud. Const. p. 536. and 538. also Dem). Evang. vii. p. 348. Vigil). contr. Eutych. 2,p. 503. (B. P. ed. 1624). Anast). Hodeg. c. 12. p. 220 (ed. 1606). also p. 222. Vid also the beautiful passage in Pseudo. Basil: Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. (t. 2P 596 . also Rufin). in Symb. 12. Cyril). Quod unus est Christus. p. 776. Damasc). F. O. 3,6 fin. August). Serm. 7. p. 26 init. ed. 1842. Suppl. 1.
242 paqwn, vid. §33, n. 2.
243 Orat. 1,51.
244 (Jn 10,37-38, . Incarn. Jn 18 Leo, Serm. Jn 54,2, nos in suam proprietatem illa natura, quae nec nostris sua, nec suis nostra consmeret, &c.’ Serm. Jn 72, p. Jn 286, vid. also Ep 165,6). Serm. 30, 5. Cyril Cat. iv. 9. Amphiloch. ap. Theod). Eran. 1,p. 66. also pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 1614.
245 Cf. Leo’s Tome (Ep 28). 4. ‘When He touched the leper, it was the man that was seen; but something beyond man, when He cleansed him, &c.’ Ambros, Epist. 1,46, n. 7. Hil). Trin. x. 23 fin. vid). infr. 56 note, and S. Leo’s extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol). Serm. 34 and 35. Paul). ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe). These are instances of what is theologically called the qeandrikh energeia [a condemned formula], i.e. the union of the energies of both Natures in one act.
246 mh fantasia allAE alhqw". vid). Incarn. 18, d). ad Epict. 7, c. The passage is quoted by S. Cyril). Apol. adv. Orient p. 194.
247 ouk allou, alla tou kuriou: and so ouk eterou tino", Incarn. 18; also Orat. 1,45). supr. p. 244. and Orat. 4,35. Cyril Thes. p. 197. and Anathem. 11. who defends the phrase against the Orientals.
248 Cf. Procl). ad Armen. p. 615, ed. 1630.
249 koinon opposed to idion. vid). infr. §51, Cyril Epp. p. 23, e. communem, Ambros). de Fid. 1,94.
250 Or.i. 5 n. 5, 2,56 n. 5, 68, n. 1, infr. note 6.
251 Vid. Jr 1,5. And so S. Jerom e, S. Leo, &c., as mentioned in Corn. a Lap). in loc. S. Jerome implies a similar gift in the case of Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep 24,2). And so S. John Baptist, Maldon). in Luc. 1,16. It is remarkable that no ancient writer (unless indeed we except S. Austin), [Patrol. Lat. 47,1144?] refers to the instance of S. Mary;—perhaps from the circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture.
252 qeotokou. For instances of this word vid. Alexandr). Ep. ad Alex. ap. Theodor). H. E. 1,4. p. 745. (al. 20). Athan. (supra); Cyril). Cat. x. 19. Julian Imper. ap. Cyril c. Jul. 8,p. 262. Amphiloch). Orat. 4. p. 41. (if Amphil). ed. 1644. Nyssen). Ep. ad Eustath. p. 1093. Chrysost. apud. Suicer Symb. p. 240. Greg. Naz). Orat 29, 4 Ep. 181. p. 85. ed. Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril). de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion). contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil). Hom. t. 2. p. 600 ed. Ben.
253 (Rm 5,14,
254 idiopoioumenou. vid. also [Incar. 8.] infr. §38). ad Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. 1,p. 1275. ed. Ben). Cyril. in Joann. p. 151, a. For idion, which occurs so frequently here, vid. Cyril). Anathem. 11. And oikeiwtai). contr. Apoll. 2,16, e. Cyril). Schol. de Incarn. p. 782, d. Concil). Eph. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b. (Hard). Damasc). F. O. iii. 3. p. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav). de Incarn. 4,15.
255 Vid). Or. 1,§§45, 46, ii. 65, note. Vid. also 4,33). Incarn. c. Arian. 12). contr. Apoll. i. 17. 2,6. ‘Since God the Word willed to annul the passions, whose end is death, and His deathless nature was not capable of them …He is made flesh of the Virgin, in the way He knoweth, &c.’ Procl). ad Armen. p. 616. also Leo). Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71). Serm. 26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2 p. 696. Cyril). Epp. p. 138, 9). in Joan. p. 95. Chrysol). Serm. 148.
256 ii. 69, n. 3, &c.
257 qeotokou). supr. 14, n. 3. For ‘mater Dei’ vid. before S. Leo, Ambros. de Virg. 2,7. Cassian). Incarn. 2,5. 7,25. Vincent. Lir). Commonit. 21. It is obvious that qeotoko", though framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective against Apollinarians [?] and Eutychians, who denied that our Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Facundus Def. Trium. Cap. 1,4. Cf. Cyril). Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as the Arians, maintained the term. vid). supr. Or. 2,8, n. 5.
258 ii. 59 n. 5.
259 logwqeish" th" sarko". This strong term is here applied to human nature generally; Damascene speaks of the logwsi" of the flesh, but he means especially our Lord’s flesh). F. O. 4,18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven). for the words qeousqai, &c. vid). supr. 2,70, n. 1.
260 (1P 4,1,
261 Cf. Chrysost). in Joann. Hom. 67. 1 and 2. Cyril de Rect. Fid. p. 18. ‘As a man He doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is not His Power (virtus) that is troubled, not His Godhead, but His soul, &c.’ Ambros). de Fid. 2,n. 56. vid. a beautiful passage in S. Basil’s Hom. 4,5. in which he insists on our Lord’s having wept to shew us how to weep neither too much nor too little.
262 Mt 26,39.
263 blaptomeno", §31, n. 15.
264 Cf. 33, n. 6.
265 Vid). Or 2,56, n. 5. Cf. Cyril). de Rect. Fid. p. 18.
266 (1Jn 3,5).
267 Cf. 31, n. 10.
268 Vid). infr. 39–41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl). ad Armen. p. 615. Leo’s Tome (Ep 28,3) also Hil). Trin. ix. 11 fin. ‘Vagit infans, sed in coelo est, &c.’ ibid 10,54. Ambros). de Fid. 2,77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id). Epist. 1,46, n. 5. Theoph). Ep. Pasch. 6. ap). Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard.
269 Vid. Is 1,22, LXX.; Or. ii. 80; de Decr. 10.
270 Thus heresies are partial views of the truth, starting from some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning and protesting against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with it. vid). supr. Or. 1,26, n. 2.
271 De Syn. 33; Or. 1,8.
272 Cf. §28, n. 11.
273 Cf. §30, n. 7.
274 (Jn 3,35 Mt 11,27 Jn 5,30,
275 (Jn 16,15 Jn 17,10,
276 (Jn 10,18 Mt 28,18,
277 Or. i. 45; ad Adelph. 4
278 Or. ii. 19, n. 3.
279 (He 1,2,
280 (Jn 5,26).
281 Or. ii. 55, n. 8.
282 palin. vid). Or. 1,15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication in respect to God; though how this is, is the inscrutable Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son is in Himself, as distinct from the Father; we are but told His relation towards the Father, and thus the sole meaning we are able to attach to Person is a relation of the Son towards the Father; and distinct from and beyond that relation, He is but the One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been touched upon supr. Or. 3,9, n. 8. In other words, there is an indestructible essential relation existing in the One Indivisible infinitely simple God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each side of that relation (what in human language we call) Two (and in like manner Three), yet without the notion of number really coming in. When we speak of ‘Person,’ we mean nothing more than the One God in substance, viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various statements are not here intended to explain, but to bring home to the mind what it is which faith receives. We say ‘Father, Son, and Spirit,’ but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in order to number Them, our abstraction really does hardly more than carry us back to the One Substance. Such seems the meaning of such passages as Basil). Ep. 8, 2; de Sp. S. c. 18; Chrysost). in Joan. Hom. 2,3 fin. ‘In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, ‘first’ and ‘second’ have no place; for the Godhead is higher than number and times.’ Isid). Pel. Ep. 3, 18. Eulog). ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. August). in Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. 5,10. ‘Unity is not number, but is itselt the principle of all things.’ Ambros). de Fid. i. n. 19. ‘A trine numeration then does not make number, which they rather run into, who make some difference between the Three.’ Boeth). Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last remark is found in Naz). Orat. 31, 18. Many of these references are taken from Thomassin de Trin. 17.
283 §§11, n. 4, 15, n. 11.
284 Vid). infr. 46; Jn 11,34.
285 (Mt 16,13 Mc 6,38 Mc 20,32
286 ii. 44, n. 1.
287 (Jn 6,6,
288 Petavius refers to this passage in proof that S. Athanasius did not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant, but went on to admit it in argument after having first given his own real opinion. vid. §45, n. 2.
289 (Jn 11,14,
290 (Jn 2,25 Jn 14,11,
291 Or. ii. 8, n. 3).
292 Or. ii. 68.
293 ii. 69, n. 3.
294 idiopoieitai, cf. 33, n. 5.
295 Infr. 51.
296 Or. i. 38.
297 Redemption an internal work. vid). supr. 2,55, n. 1.
298 (Lc 10,22,
299 (1Co 8,6,
300 (1Co 2,8,
301 Jn 17,5.
302 (Lc 4,8,
303 (Lc 10,18-19,
304 Vid. ib. Lc 13,16 Mt 9,5 Lc 7,48.
305 (Is 9,6, LXX.
306 Or. i. 45).
307 diameinh, Or. 2,69, 3.
308 (2P 1,17 1P 3,22,
309 qeostugei", supr. §16, n. 7). infr. §58, de Mort. Ar. 1). In illud Omn. 6.
310 §1, n. 11.
311 (Jn 2,4). epeplhtte; and so epetimhse, Chrysost). in loc. Joan. and Theophyl). w" despoth" epitima, Theodor). Eran. 2,p. 106). entrepei, Anon. ap. Corder). Cat. in loc. memfetai, Alter Anon. ibid). epitima ouk atimazwn alla diorqoumeno", Euthym). in loc. ouk epeplhxen, Pseudo-Justin). Quoest. ad Orthod. 136. It is remarkable that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord’s humanity (i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a miracle), when one reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He wished, in the words ti moi kai soi, to remind S. Mary that He was the Son of God and must be ‘about His Father’s business.’ ‘Repeliens ejus intempestivam festinationem,’ Iren). Hoer. 3,16, n. 7. It is observable that epiplhttei and epitima are the words used by Cyril, &c. (infr. §54, note 4), for our Lord’s treatment of His own sacred body. But they are very vague words, and have a strong meaning or not, as the case may be.
312 (Mc 13,32, Basil takes the words oudAE o uio", ei mh o pathr, to mean, ‘nor does the Son know, except the Father knows,’ or ‘nor would the Son but for, &c.’ or ‘nor does the Son know, except as the Father knows.’ ‘The cause of the Son’s knowing is from the Father.’ Ep 236,2, Gregory alludes to the same interpretation, oudAE o uio" h w" oti o pathr. ‘Since the Father knows, therefore the Son.’ Naz). Orat. 30, 16. S. Irenaeus seems to adopt the same when he says, ‘The Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father;’ Hoer. 2,28, n. 6. as Naz, supr. uses the words epi thn aitian anaferesqw. And so Photius distinctly, ei" archn anaferetai. ‘Not the Son, but the Father, that is, whence knowledge comes to the Son as from a fountain.’ Epp. p. 342. ed. 1651.
313 skotodiniwnte", de Decr. §18 init.; Or. 2,40, n. 5.
314 giganta" qeomacounta", 2,32, n. 4).
315 Cf. §18, n. 3.
316 (Rm 11,34,
317 Or. i. 45.
318 Cf. 2,45, n. 2.
319 (Pr 8,27, LXX.
320 (Jn 1,14,
321 Jn 17,1.
322 Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a human as well as a divine knowledge, and though that human knowledge was not only limited because human, but liable to ignorance in matters in which greater knowledge was possible; yet it is the doctrine of the [later] Church, that in fact He was not ignorant even in His human nature, according to its capacity, since it was from the first taken out of its original and natural condition, and ‘deified’ by its union with the Word. As then (supr. 2,45, note 1) His manhood was created, yet He may not be called a creature even in His manhood, and as (supr. 2,14, note 5) His flesh was in its abstract nature a servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, even as regards the flesh; so, though He took on Him a soul which left to itself had been partially ignorant, as other human souls, yet as ever enjoying the beatific vision from its oneness with the Word, it never was ignorant really, but knew all things which human soul can know. vid. Eulog). ap. Phot. 230. p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses it, ‘Novit in natura, non ex natura humanitatis.’ Epp. 10,39. However, this view of the sacred subject was received by the Church only after S. Athanasius’s day, and it cannot be denied that others of the most eminent Fathers seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man, as Athan. in this passage. Of course it is not meant that our Lord’s soul has the same perfect knowledge as He has as God. This was the assertion of a General of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time of the Council of Basel, when the proposition was formally condemned, animam Christi Deum videre tam clare et intense quam clare et intense Deus videt seipsum. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. P. 42. Yet Fulgentius had said, ‘I think that in no respect was full knowledge of the Godhead wanting to that Soul, whose Person is one with the Word: whom Wisdom so assumed that it is itself that same Wisdom.’ ad Ferrand. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Yet, ad Trasmund. 1,7. he speaks of ignorance attaching to our Lord’s human nature.
323 Cf. §48.
324 And so Athan). ad Serap. ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being asked him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had ‘heard from a boy from the fathers,’ but which was more fitted for pious Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that ‘our Lord says many things to men in His human aspect; as “Give me to drink,” …yet He who asked was not flesh without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which had one.’ Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest another explanation which has been mentioned §42, note 1. Cf. Cyril Trin. pp. 623, 4. vid. also Thes. p. 220. ‘As he submitted as man to hunger and thirst, so.… to be ignorant.” p. 221. vid. also Greg. Naz). Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret expresses the same opinion very strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument where it was to his point to do so; in Anath. 4. t. 5,p. 23. ed. Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont). c. Nest (Canis. 1,p. 579).
325 Or. i. 47; Serap. 1,20 fin.
326 Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine subscribed, writes, ‘That I may in this respect also leave nothing to be cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered when it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man, (secundum hominem). But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I even anathematize my former opinion expressed on this point,’ ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A subdivision also of the Eutychians were called by the name of Agnoetae from their holding that our Lord was ignorant of the day of judgment. ‘They said,’ says Leontius, ‘that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He underwent toil.’ de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela held the same doctrine according to Agobard’s testimony, see §46, n. 2. Montfaucon observes on the text, that the assertion of our Lord’s ignorance ‘seems to have been condemned in no one in ancient times, unless joined to other error.’ And Petavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says, ‘Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now received both by custom and by the agreement of divines, is deservedly preferred to the former. For it is more agreeable to Christ’s dignity, and more befitting His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is, Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who is concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that function. In consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received the countenance of some men of high eminence, was afterwards marked as a heresy.’ Incarn. xi. 1. §15.
327 Mt 11,27.
328 Or. ii. 41, 3,9, 46.
329 (Jn 16,15,
330 Basil). Ep. 236, 1. Cyril). Thes. p. 220. Ambros). de fid. 5,197. Hence the force of the word ‘living’ commonly joined to such words as eikwn, sfragi", boulh, energeia, when speaking of our Lord, e.g. Naz). Orat. 30, 20, c. Vid. §63, fin. note.
331 Or. i. 50, n. 7.
332 It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human; ignorance in or ex natura; or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, ‘How many loaves have ye?’ when ‘He Himself knew what He would do,’ or as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed, supr. 2,55, n. 7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether only imputative, not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord’s ignorance, de Trin. 9,fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.’s meaning is favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a defect belongs to ‘that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant;’ §43. that ‘since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say, “I know not;”’ ibid. and, as here, that ‘as shewing His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said according to the flesh, “I know not;”’ ‘that He might shew that as man He knows not;’ §46. that ‘as man’ (i.e. on the ground of being man, not in the capacity of man), ‘He knows not;’ ibid. and that, ‘He asks about Lazarus humanly,’ even when ‘He was on His way to raise him,’ which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul’s professed ignorance when he really knew, §47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so ‘for our profit as I think, did He this.’ §§48–50. The natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words as oikonomikw", which, in respect of this very text, is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord’s Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like variety of meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril). Trin. p. 623. and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word dispensatio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. x. 8). In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our Lord ‘economizes by a reigned ignorance.’ §6. And S. Cyril). Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. 6,he seems to recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual state of our Lord’s humanity; and so Hilary, Trin. ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes). Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit). Trin. 1,23. Pope Gregory says that the text ‘is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are.’ Ep 10,39. And S. Ambrose de fid. 5,222. And so Caesarius, Qu. 20. and Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in Mt Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, however, but in controversy, is very severe on the principle of Economy. ‘If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth.’ 50,c, pp. 23, 4.
333 §48.
334 (Mt 24,42 Mt 24,44).
335 (Mt 24,39,
336 (Gn 7,1,
337 (Mt 25,13,
338 The mode in which Athan. here expresses himself, is as if he did not ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent ignorance, to our Lord’s soul, vid). supr. 45. n. 2; not certainly in the broad sense in which heretics have done so. As Leontius, e.g. reports of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ ‘to be ignorant so far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who tempted Him;’ contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. 1,p. 579). and Agobard of Felix the Adoptionist that he held ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh truly to have been ignorant of the sepulchre of Lazarus, when He said to his sisters, ‘Where have ye laid him?’ and was truly ignorant of the day of judgment; and was truly ignorant what the two disciples were saying, as they walked by the way, of what had been done at Jerusalem; and was truly ignorant whether He was more loved by Peter than by the other disciples, when He said, ‘Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more than these?’ B. P. t. 9. p. 1177). [Cf). Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]
339 (Ep 5,14,
340 §37.
341 Cf. 44, n. 4.
342 (Lc 10,22,
343 (2Co 12,2, Augustine understands the passage differently, i. e S. Paul really did not know whether or not he was in the body. Gn ad lit. Gn 12,14,
344 paranomian, §2, n 5.
345 Cf. Jerome, ‘He speaks not in ecstasy, as Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla rave;’ Proef. in Naum. In like manner Tertullian speaks of ‘amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat prophetia;’ de Anim. 21. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. 5,16. Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of Maximilla’s prophecies, says, ‘Whatever the prophets have said, they spoke with understanding, following the sense.’ Hoer. 48. p. 403. In the de Syn. 4. Athan. speaks of the Montanists as making a fresh beginning of Christianity; i.e. they were the first heretics who professed to prophesy and to introduce a new or additional revelation).
346 despoth", §56, 6.
347 This expression, which repeatedly occurs in this and the following sections, surely implies that there was something economical in our Lord’s profession of ignorance. He said with a purpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine). [But see Prolegg. ch. 4,§5.]
348 43, n. 9; 45, n. 3.
349 (Ac 1,7,
350 Vid. Basil). Ep. 8, 6. Cyril. Thes. p. 222. Ambros). de fid. 5,212. Chrysost. and Hieron). in loc. Matt.
351 Vid. Hilar). in Mt Comment. 26, 4; de Trin. 9,67; Ambros). de Fid. 5,c. 17. Isidor. Pelus). Epp. i. 117. Chrysost). in Mt Hom. 77, 2 and 3).
352 Vid. Ph 3,13.
353 (Mt 24,42 Lc 12,40,
354 Vid. 2Th 2,1-2.
355 (Gn 3,9 Gn 4,9, seems taken from Origen, in Matt. t. Mt 10 vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost). infr.
356 S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory, in addition to the instances in the text, refer to ‘I will go down now, and see whether they have done, &c., and if not, I will know.’ Gn 18,21. ‘The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, &c.’ Gn 11,5. ‘God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see, &c.’ Ps 53,3. ‘It may be they will reverence My Son.’ Mt 21,37 Lc 20,13. ‘Seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, He came, if haply He might find, &c.’ Mc 11,13. ‘Simon, lovest thou Me?’ Jn 21,15. vid. Ambros). de Fid. 5,c. 17. Chrys). in Mt Hom. 77, 3. Greg). Epp. 10,39. Vid. also the instances, supr. §37. Other passages may be added, such as Gen 22,12. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. But the difficulty of the passage lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which the Father knows what the Son knows not.
357 Or. i. 8, n. 2.
358 neanieuhsqe, vid). Decr. 18 init). de Fug. 4. b.
359 tonqoruzete, vid). Decr. 16.
360 diefqarmenh, §58 fin.
361 (Lc 2,52,
362 §32, n. 7.
363 De Syn. 24, n. 9, vid). supr. §39; Orat. 4,11).
364 It is the doctrine of the [medieval and modern] Church that Christ, as man, was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ignorance were hardly separable from sin, and were the direct consequence or accompaniment of original sin. Cf. Aug). de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. As to the limits of Christ’s perfect knowledge as man, Petavius observes, that we must consider ‘that the soul of Christ knew all things that are or ever will be or ever have been, but not what are only in posse, not in fact.’ Incarn. xi. 3, 6.
365 Vid. Gn 26,13.
366 (Ph 3,13,
367 §4, n. 10.
368 Or. ii. 36, n. 4.
369 Vid. Serm). Maj. de Fid. 18.
370 Or. ii. 12, n. 4.
371 §31, n. 10.
372 It is remarkable, considering the tone of his statements in the present chapter, that here and in what follows Athan. should resolve our Lord’s advance in wisdom merely to its gradual manifestation through the flesh [but he says expressly ‘the Manhood advanced in wisdom!’] and it increases the proof that his statements are not to be taken in the letter, and as if fully brought out and settled. Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86. which is the more remarkable since he is chiefly writing against the Apollinarians, who considered a fanerwsi" the great end of our Lord’s coming; and Cyril). c. Nest. 3,p. 87. Theod). Hor. v. 13.On the other hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing an wisdom as man). Hoer. 77. p. 1019–24. and S. Ambrose, Incarn. 71–14. Vid. however Ambr). de fid. as quoted supr. §45, n. 2.
373 (Mt 16,16 Mt 27,54,
374 Or. ii. 1, n. 6.
375 Or. ii. 10, n. 7; 3,58.
376 i. 45.
377 iii. 16, n. 8.
378 §34.
379 ii. 69, n. 3.
380 §31, n. 12.
381 31, n. 10.
382 Or. ii. 52 n. 6).
383 dianoia, §26 et passim.
384 anw kai katw, vid). de Decr. 14, n. 1; Or. 2,34, n. 5.
385 (Jn 11,35 Jn 12,27 Mt 26,39 Mc 15,34,
386 Cf. 2,80.
387 §53, n. 2.
388 (Lc 12,4,
389 (Gn 15,1 Gn 26,24 Ex 4,12, &c.; Jos 1,6,
390 (Ps 118,6,
391 (Jb 38,17, ; De Syn. 8, below, §56.
392 (Jn 18,5 Jn 10,18,
393 Jn 10,30.
394 anqrwpon olon, Orat. 4,35 fin.
395 idian, Orat. 1,52 fin.
396 This our Lord’s suspense or permission, at His will, of the operations of His manhood is a great principle in the doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Theophylact, in Joh. 11,34. And Cyril, fragm. in Joan. p. 685. Leon). Ep. 35, 3. Aug). in Joan. xlix 18. vid. note on §57, sub. fin. The Eutychians perverted this doctrine, as if it implied that our Lord was not subject to the laws of human nature, and that He suffered merely ‘by permission of the Word.’ Leont). ap. Canis. t. 1. p. 563. In like manner Marcion or Manes said that His ‘flesh appeared from heaven in resemblance, w" hqelhsen.’ Athan). contr. Apoll. ii. 3.
397 (Jn 10,38 Jn 14,10,
398 Jn 10,30.
399 Or. i. 43, 44, notes; 2,66, n. 7). Serm. Maj. de Fid. 9. Tertull). de Carn. Chr. 6.
400 §44, nn. 2, 6.
401 ii, 56, n. 5.
402 (Jb 38,17, LXX.
403 Vid. Mt 27,52-53, similar passage supr. p. 88.
404 despothn, §14, &c.
405 Vid. Mt 27,54. Vid). Or. ii. 16; 35, n. 2. Cf. Leo’s Tome (Ep 28). 4. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 161. Ambros). Epist. 1,46. n. 7. vid. Hil). Trin. 10,48. Also vid. Athan). Sent. D. fin). Serm. Maj. de Fid. 24.
406 (Mt 16,23, cf. §§40, 41.
407 [The human will of the Saviour is in absolute harmony with the Divine, though psychologically distinct.] Cf. Anast). Hodeg. 1,p. 12.
408 It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak of the nature of the Word, and of, not the nature of man as united to Him, but of flesh, humanity, &c. (vid). Or. ii. 45, n. 2). so here, instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word’s willing and human weakness, terror, &c. In another place he says still more pointedly, ‘The will was of the Godhead alone; since the whole nature of the Word was manifested in the second Adam’s human form and visible flesh. contr. Apoll. 2,10. Cf. S. Leo on the same passage: ‘The first request is one of infirmity, the second of power; the first He asked in our [character], the second in His own. …The inferior will give way to the superior,’ &c). Serm. 56, 2. vid. a similar passage in Nyssen. Antirrh. adv. Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An obvious objection may be drawn from such passages, as if the will ‘of the flesh’ were represented as contrary (vid. foregoing note) to the will of the Word. The whole of our Lord’s prayer is offered by Him as man, because it is a prayer; the first part is not from Him as man, but the second, which corrects it, from Him as God [i.e. the first part is not human as contrasted with the second]; but the former part is from the sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from His human will expressing its acquiescence in His Father’s, that is, in His Divine Will. ‘His Will,’ says S. Greg. Naz. ‘was not contrary to God, being all deified, qewqen olon.’
409 nomizomenh, vid). Orat. 1,10.
410 (Ac 5,29,
411 (Jn 12,27 Jn 10,18).
412 This might be taken as an illustration of the ut voluit supr. Or. 1,44, n. 11. And so the expressions in the Evangelists, ‘Into Thy hands I commend My Spirit,’ ‘He bowed the head,’ ‘He gave up the ghost,’ are taken to imply that His death was His free act. vid. Ambros). in loc. Luc. Hieron). in loc. Matt. also Athan). Serm. Maj. de Fid. 4. It is Catholic doctrine that our Lord, as man, submitted to death of His free will, and not as obeying an express command of the Father. Cf. S. Chrysostom on Jn 10,18. Theophylact. in Hebr. 12,2; Aug). de Trin. 4,16.
413 (Ps 16,10,
414 Or. ii. 65, n. 3.
415 Ib. 69, n. 3.
416 §53.
417 Thus ends the exposition of texts, which forms the body of these Orations. It is remarkable that he ends as be began, with reference to the ecclesiastical scope, or Regula Fidei, which has so often come under our notice, vid). Or. 2,35. n. 2. 44, n. 1, as if distinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not so force its meaning on the individual as to dispense with an interpreter, and as if his own deductions were not to be viewed merely in their own logical power, great as that power often is, but as under the authority of the Catholic doctrines which they subserve. Vid). Or. 3,18, n. 3.
418 This chapter is in a very different style from the foregoing portions of this Book, and much more resembles the former two; not only in its subject and the mode of treating it, but in the words introduced, e.g). epispeirousi, epinoousi, gogguzousi, kaqAE uma", atopon, lexeidion, ei" twn pantwn, &c. And the references are to the former Orations.
419 See 50, n. 10; Serap. 1,18.
420 qeomacoi, de Decr. 3, n. 1; Or. 2,32, n. 4. Vid. Dissert. by Bucher on the word in Ac 5,39). ap. Thesaur. Theol. Ph N. T. t. 2.
421 qeostugei", §40.
422 §64, note.
423 Or. ii. 73, n. 7.
424 peribombousi). De Decr. 14, n. 1; also de Fug. 2, 6. Naz). Orat. 27, 2. c.
425 S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as ‘Son of God according to the will (qelhma) and power of God.’ ad Smyrn. 1. S. Justin as ‘God and Son according to His will, boulhn.’ Tryph. 127, and ‘begotten from the Father at His will, qelhsei.’ ibid. 61. and he says, dunamei kai boulh autou. ibid. 128. S. Clement ‘issuing from the Father’s will itself quicker than light.’ Gent. 10 fin. S. Hippolytus, ‘Whom God the Father, willing, boulhqei", begat as He willed, w" hqelhsen). contr. Noet. 16. Origen, ek qelhmato". ap. Justin). ad. Menn. vid. also cure filius charitatis etiam voluntatis. Periarch. 4,28.
426 dianoia" interpretation, §26, n. 9.
427 Cf). Ep. Aeg. 8. and supr. ii. 3. Also Letter 54 fin. Vid). supr. de Decr. 10, n. 3. And vid. Leont). contr. Nest. 3,41. (p. 581. Canis). He here seems alluding to the Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the earlier Fathers.
428 Tatian had said qelhmati prophda o logo"). Gent. 5. Tertullian had said, ‘Ut primum voluit Deus ea edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem). adv. Prax. 6. Novatian, Ex quo, quando ipse voluit, Sermo filius natus est). de Trin. 31. And Constit. Apost). ton pro aiwnwn eudokia tou patro" gennhqenta. 7,41. Pseudo-Clem. Genuit Deus voluntate praecedente). Recognit. 3,10. Eusebius, kata gnwmhn kai proairesin boulhqei" o qeo": ek th" tou patro" boulh" kai dunamew"). Dem. 4,3. Arius, qelhmati kai boulh upesth. ap. Theod). H.E. i. 4. p. 750. vid. also de Syn. 16.
429 (Pr 12,5-6,
430 De Decr. 20.
431 p. 69. n. 8.
432 And so supr. de Decr. 18, ‘by what Saint have they been taught “at will?”’ That is, no one ever taught it in the sense in which they explained it; that he has just said, ‘He who says “at will” has the same meaning as he who says “Once He was not.”’ Cf. below §§61, 64, 66. Certainly as the earlier Fathers had used the phrase, so those who came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the passage in contr. Eun. vii. referred to in the next note. And Hilar). Syn. 37. The same father says, unitate Patris et virtute. Psalm 91,8. and ut voluit, ut potuit, ut scit qui genuit). Trin. 3,4. And he addresses Him as non invidum bonorum tuorum in Unigeniti tui nativitate. ibid. 6,21. S. Basil too speaks of our Lord as autozwhn kai autoagaqon, ‘from the quickening Fountain, the Father’s goodness, agaqothto".’ contr. Eun. 2,25. And Caesarius calls Him agaphn patro". Quoest. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr). adv. Scrut. R. 6,1). Oxf. Tra. and note there. Maximus Taurin. says, that God is per omnipotentiam Pater). Hom. de trad. Symb. p. 270. ed. 1784, vid. also Chrysol). Serm. 61. Ambros). de Fid. 4,8. Petavius refers in addition to such passages as one just quoted from S. Hilary, which speak of God as not invidus, so as not to communicate Himself, since He was able. Si non potuit, infirmus; si non voluit, invidus. August). contr. Maxim. 3,7.
433 (Mt 3,17 Ps 45,1 Jn 1,1 Ps 36,9 He 1,3 Ph 2,26 Col 1,15,
434 prohgoumenhn and 61 fin. The antecedens voluntas has been mentioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. note 11. For Ptolemy vid. Epiph). Hoer. p. 215. The Catholics, who allowed that our Lord was qelhsei, explained it as a sundromo" qelhsi", and not a prohgoumenh; as Cyril). Trin. 2,p. 56. And with the same meaning S. Ambrose, nec voluntas ante Filium nec potestas). de Fid. 5,224. And S. Gregory Nyssen, ‘His immediate union, ameso" ounafeia, does not exclude the Father’s will, boulhsin, nor does that will separate the Son from the Father.’ contr. Eunom. 7,p. 206, 7. vid. the whole passage. The alternative which these words, sundromo" and prohgoumenh, expressed was this; whether an act of Divine Purpose or Will took place before the Generation of the Son, or whether both the Will and the Generation were eternal, as the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence Bull says, with the view of exculpating Novatian, Cum Filius dicitur ex Patre, quando ipse voluit, nasci. Velle illud Patris aeternum fuisse intelligendum). Defens. F. N. 3,8. §8.
435 proballein, de Syn. 16, n. 8.
436 epigegone, Or. 1,25, 28 fin. iii 6.
437 (Ps 115,3 Ps 111,2 ; Ps 135,6
438 Cf. 2,n. 1).
439 Cf. 2,18–43.
440 1Co 1,1, &C.
441 (Ep 1
442 ii. 31 seqq.
443 (Jc 1,18,
444 (1Th 5,18
445 64, note 4.
446 Thus he makes the question a nugatory one, as if it did not go to the point, and could not be answered, or might be answered either way, as the case might be. Really Nature and Will go together in the Divine Being, but in order, as we regard Him, Nature is first, Will second, and the generation belongs to Nature, not to Will. And so supr. Or. 1,29; 2,2. In like manner S. Epiphanius, Haeg. 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51. vid. also Ambros). de Fid. 4,4. vid. others, as collected in Petav). Trin. 6,8. §14–16.
447 Two distinct meanings may be attached to ‘by will’ (as Dr. Clark observes, Script. Doct. p. 142. ed. 1738), either a concurrence or acquiescence, or a positive act. S Cyril uses it in the former sense, when he calls it sundromo", as quoted §60, n. 1; and when he says (with Athan). infr.) that ‘the Father wills His own subsistence, qelhgh" esti, but is not what He is from any will, ek boulhsew",’ Thes. p. 56; Dr. Clark would understand it in the latter sense, with a view of inferring that the Son was subsequent to a Divine act, i.e. not eternal; but what Athan. says leads to the conclusion, that it does not matter which sense is taken. He does not meet the Arian objection, ‘if not by will therefore by necessity,’ by speaking of a concomitant will, or merely saying that the Almighty exists or is good, by will, with S. Cyril, but he says that ‘nature transcends will and necessity also.’ Accordingly, Petavius is even willing to allow that the ek boulh" is to be ascribed to the gennhsi" in the sense which Dr. Clark wishes, i.e. he grants that it may precede the gennhsi", i.e. in order, not in time, in the succession of our ideas, Trin. 6,8, §§20, 21; and follows S. Austin, Trin. XV. 20. in preferring to speak of our Lord rather as voluntas de voluntate, than, as Athan. is led to do, as the voluntas Dei.
448 Vid). Or. 1,25, n. 2. Also Serap. i. 15, 16 init. 17, 20; 4,8, 14). Ep. AeEg. 11 fin. Didym). Trin. iii. 3. p. 341. Ephr. Syr). adv. Haer. Serm. 55 init. (t. 2P 557). Facund). Tr. Cap. 3,3 init.
449 epigegonw", §60, n. 3.
450 logisasqai tina boulhsi", as §66 (Latin version inexact).
451 agaqou patro" agaqon boulhma. Clem). Ped. iii. circ. fin). sofia, crhstoth", dunami", qelhma pantokratorikon). Strom. v. p. 547. Voluntas et potestas patris. Tertull). Orat. 4. Natus ex Patri quasi voluntas ex mente procedens. Origen). Periarch. 1,2. §6. S. Jerome notices the same interpretation of ‘by the will of God’ in the beginning of Comment). in Ephes. But cf. Aug). Trin. 15,20. And so Caesarius, agaph ex agaph"). Qu. 39.
452 (Pr 8,14,
453 (1Co 1,24,
454 zwsa boulh). supr. Og. 2,2. Cyril in Joan. p. 213). zwsa dunami". Sabell). Greg. 5. c). zwsa eikwn. Naz). Orat. 30, 20. c). zwsa energeia. Syn. Antioch). ap. Routh. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 469). zwsa iscu". Cyril). in Joan. p. 951). zwsa sofia. Origen). contr. Cels. 3,fin). zwn logo". Origen. ibid). zwn organon (heretically) Euseb). Dem. 4,2.
455 (Is 9,6,
456 Or. ii. 33, n. 12).
457 (Ps 73,23-24,
458 di eterou tino". This idea has been urged against the Arians again and again, as just above, §61; e.g). de Decr. 8, 24; Or. i. 15, below 65, sub. fin. vid. also Epiph). Haer. 76. p. 951. Basil. contr. Eunom. 2,11. c. 17, a. &c.
459 §60.
460 polukefalo" airesi". And so poluk. panourgia, §62. The allusion is to the hydra, with its ever-springing heads, as introduced §58, n. 5. and with a special allusion to Asterius who is mentioned, §60, and in de Syn. 18. is called poluk. sofisth".
461 Or. ii. 43, n. 4.
462 §16, n. 4.
463 Or. i. 57; 2,23.
464 (Pr 8,14,
465 peri ton qeon. vid). de Decr. 22, n. 1; Or. 1,15. Also Orat. 1,27, where (n. 2 a)., it is mistranslated. Euseb). Eccl. Theol. 3,p. 150. vid). de Syn. 34, n. 7.
466 exin. vid). Or. 2,38, n. 6; 4,2, n. 7.
467 sumbainousan kai aposumbainousan, vid). de Decr. 11, n. 7, and 22, n. 9, sumbama, Euseb). (Qo Theol. 3,p. 150. in the same, though a technical sense. vid. also Serap. 1,26; Naz). Orat. 31, 15 fin.
468 (Ac 8,20,
469 (Pr 3,19 Ps 33,6 Ps 135,6, Ps 115,3 1Th 5,18,
470 Read ‘a word,’ cf. p. 394, n. 6.
471 De Syn. 53, n. 9.
472 ousia and upostasi" are in these passages made synonymous; and so infr. Orat. iv. 1, f. And in 4,33 fin. to the Son is attributed h patrikh upostasi". Vid. also ad Afros. 4. quoted supr. Exc. A, pp. 77, sqq. Up. might have been expected too in the discussion in the beginning of Orat. 3,did Athan. distinguish between them. It is remarkable how seldom it occurs at all in these Orations, except as contained in He 1,3. Vid. also p. 70, note 13. Yet the phrase trei" upostasei" is certainly found in Illud Omn. fin. and in Incarn. c. Arian. 10. (if genuine) and apparently in Expos..Fid. 2. Vid. also Orat. 4,25 init.
473 (He 1,3,
474 (Jn 3,35 Jn 5,20,
475 63, n. 3.
476 Or. i. 14, n. 4; 2,2, n. 3.
477 (Ps 45,1 Jn 14,10,
478 §2, n. 6, &c.
479 De Decr. 1,n. 6.
480 Or. i. 26.
481 th" ousia" omoia, vid). Or. 1,21, n. 8. Also ii. 42, b. 3,11, 14 sub. fin., 17, n. 5.
482 Or. ii. 1, n. 13.
483 65, n. 8).
484 De Decr. 3, n. 2; Orat. 1,27, 2,4; Apol. c. Ar. 36.
485 Cf. 63, n. 9.
486 (Jn 10,38 Jn 10,30 Jn 14,9 cf. §5, 3
487 (Ps 146,8,
488 The above Excursus is substituted for the longer introduction of Newman (republished in Latin in his Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1872), and is in the main a condensation of the more recent and final discussion of Zahn (Marcellus, 1867, pp. 198 seqq.). The result of the latter is to confirm the main contention of Newman, viz. that the system, rather than the person, of Marcellus is throughout in view. Earlier discussions pointing the same way are cited: ‘In Eusebii contra Marcellum libros Observationes, auctore K.S.C.,’ Lips. 1787 (cited by Newman); Rettberg, Marcelliana, Praef. p. 7; Kuhn, Kathol. Dogm. 2,p. 344, note 1 (by Zahn)).
489 The Articles Sabellianism and Sabellius (both sub. fin.) in D.C.B. vol. iv., state the contrary, but the present writer follows the standard discussion of Zahn, of which the learned articles in question do not seem to take account).
The following table will make the foregoing scheme clear.§1. Introductory. Thesis: the co-eternal personality ofthe Son or Word.§§2–5. Those who, while rejecting Arianism, would avoid Sabellianism, must accept the eternal divine Generation of the Son.§§6, 7). [Digression: the humiliation of the Word explainedagainst the Arians.]§8. The eternity of Christ’s Kingdom and of His Person implied each in the other.§§9–12. In what sense Christ and the Father are, and are not, one. The divine gevnnhsi".§§13, 14. The doctrine of divine dilatation and contraction denies true personal distinctions in the Godhead.§§15–24. The Son and the Word identical Refutation of thethree alternative suppositions, and of the argument alleged from the O. T. in support of them.§25. Final refutation of the doctrine of dilatation.§§26–36. The Scriptural identification of Son and Word refutes the restriction of the former title to the man Jesus).
Athanasius 16301