|
{230} Chapter 10. Objections continued
§ 35. 1. AS to their question whether the Word is alterable [Note A], it is superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the following questions:—"Has He freewill [Note 1], or has He not? is He good from choice [Note 2] according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and incline hither and thither?" It is but agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think; for, when once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms as are suitable to a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found? is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His progress? how shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? how should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Unalterable? in which of His states shall we be able to behold in Him the Father? for it is plain that not at all times shall {231} we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but ever of a changing nature, how can such a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of his unalterableness [Note 3]? how can He be really in the Father, if His moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth shine out, and shew that they are beside themselves. For must not He be perfect who is equal to God? and must not He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son proper to His substance? and the Father's substance being unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril [Note 4]; for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, and why the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father. § 36. 2. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever [Heb. xiii. 8.]. And David in the Psalm says of Him, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail [Ps. cii. 25-27.]. And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, See now that I, even I am He [Deut. xxxii. 39.], and I change not [Mal. iii. 6.]. It may be said indeed that what is here expressed relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to speak it, specially because, when made man, He manifests His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the flesh He is changed and become other than He was. More trustworthy are the sacred writers, or rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the name of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things generate and created is alterable and changeable {232} able, yet excepting the Son from these, shews us thereby that He is in no wise a thing generate; nay teaches that He changes every thing else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail. And with reason; for things generate, being from nothing [Note 5], and not being before their generation, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His substance, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that substance which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? or can that be Wisdom which is changeable? unless perhaps, as accident in substance [Note 6], so they would have it, viz. as in any particular substance, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is the true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how can that be true? whereas the Lord says, I am the Truth [John xiv. 6.]. If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares his unalterableness, and the sacred writers have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion draw this novelty? from their heart as from a seat of corruption did they vomit it forth [Note 7]. {233} Chapter 11. Texts explained; and first, Phil. ii. 9, 10.
§ 37. 1. BUT since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense [Note A], it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to lay claim to these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that the Apostle writes, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name; that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth [Phil. ii. 9, 10.]: and David, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows [Ps. xlv. 9.]. Then they urge, {234} as something acute: "If He was exalted and received grace, on a wherefore, and on a wherefore He was anointed, He received the reward of His good choice; but having acted from choice, He is altogether of an alterable nature." This is what Eusebius [Note 8] and Arius have dared to say, nay to write; while their partizans do not shrink from conversing about it in full market-place [Note 9], not seeing how mad an argument they use. For if He received what He had as a reward of His good choice, and would not have had it, unless He had needed it and had His work to shew for it, then having gained it from virtue and promotion [Note 10], with reason had He "therefore" been called Son and God, without being very Son. For what is from another by nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob and the Radiance to the Sun; but the so-called Sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides [Note 11] the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by participation, concerning whom Scripture saith, I have begotten and exalted children, and they have rebelled against Me [Is. i. 2.] [Note 12]. And of course, since they were not sons by nature, therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away and they were disinherited; and again on their repentance that God who thus at the beginning gave them grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them Sons again. § 38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has God for a Father of His being according to substance, but of the mere grace given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to substance, after the similitude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not the name "Son" from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and took the form of a servant; but then, when, after becoming obedient unto death [Phil ii. 8.], He was, as the text says, highly exalted, and received that Name as a grace, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow. 2. What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when {235} He became man? For He seems Himself not to have promoted [Note 13] the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He was then exalted and called Son, when He became man. What then was before this? One must urge the question on them again, to make it understood what their irreligious doctrine results in [Note B]. For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, yet was not all these before He became man, either He was something else beside these, and afterwards became partaker of them for His virtue's sake, as we have said; or they must adopt the alternative, (may it fall upon their heads!) that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is no sentiment of the Church, but of Samosatene and of the present Jews. Why then, if they think as Jews, are they not circumcised with them too, instead of pretending Christianity, while they are its foes? For if He was not, or was indeed, but afterwards was promoted, how were all things made by Him, or how in Him, were He not perfect, did the Father delight [Note 14]? And He, on the other hand, if now promoted, how did He before rejoice in the presence of the Father? And, if He received His worship after dying, how is Abraham seen to worship Him in the tent [Note 15], and Moses in the bush? and, as Daniel saw, myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands were ministering unto Him? And if, as they say, He had His promotion now, how did the Son Himself make mention of that His glory before and above the world, when He said, Glorify Thou Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was [John xvii. 5.]. If, as they say, He was then exalted, how did He before that bow the heavens and come down; and again, The Highest gave His thunder [Ps. xviii. 9, 13.]? Therefore, if, even before {236} the world was made, the Son had that glory, and was Lord of glory and the Highest, and descended from heaven, and is ever to be worshipped, it follows that He had no promotion from His descent, but rather Himself promoted the things which needed promotion; and if He descended to effect their promotion, therefore He did not receive in reward the name of the Son and God, but rather He himself has made us sons of the Father, and made men gods, by becoming Himself man. § 39. 3. Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to make us gods [Note 16]. Since, if when He became man, only then He was called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh, (and Scripture says of many, God standeth in the congregation of gods [Ps. lxxxi. (lxxxii.) 1. Sept.],) it is plain that He is called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and He before all? or how is He first-born of the whole creation [Col. i. 15.] [Note 17], if He has others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers [Note C] do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is an evasion of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? for adoption there cannot be apart from the real Son, who says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him [Matt. xi. 27.]. And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? yet, saith He to their brethren the Jews, If He called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came [John x. 35.]. And if all that are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He Himself before all, or rather He himself only is very Son [Note 18], and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being {237} something else beside [Note 19] them, but being all these by nature and according to substance. For He is Offspring of the Father's substance, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable. § 40. 4. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptions [Note D] implied in the Word "Son," as the Lord Himself has given us. But it will be well next to expound the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's [Note 20], as well as their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name; that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [Phil. ii. 5-11.]. Can any thing be plainer and more express than this? He was not from a lower state promoted; but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, did not promote but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion in such humiliation? For if, being God, He became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be exalted, where is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain, that, since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who is in the Father and like the Father in all things [Note 21]? 5. Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition; nor is such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word did descend in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if {238} to seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who is the Giver of grace [Note 22]? or how did He receive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, O God, for Thy Name's sake [Ps. liv. 1.]; and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God [Ib. xx. 7.]. And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, Let all the Angels of God worship Him [Heb. i. 6.]. § 41. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His Name remaineth before the sun, and before the moon from one generation to another [Ps. lxxi. (lxxii.) 17. 5. Sept.], how did He receive what He had always, even before He now received it ? or how is He exalted, being before His exaltation, the Most High? or how did He receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now received it, was ever worshipped? 6. It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery [Note E]. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; but for our sakes afterwards the Word was made flesh [John i. 1. 14.]. And the term in question, highly exalted, does not signify that the substance of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is equal to God [Phil. ii. 6.], but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that humbled and exalted are spoken of His human nature; for where there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His taking flesh humbled is written, it is clear that highly exalted is also said because of it. For of this was man's [Note 23] nature in want, because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of a servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death {239} we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and ascending into heaven, whither the forerunner is for us entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us [Heb. vi. 20; ix. 24.]. But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation also written. And as He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies Himself to the Father for our sakes, not that the Word may become holy, but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify all of us, in like manner we must take the present phrase, He highly exalted Him, not that He Himself should be exalted, for He is the highest, but that He may become righteousness for us [Note F]; and we may be exalted in Him, and that we may enter the gates of heaven, which He has also opened for us, the forerunners saying, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in [Ps. xxiv. 7.]. For here also not on Him were shut the gates, who is Lord and Maker of all, but because of us is this too written, to whom the door of paradise was shut. And therefore in a human relation, because of the flesh which He bore, it is said of Him, Lift up, O ye gates, and shall come in, as if a man were entering; but in a divine relation on the other hand it is said of Him, since the Word was God, that He is the Lord and the King of Glory. Such our exaltation the Spirit foreannounced in the eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, And in Thy righteousness shall they be exalted, for Thou art the glory of their strength [Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 17, 18. Sept.]. And if the Son be Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in need, but it is we who are exalted in that Righteousness, which is He [Note 24]. § 42. 7. And so too the words gave Him, are not written for the Word Himself; for even before He became man, He was {240} worshipped, as we have said, by the Angels and the whole creation in what is proper [Note 25] to the Father; but because of us and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even this so high a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified [Note 26] that which He put on, nay, gave it graciously to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped as being the Word and existing in the form of God, so being what He ever was, though become man and called Jesus, He still has, as before, the whole creation under foot, and bending their knees to Him in this Name, and confessing that the Word's becoming flesh, and undergoing death in flesh, hath not happened against the glory of His Godhead, but to the glory of God the Father. For it is the Father's glory that man, made and then lost, should be found again; and, when the prey of death, that he should be made alive, and should become God's temple. For whereas the powers in heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping the Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in the Name of Jesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the heavenly powers are not startled at seeing all of us, who are of one body with Him [Note 27], introduced into their realms. And this had not been, unless He who existed in the form of God had taken on Him a servant's form, and had humbled Himself, permitting His body to reach unto death. § 43. 8. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God because of the Cross, has become of all things most honoured. For our resurrection is stored up in it; and no longer Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the Prophet foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the Father of the Christ. And the delusion of demons is come to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For in that the Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was worshipped and believed to be God's Son, and that through Him the Father was known, it is plain, as has been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word [Note 28], {241} received this so great grace, but we. For because of our relationship to His Body we too have become God's temple, and in consequence are made God's sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth [Note G]. As also John saith in the Gospel, As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God [John i. 12.]; and in his Epistle he writes, By this is we know that He abideth in us by His Spirit which He hath given us [1 John iii. 24.]. And this too is an evidence of His goodness towards us that, while we were exalted because that the Highest Lord is in us, and on our behalf grace was given to Him, because that the Lord who supplies the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand, the Saviour, humbled Himself in taking our body of humiliation, and took a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to sin [Note H], And He indeed gained nothing from us for {242} His own promotion [Note 29]: for the Word of God is without want and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He is the Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world [John i. 9.]. 9. And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction wherefore, because Paul has said, Wherefore hath God highly exalted Him. For in saying this he did not imply any prize of virtue, nor the promotion from advance [Note 30], but the cause why the exaltation was bestowed upon us. And what is this but that He who existed in form of God, the Son of a divine [Note 31] Father, humbled Himself and became a servant instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not become man, we had not been redeemed from sins: not raised from the dead, but remaining dead under the earth; not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because of us then and in our behalf are the words, highly exalted and given. § 44. 10. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense [Note 32]. However, there is another way in which one might remark upon it, giving the same sense in a parallel way; viz. that, though it does not speak of the exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word [Note 33], (for He is, as was just now said, most high and like His Father,) yet by reason of His incarnation it alludes to His resurrection from the dead. For after saying, He hath humbled Himself even unto death, He immediately added, Wherefore {243} He hath highly exalted Him [Eph. iv. 10.]; wishing to shew, that, although as man He is said to have died, yet, as being Life, He was exalted on the resurrection; for He who descended, is the same also who rose again [Eph. iv. 10.]. He descended in body, and He rose again because He was God Himself in the body [Note 34]. And this again is the reason why according to this meaning He brought in the conjunction Wherefore; not as a reward of virtue nor of advancement, but to signify the cause why the resurrection took place; and why, while all other men from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity from the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already taught us, that, being God, He has become man. For all other men, being merely born of Adam, died, and death reigned over them; but He, the Second Man, is from heaven, for the Word was made flesh [John i. 14.], and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly [Note 35], because the Word descended from heaven; wherefore He was not held under death. For though He humbled Himself, suffering His own Body to reach unto death, in that it was capable [Note 36] of death [Note I], yet it was highly exalted from earth, because He was God's Son in a body. Accordingly what is here said, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, answers to S. Peter's words in the Acts, Whom God raised up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden of it [Acts ii. 24.]. For as Paul has written, "Since being in form of God He became man, and humbled Himself unto death, therefore God also hath highly exalted Him," so also Peter says, "Since, being God, He became {244} man, and signs and wonders proved Him to beholders to be God, therefore it was not possible that He should be holden of death." To man it was not possible to prosper in this matter; for death belongs to man; wherefore, the Word, being God, became flesh, that, being put to death in the flesh, He might quicken all men by His own power. § 45. 11. But since He Himself is said to be exalted, and God gave Him, and the heretics think this a defect [Note 37] or affection in the substance [Note K] of the Word, it becomes necessary to explain how these words are used. He is said to be exalted from the lower parts of the earth, because, on the other hand, death is ascribed to Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it was His Body [Note L], and none other's, that was exalted from the dead and taken up into heaven. And again, the Body being His, and the Word not being external to it, it is natural that when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should, because of the body, be spoken of as exalted. If then He did not become man, let this not be said of Him; but if the Word became flesh, of necessity the resurrection and exaltation, as in the case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death which is ascribed to Him maybe a redemption of the sins of {245} men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both respects he hath said of Him, God hath highly exalted Him, and God hath given to Him; that herein moreover he may shew that it is not the Father that hath become flesh, but it is His Word, who has become man, and has received after the manner of men from the Father, and is exalted by Him, as has been said. And it is plain, nor would any one dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives through the Son. And it is marvellous and overwhelming verily, that the grace which the Son gives from the Father, that the Son Himself is said to receive; and the exaltation, which the Son effects from the Father, with that, the Son is Himself exalted. For He who is the Son of God, He Himself became the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from the Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is said after the manner of men to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as man's nature [Note 38] was exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Lord Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead [Note 39] and perfection, which was His. FootnotesA. [treptos], i.e. not, changeable, but of
a moral nature capable of improvement. Arius maintained this in the
strongest terms at starting. "On being asked whether the Word of God
is capable of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say,
'Yea, He is capable.'" Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11. A. vid. supr. p. 78, note n. "We must not make an
appeal to the Scriptures, nor take up a position for the fight, in
which victory is not, or is doubtful, or next to doubtful. For though
this conflict of Scripture with Scripture did not end in a drawn
battle, yet the true order of the subject required that that should be
laid down first, which now becomes but a point of debate, viz. who
have a claim to the faith itself, whose are the Scriptures."
Tertull. de Præscr. 19 [pp. 467, 468 O.T.]. Ruffinus says of S. Basil
and S. Gregory, "Putting aside all Greek literature, they are said to
have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone,
and followed out their sense not from their private opinion,
but by the writings and authority of the Fathers, &c.," Hist. ii.
9. "Seeing the Canon of Scripture is perfect &c. what need we join
unto it the authority of the Church's understanding and
interpretation? because the Scripture being of itself so deep and
profound, all men do not understand it in one and the same sense, but so
many men, so many opinions almost may be gathered out of it; for
Novatian expounds it one way, Photinus another, Sabellius, &c."
Vincent. Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage very much to the same
purpose. contr. Noet. 9 fin. B. The Arians perhaps more than other heretics
were remarkable for bringing objections against the received view,
rather than forming a consistent theory of their own. Indeed the very
vigour and success of their assault upon the truth lay in its being a
mere assault, not a positive and substantive teaching. They therefore,
even more than others, might fairly be urged on to the consequences of
their positions. Now the text in question, as it must be interpreted
if it is to serve as an objection, was an objection also to the
received doctrine of the Arians. They considered that our Lord was
above and before all creatures from the first, and their Creator; how
then could He be exalted above all? They surely, as much as Catholics,
were obliged to explain it of our Lord's manhood. They could not thus
use it as a weapon against the Church, until they took the ground of
Paul of Samosata. C. In this passage Athan. considers that the
participation of the Word is deification, as communion with the Son is
adoption; also that the old Saints, inasmuch as they are called "gods"
and "sons," did partake of the Divine Word and Son, or in other words
were gifted with the Spirit. He asserts the same doctrine very
strongly in Orat. iv. § 22 [p. 539]. On the other hand, infr. 47 [p.
247], he says expressly that Christ received the Spirit in Baptism that
He might give it to man. There is no real contradiction in such
statements; what was given in one way under the Law, was given in
another and fuller under the Gospel. D. [tais ennoisis chromenoi, pros tas
epinoias apentesamen]. cf. [ouchi epinoia,
paranoia de mallon], &c. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 6. init. E. Scripture is full of mysteries, but they are
mysteries of fact, not of words. Its dark sayings or ænigmata
are such, because in the nature of things they cannot be expressed
clearly. Hence contrariwise, Orat. ii. § 77 fin. [p. 391], he calls
Prov. viii. 22. an enigma, with an allusion to Prov. i. 6. Sept. In
like manner S. Ambrose says, Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se
sensus profundos, et altitudinem propheticorum ænigmatum,
&c. Ep. ii. 3. What is commonly called "explaining away"
Scripture, is this transference of the obscurity from the subject to
the words used. F. When Scripture says that our Lord was exalted,
it means in that sense in which He could be exalted; just as, in
saying that a man walks or eats, we speak of him not as a spirit, but
as in that system of things to which the ideas of walking and eating
belong. Exaltation is not a word which can belong to God; it is
unmeaning, and therefore is not applied to Him in the
text in question. Thus, e.g. S. Ambrose: "Ubi humiliatus, ibi obediens.
Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas, et in eo desinit,
&c." ap. Dav. alt. n. 39. G. [ontos en humin ho theos]. 1 Cor.
xiv. 25. Atlian. interprets [en] in not among; as
also in 1 John iii. 24. just afterwards. Vid. [en emoi]. Gal. i.
24. [entos humon], Luke xvii. 21. [eskenosen
en hemin], John i. 14. on which text Hooker says, "It
pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God to take to itself some one
person among men, for then should that one have been advanced which
was assumed and no more, but Wisdom, to the end she might save many,
built her house of that Nature which is common unto all; she made not
this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us." Eccl. Pol. v. 52.
§ 3. S. Basil in his proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit has a
somewhat similar passage to the text, "Man in common is crowned with
glory and honour, and glory and honour and peace is reserved in the
promises for every one that doeth good. And there is a certain glory
of Israel peculiar, and the Psalmist speaks of a glory of his own, 'Awake
up my glory;' and there is a glory of the sun, and according to the
Apostle even a ministration of condemnation with glory. So many then
being glorified, choose you that the Spirit alone of all should by
without glory?" de Sp. S. c. 24. H. It was usual to say against the Apollinarians,
that, unless our Lord took on Him our nature, as it is, He had
not purified and changed it, as it is, but another nature; "The Lord
came not to save Adam as free from sin, that He should become like
unto him; but as, in the net of sin and now fallen, that God's mercy
might raise him up with Christ." Leont. contr. Nestor. &c. ii. p.
996. Accordingly, Athan. says elsewhere, "had not sinlessness appeared
in the nature which had sinned, how was sin condemned in the
flesh?" in Apoll. ii. 6. "It was necessary for our salvation," says S.
Cyril, "that the Word of God should become man, that human flesh subject
to corruption and sick with the lust of pleasures, He might
make His own; and, whereas He is life and lifegiving, He might destroy
the corruption, &c. … For by this means, might sin in our
flesh become dead." Ep. ad Success. i. p. 138. And S. Leo, "Non
alterius naturæ erat ejus caro quam nostra, nec alio illi quam cæteris
hominibus anima est inspirata principio, quæ excelleret, non
diversitate generis, sed sublimitate virtutis." Ep. 35 fin. vid. also
Ep. 28. 3. Ep. 31. 2. Ep. 165. 9. Serm. 22. 2. and 25. 5. It may be
asked whether this doctrine does not interfere with that of the
immaculate conception; but that miracle was wrought in order that our
Lord might not be born in original sin, and does not affect, or rather
includes, His taking flesh of the substance of the Virgin, i.e. of a
fallen nature. If indeed sin were of the substance of our
fallen nature, as some heretics have said, then He could not have
taken our nature without partaking our sinfulness; but if sin be, as
it is, a fault of the will, then the Divine Power of the Word
could sanctify the human will, and keep it from swerving in the
direction of evil. Hence S. Austin says, "We say not that Christ by
the felicity of a flesh separated from sense could not
feel the desire of sin, but that by perfection of virtue, and
by a flesh not begotten through concupiscence of the flesh, He had
not the desire of sin." Op. Imperf. iv. 48. On the other hand, S.
Athanasius expressly calls it Manichean doctrine to consider, [ten
physin] of the flesh [hamartian, kai ou ten physin].
contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin. or [physiken einai ten
hamartian]. ibid. i. 14 fin. His argument in the next ch. is on
the ground that all natures are from God, but God made man
upright nor is the author of evil; (vid. also Vit. Anton. 211) "not as
if," he says, "the devil wrought in man a nature, (God forbid!) for of
a nature the devil cannot be maker ([demiourgos]) as is
the impiety of the Manichees, but he wrought a bias of nature by
transgression, and 'so death reigned over all men.' Wherefore, saith
he, 'the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil;' what
works? that nature, which God made sinless, and the devil biased to
the transgression of God's command and the finding out of sin which is
death, did God the Word raise again, so as to be secure from the devil's
bias and the finding out of sin. And therefore the Lord said, 'The
prince of this world cometh and findeth nothing in Me.'" vid. also §
19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of the devil having "introduced the law
of sin." vid. also § 9. I. It was a point in controversy with the extreme
Monophysites, that is, the Eutychians, whether our Lord's body was
naturally subject to death, the Catholics maintaining the affirmative,
as Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted that our Lord had not a human
nature, by which he meant among other things that his manhood was not
subject to the laws of a body, but so far as He submitted to
them, He did so by an act of will in each particular case; and this,
lest it should seem that He was moved by the [pathe]
against His will [akousios]; and consequently that his
manhood was not subject to death. But the Catholics maintained that He
had voluntarily placed Himself under those laws, and died
naturally, vid. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 17. and that after the
resurrection His body became incorruptible, not according to nature,
but by grace. vid. Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. Hodeg. c. 23. To
express their doctrine of the [hyperphyes] of our Lord's
manhood the Eutychians made use of the Catholic expression "ut voluit."
vid. Athan. l. c. Eutyches ap. Leon. Ep. 21. "quomodo voluit et scit,"
twice. vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. ii. p. 105. Leont. contr. Nest. i.
p. 967. Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Hær. § 8. (t. 2. p. 570.) K. At first sight it seem as if S. Athanasius
here used [ousia] substance for subsistence, or person;
but this is not true except with an explanation. Its direct
meaning is here, as usual, substance, though indirectly it
comes to imply subsistence. He is speaking of that Divine Essence
which, though also the Almighty Father's, is as simply and entirely
the Word's as if it were only His. Nay, even when the Substance of the
Father is spoken of in a sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in
the phrase [ousia ex ousias], harsh as such expressions are, it
is not accurate to say that [ousia] is used for subsistence or
person, or that two [ousiai] are spoken of. (vid. supr. p. 155,
note F) except, that is, by Arians, as Eusebius, supr. p. 63, note G.
Just below we find [physis tou logou], § 51 init. L. This was the question which came into
discussion in the Nestorian controversy, when, as it was then
expressed, all that took place in respect to the Eternal Word as man,
belonged to His Person, and therefore might be predicated of
Him; so that it was heretical not to confess the Word's body, (or the
body of God in the Person of the Word,) the Word's death, (as Athan.
in the text,) the Word's exaltation, and the Word's, or God's, Mother,
who was in consequence called [theotokos], which was the
expression on which the controversy mainly turned. "The Godhead," says
Athan. elsewhere, "'dwelt in the flesh bodily;' which is all one with
saying, that, being God, He had a proper body, [idion], and
using this as an instrument, [organoi], He became man,
for our sakes; and because of this things proper to the flesh are
said to be His, since He was in it, as hunger, thirst, suffering,
fatigue, and the like, of which the flesh is capable, [dektike];
while the works proper to the Word Himself, as raising the
dead, and restoring sight to the blind, and curing the issue of blood,
He Himself did through His body, &c." Orat. iii 31 [infra
p. 443]. vid. the whole passage, which is as precise as if it had been
written after the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, though
without the technical words then adopted. Margin Notes1. [autexousios]. 2. [proairesei]. 3. supr. § 22. init. p. 212. 4. p. 2, note E. 5. p. 223, note G. 6. p. 37, note Y. 7. de Syn. § 16 fin. p. 98. 8. of Nicomedia. Vid. Theod. Hist. i. 5. 9. p. 213, note A. 10. [beltioseos.]. 11. p. 237, ref. 1. 12. vid.
Euseb. Nic. Supr. 13. [beltiosas]. 14. vid. Prov. viii. 30. 15. p. 120, note G. 16. [theopoiesei]. 17. vid. infr. ii. § 62. 18. p. 18, note O. 19. p. 234, ref. 4. 20. [patrike physis]. 21. [homoios kata panta], p. 115, note E;
p.210, ref. 3. 22. p. 32, note Q. 23. [ho anthropos]. 24. vid. 1 Cor. i. 30. 25. [ten patriken idioteta]. 26. [etheopoiesen]. 27. infr. § 43, p. 241. 28. [he logos] vid. infr. § 44,
47, 48. 29. [beltiosin], external
advance. 30. [prokopes], internal advance. 31. [eugenous]. 32. [ekklesiastikos], vid. Serap.
iv. 15. contr. Gent. 6. 7. 33. 33. Orat. ii. § 8. 34. [anastas]; but [anabas] rec. t. 35. in Apoll. i. 2. 36. [dektikon]. 37. [elattoma], ad Adelph. 4. 38. [ton anthropon]. 39. [ten patriken heautou theoteta],
vid. p. 145, note R. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |