|
{281} Discourse 2.
Chapter 14. Texts explained; fourthly, Hebrews iii. 2.
§ 1. 1. I DID indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors [Note 1] of Arius's madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth's behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow [Note 2] in their own vomit and their own mire, even invent new expedients [Note 3] for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways for His works [Prov. viii. 22.] [Note 4], and the words of the Apostle, Who was faithful to Him that made Him [Heb. iii. 2.], and straightway [Note 5] argue, that the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things generate at all, the Truth witnessing [Note 6] it, (for, being God, He cannot be a {282} work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, "out of nothing," and "it was not before its generation [Note 7],") yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good [Note 8] meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to show from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief [Rom. xi. 32.] of the present Jews [Note A], but would have inquired and learned [Note B] that, whereas In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [John i. 1.], in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, The Word became flesh [John i. 14.]; so by Peter, He hath made Him Lord and Christ [Acts ii. 36.];—as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways for His works [Prov. viii. 22.]; so by Paul, Become so much better than the Angels [Note 9]; and again, He made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant [Note 10]; and again, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and high Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him [Note 11]. For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man. 2. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refutation, {283} still, since from a misconception of the Apostle's words, (to mention them first,) they consider the Word of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, Who was faithful to Him that made Him, I have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand [Note C], as before, their statement. § 2. 3. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, and Word, and Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative [Note 12] nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son [Note 13], neither is He Image [Note D]. But if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator? since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Substance be {284} not fruitful itself [Note E], but barren, as they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will [Note 14]? But if He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper Substance. For if they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the will? now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which is according to nature, does not exist, as they would have it in their folly, how can that which is second come to be, which is according to will? for the Word is first, and then the creation. 4. On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, those irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to be, and God, as being Maker, plainly hath also His framing Word, not external, but proper to Him;—for this must be repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is effective [Note 15], and suffices for the consistence of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective [Note 15], and a Framer, that Word must surely be the living Will [Note 16] of the Father, and an energy in substance [Note 17], and a real Word, in whom all things both consist and are excellently governed. No one can even doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God's creating is second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting Substance; but what is from His will, comes into consistence from without, and is framed through His proper Offspring who is from It. § 3. 5. In the judgment of reason [Note 18] then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that {285} He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and. a son is confessed to be, not external to his father, but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not "to Him that begat Him," but to Him that made Him; for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question [Note 19]. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws [Note 20] to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to substances, but substances are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the substance is a work or creature, then the words He made, and He became, and He created, are used of it properly [Note 21], and designate the work. But when the Substance is an Offspring and Son, then He made, and He became, and He created, no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but He made we use without question for "He begat." Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife; and while to Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bethsabe, although mother, called her son servant, saving to his father, Thy servant Solomon [1 Kings i. 19.];—afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, Solomon thy servant [ver. 26.]. Nor did they care for calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the "nature," and while they spoke it, they forgot not the "genuineness," praying that he might be made his father's heir, to whom they gave the name of servant; for he to David was son by nature. § 4. 6. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him so called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to be the Word by nature, the sacred writers say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him, or if He say of Himself, {286} The Lord created Me, and, I am Thy servant and the Son of Thine handmaid [Ps. cxvi. 16.], and the like, let not any on this account deny that He is proper [Note 22] to the Father and from Him; but, as in the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right idea of the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths [Note F], who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear "Offspring," and "Word," and "Wisdom," forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity? And are they not proved to be an abomination also unto the Lord, as having diverse weights [Prov. xx. 23.] with them, and with this estimating those other instances, and with that blaspheming the Lord? 7. But perhaps they grant that the word servant is used under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon Who made as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of theirs also is but a broken reed; for if they are aware of the style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence against [Note 23] themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a {287} servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents call the Sons springing from themselves "made" and "created' and "becoming," for all this they do not deny their nature. Thus Ezekias, as is written in the book of Esaias, said in his prayer, From this day I will make children, who shall declare Thy righteousness, O God of my salvation [Is. xxxviii. 19. Sept.]. He then said, I will make; but the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, And the sons who shall come forth of thee [2 Kings xx. 18. Is. xxxix. 7.]. He uses then make for "beget," and he calls them who were to spring from him, made, and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, I have gotten a man from the Lord [Gen. iv. 1] [Note 24]; thus she too used gotten for "brought forth." For, first she saw the child, yet next she said, I have gotten. Nor would any one consider, because of I have gotten, that Cain was purchased from without, instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, And now thy two Sons, Ephraim and Manasses, which became thine in Egypt, before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine [Gen. xlviii. 5. Sept.]. And Scripture says about Job, And there came to him seven sons and three daughters [Job i. 2. Sept.]. As Moses too has said in the Law, If sons become to any one [Lev. Xxv. 45. ?], and, If he make a son [vid. ibid. v. 21.]. § 5. Here again they speak of those who are begotten, as become and made, knowing that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a question of they became, or I have gotten, or I made [Note 25]. For nature and truth draw the meaning to themselves [Note 26]. 8. This being so [Note G], when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. For if this is shewn, the surmise about work and creation falls to the ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be Son and Word; nor could the Son be a work. And again this being the state of the case, the proof is plain to all, that, the phrase, To Him who made Him does not serve their heresy, but rather condemns it. For it has been shewn that {288} the expression He made is applied in divine Scripture even to children genuine and natural; whence, the Lord being proved to be the Father's Son naturally and genuinely, and Word, and Wisdom, though He made be used concerning Him, or He became, this is not said of Him as if a work, but the sacred writers make no question about using the expression,—for instance in the case of Solomon, and Ezekias's children. For though the fathers had begotten them from themselves, still it is written, I have made, and I have gotten, and He became. Therefore God's enemies [Note 27], in spite of their repeated allegation of such small terms [Note 28], ought now, though late in the day, after what has been said, to disown their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son be a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made Himself [Note 29]? for all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, In wisdom hast Thou made them all [Ps. civ. 24.], and All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made [John i. 3.]. But if it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which all things come to be, it follows that He is not in the number of works, nor in short of things generate, but the Offspring of the Father. § 6. 9. For consider how grave an error it is, to call God's Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, that God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil [Eccles. xii. 14.]. If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? and what room is there for judgment, when the Judge is on trial? who will give to the just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the rest? by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These things are proper to the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon's words convince you. For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is not a work but the {289} Father's Word, in whom all the works both come to be and come into judgment? 10. Further, if the expression, Who was faithful, is a difficulty to them, from the thought that faithful is used of Him as of others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses, for saying, God faithful and true [Note 30], and with St. Paul for writing, God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able [1 Cor. x. 13.]. But when the sacred writers spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word faithful in Scripture, first believing, then trustworthy, of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because he believed God's word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, The Lord is faithful in all His words [Ps. cxlv. 14. Sept.], or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, If any faithful woman have widows [1 Tim. v. 16.], she is so called for her right faith; but, It is a faithful saying [Tit. iii. 8.], because what He hath spoken, has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, Who is faithful to Him that made Him, imply no parallel with others, nor mean that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful, and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed [Note H] by in His human economy and fleshly presence. § 7. 11. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, {290} and from the single expression He made, may shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox [Note 31], shewing the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to show from it also how the heretics lack reason [Note 32]; viz. by considering, as we have done above, the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when the Word became flesh; for thus it is written, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him. Now when became He Apostle, but when He put on our flesh? and when became He High Priest of our profession, but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father, those who in His faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God? Not then as wishing to signify the Substance of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did the Apostle say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,—(perish the thought! for the Word is not made, but makes,)—but as signifying His descent [Note 33] to mankind and High-priesthood which did become [Note 34],—as one may easily see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. 12. I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a high-priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breastplate, the robe, which the women wrought at God's command [Exod. xxix. 5.], and going in them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to all grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth [Note I], that, as a {291} High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and might rise from the dead. For what § 8. happened of old was a shadow of this; and what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high-priestly dress [Note K], but remaining the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and had said, "Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest," he had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it is possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed in it; and the expressions He became and He was made, must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word [Note L], were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, {292} afterwards [Note M] was made High Priest, by putting on a body which was generate and made, and such as He can offer for us; wherefore He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become man [Note N], that is a point for the Arians {293} to battle; but if the Word became flesh, what ought to have been said concerning Him when become man, but Who was faithful to Him that made Him? for as it is proper for the Word to have it said of Him, In the beginning was the Word, so it is proper to man to become and to be made. Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, Who made Him man? and who again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High Priest? 13. And this meaning, and time, and character [Note 35], the Apostle himself, the writer of the words, Who is faithful to Him that made Him, will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought [Note 36], and the passage is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus; Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him. § 9. Who can read this whole passage without condemning the Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle who has spoken so well? for when was Christ made, when became He Apostle, except when, like us, He took part in flesh and blood? And when became He a merciful and faithful High Priest, except when in all things He was made like unto His brethren? And then was He {294} made like, when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word's human economy, when He said, Who was faithful to Him that made Him, and not concerning His Substance. Have not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God is a work, whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten; and then had brethren, when He took on Him flesh like ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named and became merciful and faithful,—merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once, has perfected the whole, and is become faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without succession, has become a faithful High Priest, as continuing for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear [Note 37] and not mislead those who come to Him. 14. This may be also learned from the Epistle of great Peter, who says, Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful Creator [1 Pet. iv. 19.]. For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He has promised. § 10. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises; for the same are not every where, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and undergo a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that faith is not strong in them, but they are waters that fail [Jer. ix. 3. and xv.18.], and there is no faith in them [Deut. xxxii. 20. Sept.]. But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, who is ever the same, and says, See now, that I, even I am He [Deut. xxxii. 39.], and I change not [Mal. iii. 6.]; and therefore His Son is faithful, being ever the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise;—as again says the Apostle writing to the {295} Thessalonians, Faithful is He who calleth you, who also will do it [1 Thess.v. 24.]; for in doing what He promises, He is faithful to His words. And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word's meaning "unchangeable;" If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself [1 Tim. ii. 13. ?]. Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily presence [Note 38] of the Word, says, an Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him, shewing us that, even when made man, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and for ever [Heb. xiii.] is unchangeable. And as the Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father's. For instance, he says, Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son; and the former faithful in his house, and the latter over the house [Heb. iii. 5, 6.], as having himself built it, and being its Lord and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to him by His Word; but [Note O] the Word was not as one of things generate in {296} a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh [Note 39], and Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant; for the whole creature is the Word's servant [Note 40] which by Him came to be, and was made. § 11. 15. Hence it holds that the Apostle's expression, He made, does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even though the word made be referred to the Very Word, it is used for "begat," what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, but in Substance indeed the Father's offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure [Note 41] of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then is it said by the Apostle, Who was faithful to Him that made Him; and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether "He became," or "He has been made," or "created," or "formed," or "servant," or "son of an handmaid," or "son of man," or "was constituted," or "took His journey," or "bridegroom," or "brother's son," or "brother." All these terms [Note 42] happen to be proper to man's nature; and such as these do not designate the Substance of the Word, but that He has become man. {297} Chapter 15. Texts Explained; fifthly, Acts ii. 36.
1. THE same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts which they also allege, that in which Peter says, that He hath made both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom ye have crucified. For here too it is not written, "He made for Himself a Son," or "He made Himself a Word," that they should have such notions. If then it has not escaped their memory, that they speak concerning the Son of God, let them make search whether it is any where written, "God made Himself a Son," or "He created for Himself a Word;" or again, whether it is any where written in plain terms, "The Word is a work or creation;" and then let them proceed to make their case, the insensate men, that here too they may receive their answer. But if they can produce nothing of the kind, and only catch at such stray expressions as He made and He has been made, it is to be feared lest, from hearing, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth, and He made the sun and the moon, and He made the sea, they should come in time to call the Word the heaven, and the Light which took place on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been made, so as to end in resembling the Stoics, as they are called, the one drawing out their god into all things [Note 43], the other ranking God's Word with each work in particular; which they have well nigh done already, saying that He is one of His works. § 12. 2. But here they must have the same answer as before, and first be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above [Note 44], {298} and not a work, and that such terms are not to be understood of His Godhead, but the reason and manner of them investigated. To persons who so inquire, the human economy will plainly present itself, which He undertook for our sake. For Peter, after saying, He hath made Lord and Christ, straight-way added, this Jesus whom ye crucified; which makes it plain to any one, even, if so be, to them, provided they attend to the context [Note 45], that not the Substance of the Word, but He according to His manhood is said to have been made. For what was crucified but the body? and how could be signified what was bodily in the Word, except by saying He made? 3. Especially has that Word He made, a meaning consistent with orthodoxy [Note 46]; in that he has not said, as I observed before, "He made Him Word," but He made Him Lord, nor that in general terms [Note 47], but towards us, and in the midst of us, as much as to say, "He manifested Him." And this has Peter himself, starting from this master doctrine carefully [Note A] expressed, when he said to them, Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested of God towards you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know [Acts ii. 22.]. Consequently the term which he uses in the end, made, this He has explained in the beginning by manifested, for by the signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was manifested to be not merely man, but God in a body and Lord also, the Christ. Such also is the passage in the Gospel according to John, Therefore the more did the Jews persecute Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God [John v. 16, 18.]. For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to be God, nor indeed is a made God conceivable, but He manifested it by the works, saying, Though ye believe not Me, believe My works, that ye may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John x. 38. not to the letter]. Thus then the Father has made Him Lord and King in the midst of us, and towards us who were once disobedient; and it is plain that He who is now displayed as Lord and King, does not then begin to be King and Lord, but begins to shew His Lordship, and to extend even over {299} the disobedient. § 13. If then they suppose that the Saviour was not Lord and King, even before He became man and endured the Cross, but then began to be Lord, let them know that they are openly reviving the statements of Samosatene. But if, as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and King everlasting, seeing that Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven [Gen. xix. 24.]; and David in the Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand [Ps. cx. 1.]; and, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom [Ps. xlv. 7.]; and, Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom [Ps. cxlv. 13.]; it is plain that even before He became man, He was King and Lord everlasting, being Image and Word of the Father. And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter said not that the Substance of the Son was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which became when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, became Lord of all and King. 4. But if they continue the argument on the ground of its being written, He made, not willing that He made should be taken in the sense of He manifested, either from want of apprehension, or from their Christ-opposing purpose [Note 48], let them attend to another sound exposition of Peter's words. For he who becomes Lord of others, comes into the possession of beings already in existence; but if the Lord is Framer of all and everlasting King, and when He became man, then gained possession of us, here too is a way in which Peter's language evidently does not signify that the Substance of the Word is a work, but the after subjection of all things, and the Saviour's Lordship over all which "became." And this coincides with what we said before [Note 49]; for as we then introduced the words, Become my God and defence, and the Lord became a refuge for the oppressed [Ps. xxxi. 3. stony rock, E.V. Ps. ix. 9. defence], and it stood to p reason that these expressions do not shew that God is generate, but that His beneficence becomes towards each individual, the same sense hath the expression of Peter also. § 14. For the Son of God indeed, being Himself the Word, is Lord of all; but we once were subject from the first to the slavery of corruption and the curse of the Law, then by degrees {300} fashioning for ourselves things that were not, we served, as says the blessed Apostle, them which by nature are no Gods [Gal. iv. 8.], and, ignorant of the true God, we preferred things that were not to the truth; but afterwards, as the ancient people, when oppressed in Egypt, groaned, so, when we too had the Law engrafted in us, and according to the unutterable sighings of the Spirit made our intercession, O Lord our God, take possession of us [James i. 21.], then, as He became for a house of refuge [Rom. viii. 26.] and a God and defence [Is. xxvi. 13. Sept.], so also He became our Lord. Nor did He then begin to be, but we began to have Him for our Lord. For upon this God being good and Father of the Lord, in pity, and desiring to be known by all, makes His own Son put on Him a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, that in this body offering Himself for all, He might deliver all from false worship and corruption, and might Himself become of all Lord and King. 5. His becoming therefore in this way Lord and King, this it is that Peter means by, He hath made Him Lord, and hath sent Christ; as much as to say, that the Father in making Him man, (for to be made belongs to man,) did not simply [Note 50] make Him man, but has made Him in order to His being Lord of all men, and to His hallowing all through the Anointing. For though the Word existing in the form of God took a servant's form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not make a servant [Note B] of the Word, who was by nature Lord; but rather, not only was it that emancipation of all humanity which takes place by the Word, but that very Word who was by nature Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a servant's {301} form been made Lord of all and Christ, that is, in order to hallow all by the Spirit. And as God, when becoming a God and defence, and saying, I will be a God to them, does not then become God more than before, nor then begins to become God, but, what He ever is, that He then becomes to those who need Him, when it pleaseth Him, so Christ also being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, nor then begins to be Lord and King, but what He is ever, that He then is made according to the flesh; and, having redeemed all, He becomes thereby again Lord of quick and dead. For Him henceforth do all things serve, and this is David's meaning in the Psalm, The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool [Ps. cx. 1.]. For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest, though created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God [Note C]. § 15. 6. This, at least according to my nothingness [Note 51], is the meaning of this passage; moreover, a true and a good meaning have these words of Peter as regards the Jews. For the Jews have wandered from the truth, and expect indeed the Christ as coming, but do not reckon that He undergoes a passion [Note 52], saying what they understand not; We know that, when the Christ cometh, He abideth for ever, and how sayest Thou, that He must be lifted up? [John xii. 34. not to the letter.] Next they suppose him, not the Word coming in flesh, but a mere [Note 53] man, as were all the kings. The Lord then, admonishing Cleophas and the other, taught them that the Christ must first suffer; and the rest of the Jews that God was come among them, saying, If He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? [John x. 36.] § 16. Peter then, having learned this from the Saviour, in both points set the Jews right, saying, "O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ cometh, and you consider Him a mere man as one of David's descendants, {302} whereas what is written of Him shews Him to be not such as you say, but rather announces Him as Lord and God, and immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses has said, Ye shall see your Life hanging before your eyes [Deut. xxviii. 66.] [Note D]. And David in the hundred and ninth Psalm, The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool [Ps. cx. 1.]; and in the fifteenth, Thou shalt not leave My sou1 in hell, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption [Ps. xvi. 11.]. Now that these passages have not David for their scope he himself witnesses, avowing that He who was coming was his own Lord. Nay you yourselves know that He is dead, and His relics are with you. 7. "That the Christ then must be such as the Scriptures say, you will plainly confess yourselves. For those announcements come from God, and in them falsehood cannot be. If then ye can state that such a one has come before, and can prove Him God from the signs and wonders which He did, ye have reason for maintaining the contest, but if ye are not able to prove His coming, but are expecting him still, recognise the true season from Daniel, for his words relate to the present time. But if this present season be that which was of old afore-announced, and ye have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus, whom ye crucified, this is the expected Christ. For David and all the Prophets are dead, and the sepulchres of all are with you, but that Resurrection which has now taken place, has shewn that the scope [Note 54] of these passages is Jesus. For the crucifixion is denoted by Ye shall see your Life hanging, and the wound in the side by the spear answers to He was led as a sheep to the slaughter [Is. liii. 7.], and the resurrection, nay more, the rising of {303} the ancient dead from out their sepulchres, (for these most of you have seen,) this is, Thou shalt not leave My soul in hell, and He will swallow up death in victory, and again, God will wipe away [Is. xxv. 8.]. For the signs which actually took place, shew that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of death. For it became the Christ, when giving life to others, Himself not to be detained by death; but this could not have happened, had He, as you suppose, been a mere [Note 55] man. But in truth He is the Son of God, for men are all subject to death. 8. "Let no one therefore doubt, but the whole house of Israel know assuredly that this Jesus, whom ye saw in shape a man, doing signs and such works, as no one ever yet had done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though made man, and called JESUS, as we said before, He received no loss by that human passion [Note 56], but rather, in being made man, He is manifested as Lord of quick and dead. For since, as the Apostle said, in the wisdom of God the world by whom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe [1 Cor. i. 21.]. And so, since we men would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God to shew in man His own Lordship, and so to draw all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man beseemed not [Note E]; lest, having man for our Lord, we should become worshippers of man [Note 57]. Therefore the Word Himself became flesh, and the Father called His Name Jesus, and so made Him Lord and Christ, as much as to say, 'He made Him to rule and to reign;' that while at the Name of Jesus, whom ye crucified, every knee bows, we may acknowledge as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the Father." § 17. 9. The Jews then, most of them [Note F], hearing this, came to {304} themselves and forthwith acknowledged the Christ, as it is written in the Acts. But, the Ario-maniacs on the contrary choose to remain Jews, and to contend with Peter; so let us proceed to place before them some parallel phrases; perhaps it may have some effect upon them, to find what the usage is of divine Scripture. Now that Christ is everlasting Lord and King, has become plain by what has gone before, nor is there a man to doubt about it; for being Son of God, He must be like Him [Note 58], and being like, He is certainly both Lord and King, for He says Himself, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. On the other hand, that Peter's mere words, He hath made Him both Lord and Christ, do not imply the Son to be a creature, may be seen from Isaac's blessing, though this illustration is but a faint [Note 59] one for our subject. Now he said to Jacob, Become thou lord over thy brother; and to Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord [Gen. xxvii. 29, 37.]. Now though the word made had implied Jacob's substance and the coming into being [Note 60], even then it would not be right in them as much as to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was; besides, they might inquire and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they do not understand it of his substance nor of his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature creature and work, is not their madness worse than the Devil's [Note 61], if what they dare not ascribe in consequence of a like phrase even to things by nature generate, that they attach to the Son of God, saying that He is a creature? For Isaac said Become and I have made, signifying neither the coming into being [Note 60] nor the substance of Jacob; (for after thirty years and more from his birth he said this;) but his authority over his brother, which came to pass subsequently. § 18. 10. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that the Substance of the Word was a work; for he knew Him to be God's Son, confessing, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Mat. xvi. 16.]; but he meant His Kingdom and Lordship which was formed and came to be according to grace, and was relatively to us. For while saying this, he was not silent about the Son of God's everlasting Godhead which is the Father's [Note 62]; but He had said already, that He had poured the Spirit on us; now to give the Spirit with authority, is not in the power of {305} creature or work, but the Spirit is God's Gift [Note G]. For the creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, in that He is not hallowed by the Spirit, but on the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all [Note 63], is therefore no creature, but true Son of the Father. And yet He who gives the Spirit, the Same is said also to be made; that is, to be made among us Lord because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God's Word. For He ever was and is, as Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like in all things [Note 64] to the Father, and having all that is the Father's [Note 65], as He Himself has said [Note 66]. FootnotesA. [ton nun], means literally "the
Jews of this day," as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b.
iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases, as distinctly mean
the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews; e.g. [ton
nun Ioudaion]. In illud Omn. 5. d. [Ioudaioi hoi te
palaioi kai hoi neoi houtoi], iii. 52. d. [hoi tote kai hoi
neoi nun], Sent. D. 3. c. [ton neon], ibid.
4. init. (vid. also [kai hoi tote Ioudaioi], i. 8. supr. p.
190. yet vid. [hoi tote Ioudaioi], de Syn. 33.) [ton
nun], i. 39. supr. p. 236. [he Ioudaike nea
hairesis], Hist. Arian 19 fin. (vid. also Orat. iii. 28.) [Ioudaioi
hoi tote … Areianoi nun Ioudaizontes]. de Decr. 2. supr. p. 4.
The Arians are addressed under the name of Jews, [o
christomachoi kai acharastoi Ioudaioi], Orat. iii. 55. They are
said to be Jews passim. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn
out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i. supr. pp. 2-4. It is observable that
Eusebius makes a point, on the contrary, of calling Marcellus a
Judaizer and Jewish, on the ground that he denied that Wisdom was more
than an attribute in the Divine Mind, e.g. pp. 42. c. 62, fin. 65. d. B.
[erotontes emanthanon]; and so [mathon
edidasken]; Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p. 13, note A. C.
By [lambanontes par' auton to lemma], "accepting
the proposition they offer," he means that he is engaged in going
through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of
bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. supr. p. 233. Yet after all
it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition
of the Catholic Doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question
opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter.
vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 49. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32-34. 35. 44.
init which refers to the whole discussion, 18-43. 73. 77. iii. 18.
init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes
the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, [toutoi],
[[toi skopoi], the general drift of Scripture
doctrine,] [hosper kanoni chresamenoi prosechomen
tei anagnosei tes theopneustou graphes],
iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain
texts have a "good," "pious," "orthodox" sense, i.e. they can be
interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the
Regula Fidei. vid. infr. p. 341, note I; also notes on 35. and iii.
58. D.
i.e. in any true sense of the word "image;" or, so that He may be
accounted the [aparallaktos eikon] of the Father, vid. supr.
106, note D. The ancient Fathers consider that the Divine Sonship is
the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists, that
One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image
of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude,
and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A
redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. "Naturam
et essentiam Deitatis," says Thomassin, "in suo fonte assentiuntur
omnes esse plenitudinem totius esse. At hæc necesse est ut statim
exundet nativâ fœcunditate suâ. Infinitum enim illud Esse, tantum
est, sed Esse totum est; vivere id ipsum eas, intelligere, sapere;
opulentiæ suæ, bonitatis, et sapientæ rivulos undique spargere; nec
rivulos tantum, sed et fontem et plenitudinem ipsam suam diffundere. Hæc
enim demum fœcunditas Deo digna, Deo par est, ut a Fonte bonitatis,
non rivulus sed flumen effluat, nec extra effluat, sed in ipsomet, cum
extra nihil sit, quo illa plenitudo capi possit." de Trin. 19. 1. E.
For [karpogonos he ousia], vid. supr. p. 25, note E. [gennetikos],
Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. [agonos], i. 14. fin. and Sent. Dion.
15. 19. [he physike gonimotes], Damasc. F.
O. i. 8. p. 133. [akarpos], Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Hær. 65.
p. 609. b. Vid. the [gennesis] and the [ktisis]
contrasted together, Orat. i. 29. vid. supr. p. 18, note O. p. 153.
note C. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Orat. iv.
4 fin. [ei agonos kai anenergetos]. F.
[pollakis apololenai dikaioi], vid. infr. §. 28. b. "You
ought ([opheiles]) to have your impious tongue
cut out," the Arian Acacius says to Marcellus, ap. Epiph. Hær. 72, 7.
"And although all good men and bad adjudge thee to the agony (discruciandam
judicent) of all kinds of torture, to the penalty of death, or to the
flame, &c." says S. Ambrose, (as it is generally considered,) to a
lapsed nun who was said to have killed her child, de laps. Virg. n.
34. "If Eutyches thinks otherwise than the decrees of the Church, he deserves
([axios]) not only punishment, but the fire." Dioscorus up.
Concil. Chalced. (Hard. t. 2. p. 100.) In time they advanced from accounting
to doing. The Emperor Justin proposes to cut out the heretic
Severus's tongue, Evagr. iv. 4. Supra p. 53, note F. we find an
advance from allegory to fact; vid. also supr. i. 38. e.
infr. iii. 41. d. and "blasphemiis lapidasti," Theodor. ap.
Concil. 6. (Labbe, t. 6. p. 88.) And S. Dionysius, "With these two
unconnected words, as with stones, they attempt to hit me ([ballein])
from a distance." Sent. Dion. 18. Sometimes it was a literalism
deduced from the doctrine in dispute; as at the Latrocinium, "Cut in
two those who assert two Natures." Concil. Hard. t. 2. p. 81.
Palladius relates a case in which a sort of ordeal became a punishment.
Abbot Copres proposed to a Manichee to enter a fire with him. After
Copres had come out unharmed, the populace forced the Manichee into
it, and then cast him, burnt as he was, out of the city. Hist. Lausiac.
54. S. Gregory mentions the case of a wizard, who had pretended to be
a monk and had used magical arts against a nun, being subsequently
burned by the Roman populace. Dial. i. 4. G.
That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus
interpreting the word "made," doctrinal truth obliges us to do
so. He considers the Regula Fidei the principle of interpretation, and
accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid. supr. p. 283, note C.
infr. p. 341, note H. H.
[atreptos kai me alloioumenos]; vid. eupr. p. 23. It was
the tendency of Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such
change actually was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first
maintained in the abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature
[treptos], He was in fact [alloioumenos]. This
was implied in the doctrine that his superhuman nature supplied the
place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the Semi-arian Sirmian Creed
anathematizes those who said, [ton logon tropen hypomenekota],
vid. supr. p. 119, note O. This doctrine connected them with the
Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan.
compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing the latter,
Theodoret entitles his first Dialogue [Atreptos]. Hence, as
Athan. here says, [atreptos menon], so against
Apollinaris he says, [ho logos anthropos gegone, menon
theos]. ii. 7. vid. also ibid. 3. circ. init. So [ho men en,
diemeinen; ho de ouk en, proselaben]. Naz. Orat. 29, 19. [ousia
menousa hoper esti]. Chrysost. ap. Theodor. Eran. p. 47. [ho en
emeine di' heauton, kai ho ethelese gegone di' hemas],
Procl., ad Arm. p. 615. ed. 1630. vid. also Maxim. Opp. t. 2. ed.
1675. [hoper en diamenon kai genomenos hoper ouk en].
p. 286. vid. also p. 264. manens id quod erat, factus quod non erat.
August. cons. Ev. i. 53 fin. Non omiserat quod erat, sed cœperat esse
quod non erat. Hilar. Trin. iii. 16. non amittendo quod suum erat, sed
suscipiendo quod nostrum erat. Vigil. contr. Eut. i. p. 498. (B. P.
ed. 1624.) I.
[anergastou ges] is an allusion to Adam's formation from
the ground; and so Irenæus, Hær. iii. 2l. fin. and Tertullian; "That
Virgin Earth, not yet watered by rains, nor impregnated by showers,
from which man was formed in the beginning, from which Christ is now
born according to the flesh from a Virgin." adv. Jud. 13. vid. de Carn.
Christ. 17. Ex terra virgine Adam, Christus ex virgine. Ambros. in
Luc. lib. iv. 7. vid. also the parallel drawn out Serm. 147. App. S.
August. and in Proclus Orat. 2. pp. 103. 4. ed. 1630. vid. also
Chrysost. t. 3. p. 113. ed. Ben. and Theodotus at Ephesus, "O earth
unsown, yet bearing a salutary fruit. O virgin, who surpassedst the
very Paradise of Eden, &c." Conc. Eph. p. 4. (Hard. t. i. p.
1643.) And so Proclus again, "She, the flowering and incorruptible
Paradise, in whom the Tree of Life, &c." Orat. 6 p. 227. And Basil
of Seleucia, "Hail, full of grace, the amarantine Paradise of Purity,
in whom the Tree or Life, &c." Orat. in Annunc. p. 215. and p.
212. "Which, think they, is the harder to believe, that a virgin womb
should be with child, or the ground should be animated?" &c. And
Hesychius, "Garden unsown, Paradise of immortality." Bibl. Patr.
Auctar. t. 2. pp. 421, 423. K.
This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation
against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the
purposes of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as [peritithemenos
ten estheta, ekalupteto, endusamenos soma],
were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is,
if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Hær. v. 11. p. 422.
to the word [prokalumma], as applied to our Lord's manhood, as
implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102 fin. (ed. 1840.)
In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. [parapetasma] is used to denote an
Apollinarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ
was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a
substance, but an appearance; yet S. Athan. (if Athan.) contr. Sabell.
Greg. 4. has [parapepetasmenen] and [kalumma],
ibid. init. S. Cyril Heiros. [katapetasma], Catech. xii. 26.
xiii. 32. after Hebr. 10, 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Thcodor. [parapetasma],
Eran. 1. p. 22. and [prokalumma], ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent.
vi. p. 877. and [stole], Eran. l. c. S. Leo has caro
Christi velamen, Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22. p. 70. Serm. 25.
p. 84. L.
[hei logos esti]. vid. supr. p. 240. ref. 4. Orat. ii.
74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f. M.
The Arians considered that our Lord's Priesthood preceded His
Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence
the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in this
text did but confirm them in their interpretation of the words made,
&c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Hær, 69, 37. Eusebius too had
distinctly declared, "Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei; qui
occultabatur, sacerdos Dei." advers. Sabell. i. p. 2, b. vid.
also Demonst. i. 10, p. 38. iv. 16, p. 193. v. 3, p. 223. vid. contr.
Marc. pp. 8 and 9, 66, 74, 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes a
similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay, S. Ambrose calls the Word,
plenum justitiæ sacerdotalis, de fug. sæc. 3, 14. S. Clement Alex.
before them speaks once or twice of the [logos archiereus],
e.g. Strom. ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar language,
de Profug. p. 466 (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Somniis, p. 597. vid.
Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nestorius on the other hand maintained
that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest, relying on the text which
has given rise to this note; Cyril adv. Nest. p. 64. and Augustine and
Fulgentius may be taken to countenance him, de Consens. Evang. i. 6.
and ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine
Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the
parallel use of [prototokos] infr. 62-64. "As He is
called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity," says S. Cyril
Alex., "so also Priest." Glaph. ii. p. 58. and so Epiph.
loc. cit. Thomassin. loc. cit. makes a distinction between a divine
Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be said to sustain
between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly one for the sake
of sinners. vid. also Huet. Origenian. ii. 3, § 4, 5. For the
history of the controversy among Protestants as to the Nature to which
His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn. xii. 3. 4. Bayle's Dict.
Art. Stancar. notes D, G, K. and Le Blanc, Thes. Theol. p. 691. N.
Athan. here hints at one special instance in which the remark, made
supr. p. 189. note B. is fulfilled, that all heresies run into each
other, (one may even say,) logically. No doctrines were apparently
more opposed, whether historically or ethically, than the Arian and
the Apollinarian or the Monophysite; nay, in statement, so far as the
former denied that our Lord was God, the latter that He was man. But
their agreement lay in this compromise, that, strictly speaking, He
was neither God nor man. In this passage Athan. hints that if the
Arians gave the titles (such as Priest) which really belong to our
Lord's manhood, to His pre-existent nature, what were they doing but
removing the evidences of His manhood, and so far denying it? vid. the
remarkable passage of the Council of Sardica against Valens and
Ursacius quoted supr. p. 123, note U. In the Arian Creed too, to which
that note is appended, it is implied that the Son is passible, the
very doctrine against which Theodoret writes one of his Anti-monophysite
Dialogues, called Eranistes. He writes another on the [atrepton] of Christ, a doctrine which was also formally denied by Arius,
and is defended by Athan. supra, p. 230. (as observed just above, p.
289, note H.) Even Eusebius,
against Marcellus, speaks of our Lord's taking a body,
almost to the prejudice of the doctrine of His taking a perfect manhood; [ei men psuches
diken oikon en autoi [toi somati]],
contr. Marcell. p. 54. d. even granting, as is the case, that he is
professing to state Marcellus's doctrine. He speaks as if Christ's [zoopoios
sarx], if the Word retired from it, would be [alogos], p.
55. c. which surely implies, though not in the force of the term, that
Christ was without a soul. vid. also p. 91. a. Hence it is Gibbon's
calumny (ch. 47, note 34), after La Croze, Hist. Christ. des Indes, p.
11, that the Arians invented the term [theotokos],
which the Monophysites (as well as the Catholics) strenuously
held, vid. Garnier in Mar. Merc. t. 2, p. 299. If the opposites of
connected heresies are connected together, then the doctrinal
connection of Arianism and Apollinarianism is shewn in their
respective opposition to the heresies of Sabellius and Nestorius.
Salig Eutych. ant. Eut. 10. denies the connection, but with very
little show of reason. La Croze calls Apollinarianism "Arianismi
tradux," Thes. Ep. Lacroz. t. 3, p. 276. O.
Here is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doctrine, but
such anticipations of various heresies are too frequent, as we
proceed, to require or bear notice. It is well known that the
illustration in the Athan. Creed, "As the reasonable soul and flesh is
one man, so God and man is one Christ," was taken by the Monophysites
to imply that the Divine Nature was made dependent on the flesh, and
was influenced and circumscribed by it. Man is partly soul and partly
body; he is of body and soul, not body and soul; but Christ is
wholly God, and wholly man, [holos theos, holos anthropos].
infr. Orat. iv. 35. a. He is as simply God as if He were not man, as
simply man as if He were not God; unus atque idem est, says S. Leo, et
totus hominis filius propter carnem, et totus Dei filius propter unam
cum Patre deitatem. Ep. 165, 8. Athan. has anticipated the heresy
which denied this doctrine in a very distinct passage written
apparently before the rise even of Arianism. "It is the function of
the soul," he says, "to contemplate in its thoughts what is within its
own body; but not to operate in things beyond its own body, or to move
by its presence what is far from the body. Certainly man at a distance
never moves or transposes such things; nor could a man sit at home and
think of things in heaven, and thereby move the sun, or turn the
heaven round ... Not thus is the Word of God in man's nature; for He
is not implicated in the body, but rather He hath Himself dominion
over it, so that He was not in it only but in all things; nay, He was
external to the whole universe and in the sole Father." Incarn. V. D.
17. The same passage occurs in Serm. Maj. de Fid. 11. It is remarkable
that the Monophysites should have been forced into their
circumscription of the Divine Nature, considering that Eutyches their
Patriarch began with asserting for reverence-sake that the Incarnate
Word was not under the laws of human nature, vid. supr. p. 243,
note I. This is another instance of the running of opposite heresies
into each other, supr. p. 292, note N. Another remarkable instance
will be found infr. iii. 43. the Agnoetæ, a sect of those very
Eutychians, who denied or tended to deny our Lord's manhood with a
view of preserving His divinity, being characterized by holding that
He was ignorant. The Lutheran Ubiquism in like manner has
contrived to unite a portion of the opposite heresies of Nestorius and
Eutyches. A.
[meta paratereseos]. vid. infr. 44. e. 59.
b. 71. e. Orat. iii. 52. b. B.
[ouk edoulou ton logon] though, as he said supra p. 296. the
Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He says the same thing Ep.
Æg. 17. So say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad Simpl. (t. 2. p. 471.)
Cyril. Alex. adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar. de Trin. xi. Ambros. 1. Epp.
46, 3. Athan. however seems to modify the statement (vid. also supr.
p. 296. &c.) when he says infra 50. "Not that He was servant, but
because He took a servant's form." Theodoret also denies it, Eran. ii.
fin. And Damasc. F. O. iii. 21. who says, that our Lord "took on Him
an ignorant and servile nature," but "that we may not call Him
servant," though "the flesh is servile, had it not been united to God
the Word." The parallel question of ignorance, here touched upon, will
come under our notice infra, Orat. iii. 42-53. The latter view
prevailed after the heresy of the Adoptionists, who seem to have made "servant"
synonymous with "adopted son." Petavius Incarn. vii. 9. distinguishes
between the essence or (what is called) actus primus and the actus
secundus; thus water may be considered in its nature cold,
though certain springs are in fact always warm. Vid. infr. p.
344, note F, upon the word "creature." C.
vid. Rom. i., 25. and so both text and application very frequently,
e.g. Ep. Æg. 4. e. 13. c. Vid. supr. p. 191. note D. infr. iii. 16.
note. D.
vid. Iren. Hær. iv. 10, 2. Tertull. in Jud. 11. Cyprian. Testim. iii.
2. n. 20. Lactant. Instit. iv. 18. Cyril. Catech. xiii. 19. August.
contr. Faust. xvi. 22, which are referred to in loc. Cypr. (O. T.) To
which add Leon. Serm. 59, 6. Isidor. Hisp. contr. Jud. i. 35, ii. 6.
Origen. in Cels. ii. 75. Epiph. Hær. p. 75. Damasc. F. O. iv. 11.
fin. This interpretation is recommended even by the letter, which has
[tlo'im lcha mineged], [apenanti ton ophthalmon
sou]. Sept. pendebit tibi a regione. vid. Gesen. who also says,
"Since things which are à regione of a place, are
necessarily a little removed from it, it follows that [mineged]
signifies at the same time to be at a small distance," referring
to the case of Hagar, who was but a bow-shot from her child. Also,
though the word here is [tl'], yet [tlh] which is the
same root, is used for hanging on a stake, or crucifixion, e.g. Gen.
xx. 19. Deut. xxi. 22. Esth. v. 14; vii. 10. E.
In the text the Mediatorial Lordship is made an office of God the
Word; still, not as God, but as man. So S. Augustine, of judgment; "He
judges by His divine power, not by His human, and yet man himself will
judge, as the Lord of glory was crucified." And just before, "He who
believes in Me, believes not in that which He sees, lest our hope
should be in a creature, but in Him who has taken on Him the creature,
in which He might appear to human eyes." Trin. i. 27. 28. In like
manner the Priesthood is the office of God in the form of man, supr.
p. 292, note M. And so again none but the Eternal Son could be [prototokos],
yet He is so called when sent as Creator and as incarnate. infr. 64. F.
[hoi pleistoi]. vid. [posai muriades], Act. 21. 20.
Jenkin on the Christian Religion, vol. 2. ch. 32. Lardner, Jewish and
Heathen Test. ch. i. Burton Eccles. Hist. 1st Cent. p. 50-52. G.
[theou doron]. And so more distinctly S. Basil, [doron
tou theou to pneuma]. de Sp. S. 57. and more frequently the later
Latins, as in the Hymn, "Altissimi Donum Dei;" and the earlier, e.g.
Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. and August. Trin. xv. 29. who makes it the
personal characteristic of the Third Person in the Holy Trinity; "non
dicitur Verbum Dei, nisi Filius, nec Donum Dei, nisi Spiritus Sanctus."
And elsewhere, "Exiit, non quomodo natus, sed quomodo datus, et ideo
non dicitur Filius." ibid. v. 15. making it, as Petavius observes, "His
eternal property, ut sic procedat, tanquam donabile, as being
Love." Trin. vii. 13. § 20. Margin Notes1. [hypokritas],
p. 127, note G. 2.
[kuliomenoi], Orat. iii. 16. 3.
[epinoias]. 4.
supr. p. 257. infr. 19-72. 5.
[haplos]. 6.
vid. infra, note on 35. 7.
vid. supr. p. 276. 6. 8.
p. 283, note C. 9.
Heb. i. 4. vid. p. 257. 10.
Phil. ii. 7. p. 233. Heb. iii. 7. Christ Jesus, r.t. 11.
Sent. D. 11. 12.
[gennetikes], p. 284, note E. 13.
p. 312, note M. 14.
Orat. iii. 59, &c. 15.
[poietikon]. 16.
Orat. iii. 63, c. 17.
[enousios], p. 141. r. 2. infr. 28. 18.
infr. p. 328, note K. 19.
p. 283, note C. 20.
p. 287, r. 4. 21.
[kyrios]. 22.
[ten ek tou p. idioteta]. 23.
p. 6, note O. p. 220, n. 2. Apol. C. Ar. 36. e. 24.
infr. 44. note on [knt]. 25.
Serap. ii. 6. b. 26.
supr. p. 285. r. 27.
[theomachoi]. 28.
[lexeidia], p. 296. r. 3. Orat. iii. 59. a. Sent D. 4. c. 29.
Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. p. 311, note K. 30.
not in O. T. vid. Apoc. iii. 14. 19. 11. 31.
[orthe] infr. 43. note. 32.
[alogian]. p. 2, note E. 33.
[kathodon]. 34.
p. 268. 35.
[prosopon]. 36.
[akolouthia]. P. 298, r. 1. Orat. iii. 64. 37.
or, answer, vid. infr. iii. 27. 38.
[somatiken parousian]. 39.
[theos en sarki], vid. [logos en s.] iii. 54. a. [th.
en somati], ii. 12. c. 15. a. [l. en som.]
Sent. D. 8 fin. 40.
p. 313. 41.
[kat' eudokian] Orat. iii. 64. init. 42.
[lexeidia], vid. p. 288, r. 2. 43.
Brucker de Zenon. § 7. n. 14. 44.
vid. p. 283, note C. 45.
[akolouthian]. 46.
[orthe], p. 297, r. 2. 47.
[haplos]. 48.
[proairesin]. 49.
p. 269. vid. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 1. 50.
[haplos]. 51.
[outheneian]. 52.
p. 303, r. 2. 53.
[psilon]. 54.
[phthanein]. 55.
[psilos]. 56.
[pathei], p. 301, r. 2. 57.
infr. iii. 32 fin. 58.
p. 312, note M. 59.
[amudra], decr. 12, e. 60.
[arche geneseos]. 61.
alluding to the temptation. 62.
[patrikes]. 63.
supr. ch. xii. 64.
[homois kata panta]. vid. infr. p. 311, note L. 65.
vid. infr. note on Orat. iii. 1. 66.
vid. John xvi. 15. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |