|
{362} Chapter 21. Texts explained; sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22. continued
1. FOR had He been a creature, He had not said, He begets Me, for the creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the Offspring is not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and proper to His Substance. Wherefore they are creatures; this God's Word and Only-begotten Son. § 57. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, "In the beginning He begat," nor "In the beginning was," but In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [Gen. i. 1.]. Nor did David say in the Psalm, Thy hands have "begotten me," but made me and fashioned me [Ps. cxix. 73.], every where applying the word made to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said "I made," but I begat [Ps. ii. 7.], and He begets Me, and My heart has burst with a good Word [Ps. xlv. 1.]. And in the instance of the creation, In the beginning He made; but in the instance of the Son, In the beginning was the Word [John i. 1.]. 2. And there is this difference, that the creatures are made upon the beginning [Note 1], and have a beginning of existence connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of them, In the beginning He made, is as much as saying of them, "From the beginning He made:"—as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, has taught, when He silenced the Pharisees, with the words, He which made them from the {363} beginning, made them male and female [Mat. xix. 4.]; for from some beginning, when they were not yet, were generate thing brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spin has signified in the Psalms, saying, Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth [Ps. cii. 25.]; and again O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchase from the beginning [Ps. lxxiv. 2.]; now it is plain that what takes place al the beginning has a beginning of creation, and that from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that In the beginning He made, from His saying made, means "began to make," Moses himself shews by saying, after the completion of all things, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make [Gen. ii. 3.] [Note 2]. Therefore the creatures began to be made; but the Word of God, not having beginning [Note 3] of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in their making, and their beginning precedes their coming to be; but the Word, not being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have a beginning. And the being of things generate is measured by their becoming [Note 4], and from some beginning doth God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their generation; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning or origin [Note 5] than the Father [Note A], whom they allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unoriginately in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature. § 58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference between the Offspring and things made, and show that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine doctrine [Note 6] about the Son, and knowing the difference of the phrases, said not, "in the beginning became" or "was made," but In the beginning was the Word; that we might understand "Offspring" 'by was, and not account of Him {364} by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to exist. 3. And with these proofs, why, O Arians, misunderstand the passage in Deuteronomy, and thus venture a fresh act of irreligion [Note B] against the Lord, saying that "He is a work," or "creature," or indeed "offspring?" for offspring and work you take to mean the same thing; but here too you shall be shewn to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee and created thee? [Deut. xxxii. 6.] And shortly after in the same Song he says, Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee [ibid. 18.]. Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for He says not first He begat, lest that term should be taken as indiscriminate with He made, and these men should have a pretence for saying, "Moses tells us indeed that God said from the beginning, Let Us make man [Gen. i. 26.], but he soon after says himself, Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the same." But after the words bought and made, he has added last of all begat, that the sentence might carry its own interpretation; for in the word made he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but in the word begat he shews God's lovingkindness {365} exercised towards men after He had created them. And since they were ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying first, Do ye thus requite the Lord? [Deut. xxxii. 6.] and then adds, Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? Hath He not made thee and created thee? And next he says, They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not; of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful [ibid. 17.]. § 59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term begat is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, I have begat sons and exalted them; and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term created, but undoubtedly by that of begat. 4. And this John seems to say, He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God [John i. 12.]. And here too a cautious distinction [Note 7] is appositely observed, for first he says become, because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption; then he says were begotten, because like the Jews they had altogether received the name of son, though the chosen people, as says the Prophet, rebelled against their Benefactor. And this is God's kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father [Note 8]. And these are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise, than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true son. Wherefore, that this might be, The Word became flesh, that He might make man capable of Godhead. 5. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, Hath not One God created its? Have we not all one Father? [Mal. ii. 10.] for first he puts created, next Father, to shew, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore Father {366} is proper to the Son; and not "creature," but Son is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us [Note C]; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we cry, Abba, Father [Gal. iv. 6.]. And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, I begat; since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written, Let Us make man [Gen. i. 26.]; but afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to be begotten also; just as the great Moses in his Song with an apposite meaning says first He bought, and afterwards He begat; lest, hearing He begat, they might forget that nature of theirs which was from the beginning; but that they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, still no less than before are men works according to nature. § 60. 6. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other in nature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For having said, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways; He has added, But before all the hills He begat Me. If then the Word were by nature and in his Substance [Note 9] a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, He begat Me, but had been satisfied with He created, as if that term implied He begat; but, as the case stands, after saying, He created Me a beginning of His ways for His works, He has added, not simply begat Me, but with the connection of the conjunction But, as guarding thereby the term created, when He says, But before all the hills He begat Me. For begat Me succeeding in such close connection to created Me, makes the meaning one, and shews that created is said with an object [Note 10], but that begat Me is prior to created Me. For as, if He had said the reverse, "The Lord begat Me," and went on, "But before the hills He created Me," created would certainly {367} have preceded begat, so having said first created, and then added But before all the hills He begat Me, He necessarily shews that begat preceded created. For in saying, Before all He begat Me, He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shewn to be true [Note 11] in an earlier part of this Book, that no one creature was made before another, but all things generate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command [Note 12]. Therefore neither do the words which follow created, also follow begat Me; but in the case of created is added beginning of ways, but of begat Me, He says not, "He begat me as a beginning," but before all He begat Me. But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all [Note 13]; but if other than all, (in which "all" the beginning of all is included,) it follows that He is other than the creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the Word, being other than all things and before all, afterwards is created a beginning of the ways for works, because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the Beginning and First-born from the dead, in all things might have the pre-eminence [Col. i. 18.]. § 61. 7. Such then being the difference between created and begat Me, and between beginning of ways and before all, God, being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, The Lord hath created Me. 8. And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and First-born [Note D] For though it was after {368} us [Note E] that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the First-born of us, because, all men being lost according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word's Body [Note 14]; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, I am the way and the door [John xiv. 6. x. 9.], and "through Me all must enter." Whence also is He said to be First-born from the dead [Rev. i. 5.], not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead. § 62. 9. But if He is also called First-born of the creation [Note F], still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time, (for how should that be, since He is Only-begotten?) but it is because of the Word's condescension [Note G] to the creatures, according to which He hath become the Brother of many [vid. Rom. viii. 28.]. For the term Only-begotten is used where there are no brethren, but First-born because {369} of brethren. Accordingly it is no where written in the Scriptures, "the first-born of God," nor "the creature of God;" but it is Only-begotten and Son and Word and Wisdom, that relate and are proper to the Father [Note H]. Thus, We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father [John i. 14.]; and God sent His Only-begotten Son [1 John iv. 9.]; and O Lord, Thy Word endureth for ever [Ps. cxix. 89.]; and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [John i. 1.]; and Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [1 Cor. i. 24.]; and This is My beloved Son; and Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Matt. iii. 17. xvi. 16.]. But first-born implied the descent [Note 15] to the creation [Note I]; for of it has He been called first-born; and He created implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, First-born needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten [Note I]. For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;—that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension [Note 15] to the creation and the brotherhood which He has made with many. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has justly the preference [Note 16] in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. 10. Moreover [Note K], as was before said [Note 17], not in connection with any {370} reason, but absolutely [Note L] it is said of Him, The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father [John i. 18]; but the word First-born has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, for in Him all things were created [Col. i. 16.]. But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures. § 63. Not then because He was from the Father was He called First-born, but because in Him the creation came to be [Note M]; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation not the less was the Word himself with God and the Word was God. 11. But this also not understanding, these irreligious [Note 18] men go about saying, "If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation." Men without understanding! if He is simply First-born of the whole creation, then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, "He is First-born above the rest of the creatures," lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, of the whole creation, that He may appear other than the creation [Note N]. Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born {371} of all the children of Jacob [Note O], but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, "that He may become First-born of all," lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but among many brethren [Rom. viii. 29.], because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said that He was First-born of other creatures; but now the sacred writers saying that He is First-born of the whole creation [Col. i. 15.], the Son of God is plainly shewn to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? 12. Since then such a notion [Note 19] is in itself extravagant, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called First-born among many brethren because of the relationship of the flesh, and First-born from the dead, because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and First-born of the whole creation, because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only all things consist [Col. i. 17.], but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered one time from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God [Rom. viii. 19, 21.] [Note P]. Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called {372} first, those that come after Him may abide [Note 20], as depending on the Word as a beginning [Note 21]. § 64. 13. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be shamed from such a thought; for if the case stands not as we have said, but they will rule it that He is First-born of the whole creation as in substance [Note 22] a creature among creatures, let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the whole creation these also are parts; and the First-born must be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and similitude [Note 23] must be the same with all. How then can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or who will endure them, if this is their language? or who can but hate them even imagining such things? For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any connection according to substance [Note 22] with the whole creation, has He been called First-born of it; but because the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, condescended [Note 24] to things generate, that it might be possible for them to come to be. For they could not have endured His untempered [Note 25] nature and His splendour from the Father, unless condescending [Note 24] by the Father's love for man He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into substance [Note Q]; and next, because, by this condescension [Note 24] of the Word, the creation too is made a son [Note R] through Him, that He might be in all respects First-born of it, as has been said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the sake of all into this very world. For so it is written, When He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him [Heb. i. 6.]. Let Christ's enemies {373} hear and tear themselves to pieces [Note 26], because His coming into the world is what makes Him called First-born of all; and thus the Son is the Father's Only-begotten, because He alone is from Him, and He is the First-born of creation, because of this adoption of all as sons [Note S]. 14. And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead the first-fruits of them that slept [1 Cor. xv. 20.]; so, since it became Him in all things to have the pre-eminence [Col. i. 18.], therefore He is created a beginning of ways, that we, walking along it and entering through Him who says, I am the Way and the Door, and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, Blessed are the undefiled in the Way [Ps. cxix. 1.], and Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God [Matt. v. 8.]. And thus since the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a creature, it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is beginning of ways. § 65. For when the first way, which was through Adam was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt {374} thou return [Gen. iii. 19.], therefore the Word of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father's will [Note 27], that whereas the first man had made it dead through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His proper Body [Note T], and might open for us a way new and living, as the Apostle says, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh [Heb. x. 20.]; which He signifies elsewhere thus, Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new [2 Cor. v. 17.]. But if a new creation has come to pass some one must be first of this creation; mere [Note 28] man then, made of earth only, such as we are become from the transgression, could not be he. For in the first creation, men had become unfaithful, and through them that first creation had been lost; and there was need of some one else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which had come to be. 15. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, the beginning of the new creation, is created as the Way, and consistently says, The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works; that man might converse no longer according to that first creation, out as having a beginning of a new creation, and in it the Christ a beginning of ways, we might follow Him henceforth, who says to us, I am the Way:—as the blessed Apostle teaches in his Epistle to the Colossians, saying, He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. § 66. For if, as has been said, because of the resurrection from the dead He is called, a beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, {375} bearing our flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is evident that His words, He created Me a beginning of ways, is indicative not of His substance [Note 29], but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper [Note U]; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways. For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh, and had become a beginning of things new created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, This shall be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord [Ps. cii. 18.]. And again in the twenty-first Psalm, They shall come, and the heavens shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord hath made [Ps. xxxii. 32.]. For we shall no more hear, In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die [Gen. ii. 17.]; but Where I am, there ye shall be also [John xiv. 3.]; so that we may say, We are His workmanship, created unto good works [Eph. ii. 10.]. 16. And again, since God's work, that is, man, though created perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and dead in sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of God should remain imperfect, (wherefore all the saints [Note 30] beseech concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, The Lord shall make good His loving-kindness towards me; despise not then the works of Thine own hands [Ps. cxxxviii. 8.];) therefore the perfect Word of God puts around Him an imperfect body [Note 31], and is said to be created for the works; that, paying the debt [Note X] in our stead, He might, by {376} Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what our Saviour says, I have glorified Thee on the earth, I have perfected the work which Thou gavest Me to do [John xvii. 4.]; and again, The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do bear witness of Me [John v. 36.]; but the works He here says that the Father hath given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways, for His works; for it is all one to say, The Father hath given Me the works, and The Lord hath created Me for the works. § 67. 17. When then received He the works to perfect, O God's enemies? for from this also He created will be understood. If ye say, "At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not," it is an untruth; for they were not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking what was already in being. Nor is it pious [Note 32] to refer to the time which preceded the Word's becoming flesh, lest His coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the sake of these works that coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to say that when He became man, then He took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also is He created for the works. Not of His substance [Note 33] then is He created indicative, as has many times been said; but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works were become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He is said in respect to the body to be created; that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might present the Church unto the Father, as the Apostle says, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish [Eph. v. 27.]. Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. 18. And this has been done, since the proper Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on the flesh, and {377} become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how had a work been joined to the Creator by a work [Note C]? or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed it [Note D]? And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God's doing? For who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by transgression [Mic. vii. 18.]? For whereas God has said, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return [Gen. iii. 19.], men have become mortal; how then could things generate undo sin? but the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, Unless the Son shall make you free [vid. John viii. 36.]; and the Son, who made free, has shewn in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things generate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father's Substance, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins. For since it is said in the Word, Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass. {378} § 68. 19. "Yet," they say, "though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse." And so another will tell them in like manner, "Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and undo the curse;" but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God [Note E]. He could have destroyed, before the ark of Noah, the then transgressors; but He did it after the ark. He could too, without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the people out of Egypt; but it profited to do it through Moses. And God was able without the judges, to save His people; but it was profitable for the people that for a season judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came at the fulness of the ages [Gal. iv. 4.], and when sought for said, I am He [John xviii. 5.]. For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not fitting in any other way; and what is profitable and fitting, for that He provides [Note F]. Accordingly He came, not that He might be ministered unto, but that He might minister [vid. Mat. xx. 28.], and might work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient to men for Him to speak from Sinai; and that He did, that it might be possible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near {379} them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what He did may be seen thus; if God had but spoken, because it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the power had been shewn of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from without [Note G], not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise,) nay, perhaps had become worse, because he had learned to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command and undo the curse; and thus the need had become interminable [Note 34], and men had remained under guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, ever sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, and had never become free, being in themselves flesh [Note 35], and ever worsted by the Law because of the infirmity of the flesh. § 69. 20. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it [Note 36]; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished, (for all died [2 Cor. v. 15.] in Christ,) and all {380} through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide [Note 37] for ever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For, the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has many tunes been explained, every wound of the serpent began to be utterly staunched from out it; and whatever evil sprung from the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and with these death also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord Himself says, The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in Me [John xiv. 30.]; and for this end was He manifested, as John has written, that He might destroy the works of the devil [1 John iii. 8.]. And these being destroyed from out the flesh, we all were thus liberated by the relationship of that flesh, and henceforward are joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon on earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard him say, Get thee behind Me, Satan [Matt. xvi. 23.], and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman seducing us, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels [Mark xii. 25.]; and in Christ Jesus it shall be a new creation, and neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ [Gal. vi. 15. iii. 28.]; and where Christ is, what fear, what danger can still happen? § 70. But this would not have come to pass, had the Word been a creature; for with a creature the devil, himself a creature, would have ever continued the battle, and man, being between the two [Note 38], had been ever in peril of death, not having, in whom and through whom he might be joined to God and delivered from all fear. 21. Whence the truth shews us [Note 39] that the Word is not of things generate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body generate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might make It god [Note H] {381} in Himself, and thus might introduce all us into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been [Note 40] made god if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father's presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on, (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign,) so also the man had not been made god, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and His salvation and deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his Substance, deny also that He took true human flesh [Note 41] of Mary Ever-Virgin [Note I]; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true flesh, {382} though Valentinus rave; and [Note 42] the Word was by nature Very God, though Ariomaniacs rave [Note 43]; and in that flesh has come to pass the beginning [Note 44] of our new creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us that new way, as has been said. § 71. 22. The Word then is neither creature nor work; for creature, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and thing made, He would also be work. Accordingly He has not said, "He created Me a work," nor "He made Me with the works," lest He should appear to be in nature and substance [Note 45] a creature; nor, "He created Me to make works," lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument [Note 46] made for our sake. Nor again has He declared, "He created Me before the works," lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the works, He should give "Offspring" and He created the same meaning. But He has said with exact discrimination [Note 47], for the works; as much as to say, "The Father has made Me into flesh, that I might be man," which again shews that He is not a work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is not part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for the works, must be by nature other than the works. 23. But if otherwise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of God be a work, by what [Note 48] Hand and Wisdom did He Himself come into being; for all things that came to be, came by the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, My hand hath made all these things [Is. lxvi. 2.]; and David says in the Psalm, And Thou, Lord, in the beginning last laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands [Ps. cii. 25.]; and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands [Ps. cxliii. 5.]. Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that all things were made through the Word [John i. 3.], and without Him was made not one thing [1 Cor. viii. 9.], and again, One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and in Him all things consist [Col. i. 17.], it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the hand [Note 49] of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, {383} arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord, they recount things in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For they say not, "Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;" to shew that all other things are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God [Note K], being His Word and Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. 24. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a most apposite distinction, the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful [Ps. xxxiii. 4.]; as in another Psalm too He says, O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in Wisdom hast Thou made them all [Ps. civ. 24.]. § 72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would Scripture have distinguished Him from the works, nor while it named them works, evangelised Him as Word and proper Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creation hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account [Heb. iv. 12, 13.]. For behold he calls things generate creation; but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account, he signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things generate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures. For if He were creature, He too would be {384} one of those who groan, and would need one who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. And if the whole creation groans together, in behalf of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those who groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is that gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time [Note 50], The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remaineth for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed [John viii. 35, 36.]; it is clearer than the light from these considerations, that the Word of God is not a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then The Lord hath created Me a beginning of the ways, this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy. FootnotesA. In this passage "was from the beginning" is
made equivalent with "was not before generation," and both are
contrasted with "without beginning" or "eternal;" vid. the bearing of
this on Bishop Bull's explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. p.
272. especially p. 275. where this passage is quoted. B.
The technical sense of [eusebeia, asebeia], pietas, impietas,
for orthodoxy, heterodoxy, has been noticed supr. p. 1, note A.
and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8.
with the (perhaps Gnostic) "profane and old-wives' fables," and with "bodily
exercise." A curious instance of the force of the word as a turning
point in controversy occurs in an Homily given to S. Basil by
Petavius, Fronto Ducæus, Combefis, Du Pin, Fabricius, and Oudin,
doubted of by Tillemont, and rejected by Cave and Garnier, where it is
said that the denial of S. Mary's perpetual virginity, though "lovers
of Christ do not bear to hear that God's Mother ever ceased to be
Virgin," yet "does no injury to the doctrine of religion, [meden
toi tes eusebeias paralumainetai logoi], i.e.
(according to the above explanation) to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Basil. Opp. t. 2. p. 599. vid. on the passage Petav. de Incarn. xiv.
3. §. 7. and Fronto-Duc. in loc. Pearson refers to this passage, and
almost translates it, Apost. Creed, Art. 3. "Although it may be
thought sufficient for the mystery of the Incarnation, that,
when our Saviour was conceived and born, His Mother was a Virgin,
though whatsoever should have followed after could have no reflective
operation upon the first-fruit of her womb ... yet the peculiar
eminency, &c." John of Antioch furnishes us with a definition of
orthodoxy, (pietas,) which is entirety Anglican. He speaks, writing to
Proclus, of a letter which evidenced caution and piety or orthodoxy "orthodoxy
because you went along the royal way of Divine Scripture in
your remarks, rightly confessing the word of truth, not venturing to
declare any thing of your own ability without Scripture testimonies;
caution, because together with divine Scripture you propounded
also statements of the Fathers in order to prove what you
advanced." Ap. Facund. i. 1. C.
[ton en hemin huion]. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56.
init. and [ton en autois oikounta logon]. 61. init. Also Orat.
i. 50 fin. iii. 23-25. and de Decr. 31 fin. also p. 250, note D. p.
360, note G. infr. notes on 79. D.
"Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the sense of [prototokos tes
ktiseos] has been commented on supr. p. 278. As far as
Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to [prototokos]
of men, (i.e. from the dead,) and is equivalent to the "beginning
of ways." E.
Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts, (Euseb.
in Marc. p. 12.) that, since Christ is called "first-born from the
dead," though others had been recalled to life before Him, therefore
He is called "first-born of creation," not in point of time, but of
dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise.
Orat. iv. 29. F.
Here again, though speaking of the first-born of creation,
Athan. does but view the phrase as equivalent to "first-born of the new
creation," or "brother of many;" and so infr. "first-born
because of the brotherhood He has made with many." G.
Bp. Bull considers [sunkatabasis] as equivalent to a figurative
[gennesis], an idea which (vid. supr .p. 279.) seems
quite foreign from Athan.'s meaning. Wessel, (who, as the present
writer now finds, has preceded him in this judgment,) in his answer to
Cremer, who had made use of Bull for a heterodox purpose, observes
that Bull "thinks that Athanasius implies in the word [sunkatabasis]
the Word's descent or progress from the Father, and so His second
birth, as it may be called, in the beginning of the world to create
it. But that learned man is altogether mistaken. As may be seen in
Suicer. the Greek Doctors use the word of God, even of the Father,
with respect to His goodness in communicating Himself externally and
attending to human infirmity, without any respect at all to a birth or
descent from another. In Bull's sense of the word, Athan. could not
have said that the senses of Only-begotten and First-born were
contrary to each other," p. 221. [Sunkatabenai] occurs
supr. 51 fin. of the incarnation. What is meant by it will be found
infr. 78-81. viz. that our Lord came "to implant in the creatures a
type and semblance of His Image;" which is just what is here
maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on
the word [sunkatabasis], and begins and ends with an
introduction of that word. Vid. also Gent. 47. H.
This passage, which has been urged against Bull supr. p. 278, is
adduced against him by Wessel also in his answer to Cremer. (Nestorianismus
Redivivus, p. 223.) All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to
the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is internal
to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c.
but (as he adds presently) the first-born, like beginning of
ways, is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our
Lord's essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an
office, character, or the like. I.
This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15. but the
passages from the Fathers referrible to these Orations are too many to
enumerate. "If we say," observes Photius, "that Gregory Theologus and
Basil the Divine drew from this work as from a fount the beautiful and
clear streams of their own writings which they poured out against the
heresy, I suppose we shall not be far from the mark." Cod. 140. And so
of S. Cyril and, as far as his subjects allow, of S. Epiphanius. K.
We now come to a third and wider sense of [prototokos],
as found (not in Rom. viii. 29. and Col. i. 18. but) in Col. i. 15.
where by creation Athan. understands "all things visible and
invisible." As then for the works was just now taken to argue
that created was used in a relative and restricted sense, the
same is shewn as regards first-born by the words for in Him
all things were created. L.
[apolelumenos]; supr. p. 261, note D. p. 356, r. 2. p.
361, r. 1. and so [apolutos] Theophylact to express the
same distinction in loc. Coloss. M.
It would be perhaps better to translate "first-born to the
creature," to give Athan.'s idea; [tes ktiseos]
not being a partitive genitive, or [prototokos] a
superlative, (though he presently so considers it,) but a simple
appellative and [tes kt.] a common genitive of relation,
as "the king of a country," "the owner of a house." "First-born of
creation" is like "author, type, life of creation." As, after calling
our Lord in His own nature "a light," we might proceed to say that He
was also "a light to the creation," or "Arch-luminary," so He was not
only the Eternal Son, but a "Son to creation," an "archetypal Son."
Hence St. Paul goes on at once to say, "for in Him all things were
made," not simply "by and for," as at the end of the verse; or as
Athan. says here, "because in Him the creation came to be." On the
distinction of [dia] and [en], referring respectively to
the first and second creations, vid. In illud. Omn. 2. Wessel
understands Athan.'s sense of [prototokos] somewhat
differently, as shall be mentioned presently. N.
To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view,
which differs from the English. As the English comparative, so the
Greek superlative implies or admits the exclusion of the subject of
which it is used, from the things with which it is contrasted. Thus "Solomon
is wiser than the heathen," implies of course that he was not a
heathen: but the Greeks can say, "Solomon is wisest of the heathen,"
or according to Milton's imitation "the fairest of her daughters Eve."
Vid. as regards the very word [protos], John i. 15; and
supr. p. 321, r. 5. also [pleisten he emprosthen
exousian] 3 Machab. vii. 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to
obviate this exclusion, we put in the word other, (ante alios
immanior omnes,) so too in the Greek superlative, "Socrates is wisest
of other Heathen." Athanasius then says in this passage, that "first-born
of creatures" implies that our Lord was not a creature; whereas it is
not said of Him "first-born of brethren," lest He should be excluded
from men, but "first born among brethren," where among is
equivalent to other. O.
[Pouben, prototokos mou, su ischus mou, kai arche
teknon mou]. Gen. xlix. 3. Sept. Wessel considers that
Athan. understands "first-born" to mean "heir," as in the case of the
Patriarchs; and he almost seems to have these words in his mind,
(because none other to his purpose occur in the passage,) though
Reuben was not the heir of Jacob. His interpretation of the word is,
that when the Son of God came into the world, He took the title of "first-born"
or "heir," Princeps et hominus creaturæ," p. 322; "lest He should be
thought a mere man, and that He might be accounted Lord of all
creatures and believers, as having created all things, and new created
all the predestined." p. 216. Yet what Athan. says in 64, init. is
surely inconsistent with this. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41, f. where the
text Col. i. 15. is quoted. P.
Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is "first-born to the
creation;" viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man's
fall; as he says more clearly in the next section. Q.
He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man
immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create Him
without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself
into His created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic
hand; in other words, that He was created in Him, not as
something external to Him, (in spite of the [dia] supr. note
M.) vid supr. p. 32, note Q. and Gent. 47. where the [sunkatabasis]
is spoken of. R.
As God created Him, in that he created human nature in Him, so
is He first-born, in that human nature is adopted in Him. What
is here said of [prototokos] is surely larger than
Wessel's interpretation of the word. Rather S. Leo gives S. Athanasius's
sense; "Human nature has been taken into so close an union by the Son
of God, that not only in that Man who is the 'first-born of the whole
creation,' but even in all His saints is one and the same Christ."
Serm. 63. 3. i.e. the title first-born has reference not to our
Lord as heir, but as representative of His Brethren. S.
Thus he considers that "first-born" is mainly a title, connected with
the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord's office at the
creation. (vid. parallel of Priesthood, p. 292, note M. p. 303, note
E.) In each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the
type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and
the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn.
13, 14. And so [eikon kai tupos pros areten].
Orat. i. 51. where vid. (supr. p. 254.) note I. [tupon tina
labontes] and [hypogrammon], iii 20. vid. also 21. [en
autoi hemen protetupomenoi] infr. 76. init.
He came [tupon eikonos entheinai] 78. init. [ten tou
archetupou plasin anastesasthai heautoi]. contr.
Apol. ii. 5. Also [katesphragisthemen]. Cyr. in Joan. p.
91. [hoion apo tinos arches] Nyss. Catech. p. 504. fin.
And so again, as to the original creation, the Word is [idea kai
energeia], of all material things. Athan. Leg. 10. [he
idea hoper logon eirekasi]. Clem. Strom. v. 3. [idean
ideon kai archen lekteon ton prototokon pases
ktiseos] Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. "Whatever God
was about to make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor would
be in the things, were it not in the Word." August. in Psalm xliv. 5.
He elsewhere calls the Son, "ars quædam omnipotentis atque sapientis
Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium." de Trin. vi.
11. And so Athan. infr. [prototokos eis apodeixin tes
ten panton dia tou huion demiourgias kai huiopoieseos].
iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan.
is discussing, (Prov. vii. 22.) presents a remarkable contrast to
these passages, as making the Son, not the [idea], but the
external minister of the Father's [idea]. "The Father designed
([dietupou]) and prepared with consideration, how and of
what shape, measure; and parts … And He watching ([enatenizon])
the Father's thoughts and alone beholding the depths in Him, went
about the work, subserving the Father's orders, ([neumasi]) …
as a skilful painter, taking the archetypal ideas from the Father's
thoughts, He transferred them to the substances of the
works." de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. S. Cyril says, what will serve as
a contrast, "The Father shews the Son what He does Himself, not
as if setting it before Him drawn out on a tablet, or teaching as
ignorant; for He knows all things as God; but as depicting Himself
whole in the nature of the Offspring. &c. in Joann. p. 222. vid.
supr. p. 324, note B. T.
Vid. supr. 250, note D. p. 254, note K. p. 360, note G. "We could not
otherwise," says S. Irenæus, "receive incorruption and immortality,
but by being united to incorruption and immortality. But how could
this be, unless incorruption and immortality had first been made what
we are? that corruption might be absorbed by incorruption and mortal
by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of Sons." Hær.
iii. 19, n. 1. "He took part of flesh and blood, that is, He became
man, whereas He was Life by nature … that uniting Himself to the
corruptible flesh according to the measure of its own nature,
ineffably, and inexpressibly, and as He alone knows, He might bring it
to His own life, and render it partaker through Himself of God and the
Father … For He bore our nature, refashioning it into His own 1ife
... He is in us through the Spirit, turning our natural corruption
into incorruption and changing death to its contrary." Cyril. in Joan.
lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril,
one may say, passim. U.
Athanasius here says that our Lord's body was subject to death; and so
elsewhere, "His body, as having a common substance with all men, for
it was a human body, though by a new marvel, it subsisted of the
Virgin alone, yet, being mortal, died after the common course
of the like natures." Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii.
56. And so [ton anthropon sathrothenta]. Orat.
iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation,
suscepta est ab æternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin,
Utique vulnerabile atque mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr.
Faust. xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the
Aphthartodocetæ), and held that our Lord's manhood was naturally
indeed corrupt, but became from its union with the Word incorrupt from
the moment of conception; and in consequence it held that our Lord did
not suffer and die, except by miracle. vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis.
t. i. pp. 563, 4, 8.) vid. supr. pp. 241-3, notes H and I; also infr.
p. 389, note C. And further, note on iii. 57. X.
[anth' hemon ten opheilen apodidous],
and so the Lord's death [lutron panton]. Incarn. V. D.
25. [lutron katharsion]. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9.
c. 13, b. 14, a. 47, b, c. 55, c. 67, d. In illud Omn. 2 fin. C.
[sic] Vid. p. 15, note E. also p. 251. and p. 303, with note E. "How could
we be partakers of that adoption of Sons, unless through the Son we
had received from Him that communion with Him, unless His Word had
been made flesh, and had communicated it to us." Iren. Hær. iii. 20. D.
"Therefore was He made man, that, what was as though given to Him,
might be transferred to us; for a mere man had not merited this, nor
had the Word Himself needed it. He was united therefore to us, &c."
infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also iii. 33 init. "There was need He should
be both man and God; for unless He were man, He could not be killed;
unless He were God, He would have been thought, not, unwilling to be
what He could, but unable to do what He would." August. Trin. xiii.
18. "Since Israel could become sold under sin, he could not redeem
himself from iniquities. He only could redeem, who could not sell
Himself; who did no sin, He is the redeemer from sin." Id. in Psalm.
129. n. 12. "In this common overthrow of all mankind, there was but
one remedy, the birth of some son of Adam, a stranger to the original
prevarication and innocent, to profit the rest both by his pattern and
his merit. Since natural generation hindered this, ... the Lord of
David became his Son." Leon. Serm. 28, n. 3. "Seek neither a 'brother'
for thy redemption, but one who surpasses thy nature; nor a mere 'man,'
but a man who is God, Jesus Christ, who alone is able to make
propitiation for us all ... One thing has been found sufficient for
all men at once, which was given as the price of ransom of our soul,
the holy and most precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He
poured out for us all." Basil. in Psalm. 48, n. 4. "One had not been
sufficient instead of all, had it been simply a man; but if He be
understood as God made man, and suffering in His own flesh, the whole
creation together is small compared to Him, and the deaths of one
flesh is enough for the ransom of all that is under heaven." Cyril. de
rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also Procl. Orat. i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil.
contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral. xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot.
222. p. 583. E.
Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supported by Naz.
Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876, 7. August. de Trin.
xiii. 13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but S. Thomas and
the schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav. Incarn. ii. 13.
However, it will be observed from what follows that Athan. thought the
Incarnation still absolutely essential for the renewal of human
nature in holiness. In like manner in the Incarn. after saying that to
accept mere repentance from sinners would not have been fitting, [eulogon],
he continues, "Nor does repentance recover us from our natural state,
it does but stop us from our sins. Had there been but a fault
committed, and not a subsequent corruption, repentance had seen well;
but if, &c." 7. That is, we might have been pardoned, we could not
have been new-made, without the Incarnation; and so supr. 56. F.
"Was it not in His power, had He wished it, even in a day to bring on
the whole rain [of the deluge]? in a day, nay in a moment?" Chrysost.
in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to apply this principle to the pardon
of sin. "Now, while this short portion of Holy Lent still remains to
you, ye shall be able both to wash away your sins and to gain much
mercy from God. For not many days, nor time doth the Lord require, but
even in these two weeks, if we will, shall we make a great correction
of our offences. For if the Ninevites, after shewing a repentance of
three days, He repaid with so much mercy, &c." On the subject of
God's power as contrasted with His acts, Petavius brings together the
statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6. G.
Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence had but an
external divine assistance, not an habitual grace; this, however, is
contrary to his own statements already referred to, and the general
doctrine of the fathers. vid. e.g. Cyril. in Joann. v. 2. He must be
interpreted by S. Austin, who uses similar yet plainer language in
contrasting the grace of the first and the Second Adam, "An aid was
[given to the first Adam] which he might desert when he willed, in
which he might remain if he willed, not by which it came to pass that
he willed. But a more powerful grace is given to the Second. The first
is that by which a man has justice if he will; the second does more,
for by it he also wills, and wills so strongly and loves so ardently,
as to overcome the will of the flesh lusting contrariwise to the will
of the spirit," &c. de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid. also infr. p. 389,
note B. and S. Cyril. "Our forefather Adam seems to have gained
wisdom, not in time, as we, but appears perfect in understanding from
the very first moment of his formation, preserving in himself the
illumination given him by nature from God as yet untroubled and pure,
and leaving the dignity of his nature unpractised on," &c. in
Joan. p. 75. H.
[en heautoi theopoiesei]. vid. also ad
Adelph. 4. a. Serap. i. 24, e. and p. 360, note g. and iii. 33. "The
Word was made flesh that we, partaking of the Spirit, might be made
gods." supra. p. 23. "He deified that which He put on." p. 240. vid.
also pp. 23, 151, 236, 245, 348. Orat. iii. 23. fin. 33. init. 34.
fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For our becoming [theoi] vid.
Orat. iii. 25. [theoi kata charin]. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. [theophoroumetha]
Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 init. [theoumetha]. ibid. [christophoroi].
iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. Hist. i. p. 846. init. I.
Vid. also Athan. Comm. in Luc. ap. Coll. Nov. p. 43. This title, which
is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph. Hær.
78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap.
Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Cæsarius has [aeipais].
Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his
brethren to Siricius, and the Pope's letter in response. (Coust. Ep.
Pont. p. 669-682.) As we are taught by the predictions of the Prophets
that a Virgin was to be Mother of the promised Messias, so are we
assured by the infallible relation of the Evangelists that this Mary "was
a Virgin when she bare Him ... Neither was the act of parturition more
contradictory to virginity, than the former of conception. Thirdly, we
believe the Mother of our Lord to have been, not only before and after
His nativity, but also for ever, the most immaculate and blessed
Virgin … The peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that
Mother, the special honour and reverence due unto her Son and ever
paid by her, the regard of that Holy Ghost who came upon her, the
singular goodness and piety of Joseph, to whom she was espoused, have
persuaded the Church of God in all ages to believe that she still
continued in the same virginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged
as the Ever-Virgin Mary." Creed, Art. 3. (vid. supr. p. 364, note B.)
He adds that "many have taken the boldness to deny this truth, because
not recorded in the sacred writ," but "with no success." He replies to
the argument from "until" in Matt i. 25. by referring to Gen. xxviii.
15. Deut. xxxiv. 6. 1 Sam. xv. 35. 2 Sam.vi. 23. Matt. xxviii. 20. He
might also have referred to Psalm cx. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 25. which are the
more remarkable, because they were urged by the school of Marcellus as
a proof that our Lord's kingdom would have an end, and are explained
by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15. 29;
where the true meaning of "until" (which may be transferred to Matt. i.
25.) is well brought out. "He who is King before He subdued His
enemies, how shall He not the rather be King, after He has got
the mastery over them?" vid. also note on S. Thomas's Catena, O. T. in
loc. vid. also Suicer de Symb. Niceno-Const. p. 231. Spanheim. Dub.
Evang. 28, 11. K.
[theologoumenos]. supr. p. 56, note K. also Incarn. c. Ar. 3.
19, d. Serap. i. 28, a. 29, d. 31, d. contr. Sab. Greg. and passim ap.
Euseb. contr. Marcell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, c. 124, b.
&c. [kuriologein], In Illud. Omn. 6, b. contr. Sab. Greg.
§. 4, f. Margin Notes1. [hypo ten archen]. 2.
[erxato poiesai]. 3.
[archen], origin. 4.
supr. p. 223, note G. 5.
[archei], vid. Orat. iv. 1. note f. 6.
[theologon], vid. p. 383, note K. 7.
[paratereseos], p. 298, note A. 8.
p. 57. 9.
vid. p. 345, note G. 10.
ch. 20. 11.
p. 329, note L. 12.
p. 349. 13.
p. 350, note L. 14.
p. 296, r. 1. Orat. iii. 31. note. 15.
[sunkatabasin]. 16.
p. 283, note C. 17.
p. 256. 18.
[dussebeis], misbelievers. 19.
[epinoias]. 20.
[diameine], vid. p. 32, note Q. 21.
p. 250, note D. 22.
p. 366, r. 1. 23.
p. 309. 24.
[sunkatabebeke]. 25.
[akraton], p. 13, r. 1. 26.
p. 314, note O. 27.
p. 324, note C. 28.
[psilos]. 29.
p. 345, note G. 30.
[hagioi], p. 325, r. 1. 31.
contr. Orat. iv. 11. 32.
[euages]. 33.
p. 375, r. 1. 34.
[eis apeiron], de Decr. 8, b. 35.
[sarkes]. 36.
p. 15, fin. 37.
[diameinosin], vid. p. 372, r. 1. p. 385, r. 4. Gent.
41, e. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 5. 38.
[mesos on ho anthr.] al. Vers. Lat. 39.
p. 328, note L. 40.
[palin]. 41.
vid. p. 345, note G. 42.
[en gar]. 43.
p. 91, note Q. 44.
[arche], origin, p. 250, note D. 45.
p. 345, note G. 46.
[organon], note on iii. 31. 47.
p. 298, note A. 48.
p. 311, note K. 49.
p. 323, note A. 50.
[tois tote], p. 386, r. 3. p. 282, note A. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |