|
{436} Chapter 26. Introductory to texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation
§ 26. 1. FOR behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, but with hardened Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Saviour's human attributes in the Gospels [Note A], they have utterly forgotten, like Samosatene, the Son's paternal Godhead [Note 1], and with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, "how can the Son be from the Father by nature, and be like Him in substance [Note 2], who says, All power is given unto Me [Mat. xxviii. 18.]; and the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son [John v. 22.]; and The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand; He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life [John iii. 35, 36.]; and again, All things are delivered unto Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him [Mat. xi. 27.]; and again, All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come to Me [John vi. 37.] [Note 3]." On this they observe, "If He was, as ye say, Son by nature, He had no need to receive, but He had by nature as a Son." 2. "Or how can He be the natural and true Power of the Father, who near upon the season of the passion says, Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, {437} saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again [John xii. 27, 28.]. And He said the same another time; Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me [Mat. xxvi. 39.]; and When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me [John xiii. 21.] [Note 4]." Then these perverse [Note 5] men argue; "If He were Power, He had not feared, but rather He had supplied power to others." 3. Further they say; "If He were by nature the true and proper Wisdom of the Father, how is it written, And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man [Luke ii. 52.] [Note 6]? In like manner, when He had come into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom men said that lie was; and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, home many loaves have ye [Mat. xvi. 13. John xi. 34. Mark vi. 38.] [Note 7]? How then," say they, "is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom, and was ignorant of what He asked of others?" 4. This too they urge; "How can He be the proper Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom He makes all things, as ye think, who said upon the Cross, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? [Mat. xxvii. 46.] and before that had prayed, Glorify Thy Name, and, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was [John xii. 28; xvii. 5.]. And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into temptation; and, The spirit indeed is willing, He said, but the flesh is weak [Mat. xxvi. 41.]. And, Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son [Mark xiii. 32.] [Note 8]." Upon this again say the miserable men, "If the Son were, according to your interpretation [Note 9], eternally existent with God, He had not been ignorant of the day, but had known as Word; nor had been forsaken as being co-existent; nor had asked to receive glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at all; for, being the Word, He had needed nothing; but since He is a creature and one of things generate, therefore He thus spoke, and needed what He had not; for it is proper to creatures to require and to need what they have not." § 27. 5. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their discourses; and if they thus argue, they might consistently speak yet more daringly; "Why in the first instance did the {438} Word become flesh?" and they might add; "For how could He, being God, become man?" or, "How could the Immaterial bear a body?" or they might speak with Caiaphas still more Judaically, "Wherefore at all, did Christ, being a man, make Himself God?" [Note 10] for this and the like the Jews then muttered when they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs disbelieve when they read, and have fallen away into blasphemies. If then a man should carefully parallel the words of these and those, he will of a certainty find them both arriving at the same unbelief, and the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us a common one. For the Jews said; "how, being a man, can He be God?" And the Arians, "If He were very God, from God, how could He become man?" And the Jews were offended then and mocked, saying, "Had he been Son of God, He had not endured the Cross;" and the Arians standing over against them, urge upon us, "How dare ye say that He is the Word proper to the Father's Substance, who had a body, so as to endure all this?" Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord, because He said that God was His proper Father, and made Himself equal to Him, as working what the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to deny, both that He is equal to God and that God is the proper and natural Father of the Word, but those who hold this they seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said, "Is not this the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how then is it that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven?" [John vi. 42; viii. 58.] the Arians on the other hand make response [Note B] and say conformably, "How can He be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?" Thus both parties deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore. § 28. 6. Extravagance then like this being Judaic, and Judaic after the mind of Judas the traitor, let them openly confess themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny outright, as we have said before, the Saviour's appearance in the flesh, for this doctrine is akin [Note 11] to their heresy; or if they {439} fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised [Note 12], from servility towards Constantius and for their sake whom they have beguiled, then let them not say what the Jews say; for if they disown the name, let them in fairness renounce the doctrine [Note 13]. For we are Christians, O Arians, Christians we; our privilege is it well to know the Gospels concerning the Saviour, and neither with Jews to stone Him, if we hear of His Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble at such lowly sayings as He may speak for our sakes as man. If then you would become Christians [Note 14], put off Arius's madness, and cleanse [Note 15] with the words of religion those ears of yours which blaspheming has defiled; knowing that, by ceasing to be Arians, you will cease also from the malevolence of the present Jews. Then at once will truth shine on you out of darkness, and ye will no longer reproach us with holding two Eternals [Note C], but ye will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God's true Son by nature, and not as merely [Note 16] eternal [Note D], but revealed as co-existing in the Father's eternity. For there are things called eternal of which He is Framer; for in the twenty-third Psalm it is written, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors [Ps. xxiv. 7.]; and it is plain that through Him {440} these things were made; but if even of things everlasting He is the Framer, who of us shall be able henceforth to dispute that He is anterior to those things eternal, and in consequence, is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, as in that He is God's Son; for being the Son, He is inseparable [Note 17] from the Father, and never was it when He was not, but He was always; and being the Father's Image and Radiance, He has the Father's eternity. 7. Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to show their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation [Note 18], we may easily see, if we now consider the drift [Note 19] of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule [Note 20], apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this drift, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think. § 29. Now the drift and character of holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this, it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom [Note 21]; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Mother of God [Note E], and was {441} made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me [John v. 39.]. But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing [John i. 1-3.]; next, And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father [v. 14.]; and next Paul writing, Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and look upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross [Phil. ii. 6-8.]. Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of Scripture upon {442} the interpretation [Note 22] which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, Let there be light, and Let there be a firmament [Note 23], and Let us make man [Gen. i. 3, 6, 26.]; but in fulness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written, Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us [Matt. i. 23.]. § 30. The reader then of divine Scripture may acquaint himself with these passages from the older books; and from the Gospels on the other hand he will perceive that the Lord became man; for the word, he says, became flesh, and dwelt among us [John i. 14.]. 8. And He became man, and did not come into man; for this it is necessary to know, lest perchance these irreligious men, fall into this notion also, and beguile any into thinking, that, as in former times the Word was used to come into each of the Saints, so now He sojourned [Note 24] in a man, hallowing him also, and manifesting [Note 25] Himself as in the others. For if it were so, and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, nor had those who saw Him been startled, saying, Whence is He? and wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? for they were familiar with the idea, from the words, And the Word of the Lord came to the Prophets [Note 26] one by one. But now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came to be, endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking a servant's form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is God's power and God's wisdom [1 Cor. i. 24.]; for the Word, as John says, became flesh; (it being the custom [Note 27] of Scripture to call man by the name of flesh, as it says by Joel the Prophet, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh [Joel ii. 28.]; and as Daniel said to Astyages, I may not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh [Bel and Dr. 5.]; for both he and Joel call mankind flesh.) § 31. Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly [Note 28] received Him; but neither, on their birth, was it said that He had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came [Note 24] among us from Mary once in fulness of the ages for the abolition of sin, (for so it was pleasing to the Father, {443} to send His own Son made of a woman, made under the Law [Gal. iv. 4.],) then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us, (as Peter says, Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh [1 Pet. iv. 1.],) that it might be shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father's will [Note F], afterwards for our sakes He became man, and bodily [Col. ii. 9.], as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, "Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument [Note G], He became man for our sakes." 9. And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body [Note H], And the Word bore the {444} infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered [Note 29] to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's [Note I]. And well has the Prophet said carried; and has not said, "He remedied" [Note 30] our infirmities, lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He became man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His proper body; and, while He received no hurt [Note K] Himself by bearing our sins in His body on the tree [1 Pet. ii. 24.], as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections [Note 31], and were filled with the righteousness [Note 32] of the Word. § 32. Whence it {445} was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did [Note 33] the Lord do them [Note L]. Hence, when made man, He said, If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know that the Father is in Me and I in Him [John x. 37, 28. vid. Incarn. 18.]. 10. And thus when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead [Note M]. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth [Note N]; and it became the Lord, in putting {446} on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was proper to Him, so also we may say that the affections of the body were only proper to Him, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another's, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word's, (for the Word became flesh,) of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections [Note 34] are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph [Note 35] and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another [Note O], but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him [Note P], and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we pray [Note 36] to no creature, no ordinary [Note Q] man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour. § 33. 11. Who will not admire this? or who will not agree that such a thing is truly divine? for if the works of the Word's Godhead had not taken place through the body, man had not been made god [Note 37]; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered from them [Note 38]; but though they had ceased for a little while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him; and for this reason:—Many for instance have been made holy and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremias was hallowed [Note R] even from {447} the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Mother of God [Note S]; nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression [Rom. v. 14.]; and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature. But now the Word having become man and having appropriated [Note T] the affections of the flesh, no longer do these affections touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed [Note U] by Him, and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word's power, they abide [Note 39] ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born [Note 40] of Mary Mother of God [Note X], He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others a generation [Note 41] of being; in order that He may transfer our generation into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He {448} transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to that former generation in Adam do we die; but henceforward our generation and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us [Note 42] and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made the Word [Note Y], by reason of God's Word who for our sake became flesh. § 34. 12. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh [1 Pet. iv. 1]. Therefore also when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh [Note Z], let it be said, as is congruous, in each case, "Christ then hungering and thirsting for us in the flesh;" and "saying He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling for us in the flesh;" and "being exalted too, and born, and growing in the flesh;" and "fearing and hiding in the flesh;" and "saying, If it be possible let this cup pass from Me [Mat. xxvi. 39.], and being beaten, and receiving, for us in the flesh;" and in a word all such things for us in the flesh. For on this account has the Apostle himself said, {449} Christ then having suffered, not in His Godhead, but for us in the flesh, that these affections may be acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh. 13. Let no one then stumble at these human affections, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed [Note 43] by these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and abolished [Note 44] in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free [Note A] from them for ever, as John teaches when he says, And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin [1 John iii. 5.]. And this being so, no heretic shall object, "Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from it?" since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, "I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I became the Word's flesh, and He carried my affections, though He is without them [Note 45]; and so I became free from them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if thou objectest that I am rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that thou objectest not that God's Word took my form of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are made gods [Note 46] by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life everlasting." {450} § 35. 14. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument [Note 47] of His own body, we may know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One [Note B], we are right [Note 48] in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, deny the Word's presence in the flesh, or from what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a Jewish vintner [Note 49], mixing water with the wine [Note 50], shall account the cross an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly. This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to deny [Note C] the generation of His body [Note 51], and henceforth to rank themselves with Manichees [Note 52]. But for them learn they, however tardily, that the Word became flesh; and let us, retaining the general scope [Note 53] of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation [Note 54]. {451} Chapter 27. Texts explained; tenthly, Matthew xxviii. 18. John iii. 35. &c.
1. FOR, The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand [John iii. 35.]; and, All things are given unto Me of My Father [Matt. xi. 27.]; and, I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge [John v. 30.]; and the like passages, do not shew that the Son once had not these prerogatives,—(for had not He eternally what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in substance, who also says, All that the Father hath are Mine [John xvi. 15; xvii. 10.], and what are Mine, are the Father's? for if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father hath them ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being the Father's, were ever in the Son,)—not then because once He had them not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son hath eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father. § 36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath, from the unvarying likeness [Note 55] and identity of that He hath, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father [Note 56], therefore He has said Is given unto Me, and I have received, and Are delivered to Me [Matt. xxviii. 18. John x. 18.], only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word, and the Eternal Son, who because of His likeness to the Father, hath eternally what He hath from Him, and because He is the Son, hath from the Father what eternally He hath. {452} 2. Moreover that Is given and Are delivered, and the like, do not impair [Note 57] the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him to be truly [Note 58] Son, we may learn from the passages themselves. For if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Substance of the Father. For if He were one of all, then He were not heir of all [Heb. i. 2], but every one had received according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to the Father. 3. Moreover that Is given and Are delivered do not shew that once He had them not, we may conclude from a similar passage, and in like manner concerning them all; for the Saviour Himself says As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself [John v. 26.] Now from the words Hath given, He signifies that He is not the Father; but in saying so, He shews the Son's natural likeness and propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as the Father, so also the Son has. But if this is irreligious to say, and religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is it not extravagant in them when the Son says that, as the Father has, so also the Son has, to say that He has not so [Note 59], but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful, and all things which He says that He has received, He has always, yet has from the Father; and the Father indeed not from any, but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the radiance, if the radiance itself should say, "All places the light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from myself, but as the light wills," yet, in saying this, it does not imply that it once had not, but it means, "I am proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine;" so, and much more, must we understand in the instance of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, in the Son still [Note A] hath all things; and the Son having, {453} still the Father hath them; for the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son takes the oversight [Note 60] of all things. {454} § 37. 4. And while such is the sense of these passages, those too which speak humanly concerning the Saviour, admit of a religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid [Note 61] [John xi. 34.], or when He asks on coming into the parts of Cæsarea, Whom do men say that I am? [Matt. xvi. 13.] or, How many loaves have ye? [Mark vi. 38.] and, What will ye that I shall do unto you? [Matt. xx. 32.] we may know, from what has been already said, the orthodox [Note 62] sense of the passages, and may not stumble as Christ's enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to the irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant? for one who asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask concerning what he knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, How many loaves have ye? [John vi. 6.] was not ignorant, for He says, And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do. But if He knew what He was doing, therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From this instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do say that He is; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to do. 5. And thus with ease is their sophism overthrown; but if they still persist [Note B] on account of His asking, then they must be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired, where Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but a great way off, Lazarus is dead [John xi. 14.], and where he was dead; {455} and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of what was in man, and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, I in the Father and the Father in Me [John ii. 25; xiv. 11.]. § 38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word [Note 63], knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not, when He became man, cease to be God [Note 64]; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man's; perish the thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh makes the flesh God [Note 65]. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it did He raise the dead; and He shewed to all that He who quickens the dead and recals the soul, much more discerns the secrets of all. And He knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be greater. 6. When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defence, Power is given to Me, and, Glorify Thy Son, and Peter says, Power is given unto Him, we understand all these passages in the same sense, that humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again, (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost [Note 66],) but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure [Note 67] by men, therefore He himself appropriates [Note 68] the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, Glorify Me, who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received. § 39. If then, (as has many times been said,) {456} the Word did not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as you would have it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be ignorant; but if He has become man, (and He has become,) and it is man's to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we strip human nature of grace? For if the Word himself, considered as Word [Note 69], has received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to His Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men? for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did the Word come among us, and become flesh? if that He might receive these things, which He says that He has received, He was without them before that, and of necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the body [Note 70], because, when He came into it, then He receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His descent into the flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be Himself promoted [Note 71] because of the body [Note 72], than the body promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He might redeem mankind [Note 73], the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow them and make them gods, the Word became flesh, (and for this He did become,) who does not see that it follows, that what He says that He received, when He became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, but for the flesh? [Note 74] for to it, in which He was speaking, pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father. 7. But let us see what He asked, and what the things altogether were which He said that He had received, that in this way also they may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, yet He had said, All things are delivered unto Me [Luke x. 22.]. And after the resurrection, He says that He has received all power; but even before that He had said, All things are delivered unto Me, He was Lord of all, for all things were made by Him; and there is one Lord by whom are all things [1 Cor. viii. 6.]. And when He asked glory, He was as He is, the Lord of glory; as Paul says, If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory [1 Cor. ii. 8.]; for He had that glory which {457} He asked when He said, the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. § 40. Also the power which He said He received after the resurrection, that He had before He received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself rebuked Satan [Note 75] saying, Get thee behind Me, Satan [Luke iv. 8.]; and to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on their return He said, I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven [Luke x. 18, 19.]. And again, that what He said that He had received, that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His driving away the devils, and from His unbinding what Satan had bound, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham; and from His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the woman who washed His feet, Thy sins be forgiven thee [vid. Luke xiii. 16. Matt. ix. 5. Luke vii. 48.]; and from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, not waiting till He should receive, but being possessed of power [Is. ix. 6. Sept. [exousiastes]]. 8. From all this it is plain that what he had as Word, that when He had become man and was risen again, He says that He received humanly [Note 76]; that for His sake men might henceforward upon earth have power against devils, as having become partakers of a divine nature; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might reign everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing which He says that He received, did He receive as not possessing before; for the Word, as being God, had them always; but in these passages He is said humanly to have received that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth from it the gift might abide [Note 77] surely for us. § 41. For what is said by Peter, receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him [1 Pet. iii. 22.], has this meaning; for as He inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so He received is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels marks the Word's Godhead. 9. Cease then, O ye abhorred of God [Note 78], and degrade not the Word; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father's [Note 79], as though He needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting your own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once stoned Him. For these are not the Word's, as the Word [Note 80]; but are proper to men; and, as when He spat, and stretched {458} forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the triumphs [Note 81] were human, though they were done through the body, but were God's, so, on the other hand, though human things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, considering the nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute them to the Word's Godhead, but to His manhood. For though the Word became flesh, yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed [Note 82] by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the Father's works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid [Note C] His Mother, saying, My hour is not yet come [John ii. 4.], and then at once He made the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He shewed that He bore a true body, and that it was proper to Him. FootnotesA. This Oration alone, and this entirely, treats
of tests from the Gospels hitherto from the Gospel according to St.
John, and now chiefly from the first three. From the subject of these
portions of Scripture, it follows that the objections which remain
chiefly relate to our Lord's economy for us. Hence they lead Athan.
to treat more distinctly of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to
anticipate a refutation of both Nestorius and Eutyches. B. [epakouousin]. Montfaucon (Onomasticon
in t. 2 fin.) so interprets this word. vid. Apol. contr. Ar. 88. (O.
T. p. 122, note k.) C. Vid. supr. p. 43, D. The peculiarity of the
Catholic doctrine, as contrasted with the heresies on the subject of
the Trinity, is that it professes a mystery. It involves, not merely a
contradiction in the terms used, which would be little, for we might
solve it by assigning different senses to the same word, or by adding
some limitation, (e.g. if it were said that Satan was an Angel and not
an Angel, or man was mortal and immortal,) but an incongruity in the
ideas which it introduces. Not indeed ideas directly and wholly
contradictory of each other, as "circulus quadratus," but such as
are partially or indirectly antagonist, as perhaps "montes sine
valle." To say that the Father is wholly and absolutely the one
infinitely-simple God, and then that the Son is also, and yet that the
Father is eternally distinct from the Son, is to propose ideas which
we cannot harmonize together; and our reason is reconciled to this
state of the case only by the consideration (though fully by means of
it) that no idea of ours can embrace the simple truth, while we are
obliged to separate it into portions, and view it in aspects, and
adumbrate it under many ideas, if we are to make any approximation
towards it at all; as in mathematics we approximate to a circle by
means of a polygon, great as is the dissimilarity between the two
figures. D. [ouch haplos aidios] i.e. [aidios],
is not one of our Lord's highest titles, for things have it which
the Son Himself has created, and whom of course He precedes. Instead
of two [aidia] then, as the Arians say, there are many [aidia];
and our Lord's high title is not this, but that He is "the Son,"
and thereby eternal in the Father's eternity, or there was
not ever when He was not, and "Image" and "Radiance." The same
line of thought is implied throughout his proof of our Lord's
eternity in Orat. i. ch. 4-6. pp. 195-210. This is worth remarking, as
constituting a special distinction between ancient and modern
Scripture proofs of the doctrine, and as coinciding with what was said
supr. p. 283, note C. p. 341, note I. His mode of proof is still more
clearly brought by what he proceeds to say about the [skopos],
or general bearing or drift of the Christian faith, and its
availableness as a [kanon] or rule of interpretation. E. [theotokou]. vid. supr. p. 420, note I.
Vid. S. Cyril's quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c. "The fleshless," says Atticus,
"becomes flesh, the impalpable is
handled, the perfect grows, the unalterable advances, the rich is
brought forth in an inn, the coverer of heaven with clouds is swathed,
the king is laid in a manger." Antiochus speaks of Him our Saviour "with whom yesterday in an immaculate bearing Mary travailed, the
Mother of life, of beauty, of majesty, the Morning Star, &c." "The Maker of all," says S. Amphilochius,
"is born to us today
of a Virgin." "She did compass," says S. Chrysostom, "without
circumscribing the Sun of righteousness. Today the Everlasting is
born, and becomes what He was not, He who sitteth on a high and lofty
throne is placed in a manger, the impalpable, incomposite, and
immaterial is wrapped around by human hands, He who snaps the bands of
sin is environed in swathing bands." And in like manner S. Cyril
himself, "As a woman, though hearing the body only, is said to bring
forth one who is made up of body and soul, and that will be no injury
to the interests of the soul, as if it found in flesh the origin of
its existence; so also in the instance of the Blessed Virgin, though
she is Mother of the holy flesh, yet she bore God of God the Word, as
being in truth one with It." Ado. Nest. i. p. 18. "God dwelt in
the womb, yet was not circumscribed; whom the heaven containeth not,
the Virgin's frame did not straiten." Procl. Hom. i. p. 60. "When thou hearest that God speaks from the bush, and says to Moses,
'I am the God, &c.' and that Moses falling on his face
worships, believest thou, not considering the fire that is seen but
God that speaks; yet, when I mention the Virgin Womb, dost thou
abominate and turn away? … In the bush seest thou not the Virgin, in
the fire the loving-kindness of Him who came? &c." Theodot. ap.
Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.) "Not only did Mary bear her Elder,"
says Cassian in answer to an objector, "but her Author, and giving
birth to Him from whom she received it, she became parent of her
Parent. Surely it is as easy for God to give nativity to Himself, as
to man; to be born of man as to make men born. For God's power is
not circumscribed in His own Person, that He should not do in Himself
what He can do in all." Incarn. iv. 2. "The One God Only-begotten,
of an ineffable origin from God, is introduced into the womb of the
Holy Virgin, and grows into the form of a human body. He who contrives
all, … is brought forth
according to the law of a human birth; He at whose voice Archangels
tremble … and the world's elements are dissolved, is heard in the
wailing of an infant, &c." Hil. Trin. ii. 25. "'My beloved
is white and ruddy;' white truly, because the Brightness of the
Father, ruddy, because the Birth of a Virgin. In Him shines and glows
the colour of each nature; … He did not begin from a Virgin, but the
Everlasting came into a Virgin." Ambros. Virgin. i. n. 47. "Him,
who, coming in His simple Godhead, not heaven, not earth, not sea, not
any creature had endured, Him the inviolate womb of a Virgin
carried." Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Incarn. vii. 30. "Happily do some
understand by the 'closed gate,' by which only 'the Lord God of
Israel enters,' that Prince on whom the gate is closed, to be the
Virgin Mary, who both before and after her bearing remained a
Virgin." Jerom. in Ezek. 44 init. "Let them tell us," says
Capreolus of Carthage, "how is that Man from heaven, if He be not
God conceived in the womb?" ap. Sirm. Opp. t. i. p. 216. "He is
made in thee," says S. Austin, "who made thee, ... nay, through
whom heaven and earth is made; … the Word of God in thee is made
flesh, receiving flesh, not losing Godhead. And the Word is joined, is
coupled to the flesh, and of this so high wedding thy womb is the
nuptial chamber, &c." Serm. 291, 6. "Say, O blessed Mary,"
says S. Hippolytus, "what was It which by thee was conceived in the
womb, what carried by thee in that virgin frame? It was the Word of
God, &c." ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 55. "We have also as a
physician," says S. Ignatius, "our Lord God Jesus the Christ, who
before the world was Only-begotten Son and Word, and afterwards was
man also from Mary the Virgin, the Incorporeal in a body, the
Impassible, &c." Ep. and Eph. 7. F. [kata to boulema]. vid. Orat. i.
63. infr. p. 490, notes M and N. "When God commands others, then the
hearer answers, for each of these has the Mediator Word which makes
known the will of the Father; but when the Word Himself works and
creates, there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him,
and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is
done." supr. p. 324. where vid. note B. for passages in which Ps.
xxxiii. 9. is taken to shew the unity of Father and Son from the
instantaneousness of the accomplishment upon the willing, as well as
the Son's existence before creation. Hence the Son not only works [kata
to boulema], but is the [boule] of the
Father. ibid. note c. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is
highest, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted supr. p. 373, note S.
In that passage the Father's [neumata] are spoken of, a word
common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75, a. de Laud. Const. p. 528,
c. Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is used of the Son's command given
to the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. e.g. 42, 44, 46. S. Cyril.
Hier. frequently as the Arians, uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5.
xi. passim. xv. 25, &c. The difference between the orthodox and
Arian views on this point, is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr.
Eunom. i. 21. G. [toutoi chromenos organoi]
infr. 42. and [organon pros ten energeian kai ten
eklampsin tes theotetos]. 53. This was a word much
used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord's
manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. p. 291, note K.
vid. [schema organikon] in Apoll. i. 2, 15. vid. a
parallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by
Athan. e.g. infr. 35, 53. Incarn. 8, 9, 43, .14. And he mentions [pros
phanerosin kai gnosin], 41 fin. but he also insists
upon its being not merely for manifestation, else our Lord might have
come in a higher nature. ibid. 8. vid. also 44. This use of [organon]
must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord's
Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which supr. p. 118,
note N. It may be added that [phanerosis] is a Nestorian
as well as Eutychian idea; vid. p. 442, r. 4. Facund. Tr. Cap. ix. 2,
3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219.
Thus both parties really denied the Atonement, vid. supr. p. 267, note
L. p. 292, note M. H. Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. p. 1275.
ed. Ben. This interchange is called theologically the [antidosis]
or communicatio [idiomaton]. "Because of the
perfect union of the flesh which was assumed, and of the Godhead which
assumed it, the names are interchanged, so that the human is called
from the divine and the divine from the human. Wherefore He who was
crucified is called by Paul Lord of glory, and He who is worshipped by
all creation of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth is
named Jesus, &c." Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon. Ep.
28, 51. Ambros. de fid. ii. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. p. 767. Cassian.
Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init. Plain and easy as
such statements seem in this and some following notes, they are of the
utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychuian controversies. I. [theou en soma]. also ad
Adelph. 3. ad Max. 2. and so [ten ptocheusasan physin
theou holen genomenen]. c. Apoll. ii. 11. [to
pathos tou logou]. ibid. 16, e. [sarx tou logou]. infr. 34.
[soma sophias] infr. 53. also supr. p. 296, r. 1. [pathos
Christou tou theou mou]. Ignat. Rom. 6. [ho theos peponthen].
Melit. ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones. Tertull. de Carn. Christ.
5. Dei interemptores. ibid. caro Deitatis. Leon. Serm. 65 fin. Deus
mortuus et sepultus. Vigil. c. Eut. ii. p. 502. vid. supr. p. 244,
note L. Yet Athan. objects to the phrase, "God suffered in the
flesh," i.e. as used by the Apollinarians. vid. contr. Apoll. ii. 13
fin. K. [ouden eblapteto].
"For He was not
shut up in the body, nor was He in such sort in the body, as not to be
elsewhere, &c." Incarn. 17. Also [eblapteto men gar autos
ouden]. &c. ibid. 54. [me blaptomenos, alla
exaphanizon]. infr. 34, b. "For the Sun too which lie
made and we see,, snakes its circuit in the sky, and is not defiled by
touching, &c." de Incarn. 17. "As the rays of sun-light would
not suffer at all, though filling all things and touching bodies dead
and unclean, thus and much more the spiritual virtue of God the Word
would suffer nothing in substance nor receive hurt, &c." Euseb.
de Laud. Const. p. 536. and 538. also Dem. Evang. vii. p. 348. "The
injuries of the passion even the Godhead bore, but the passion His
flesh alone felt; as we rightly say that a sunbeam or a body of flame
can be cut indeed by a sword but not divided. I will speak yet more
plainly; the Godhead [divinitatis, qu. tas] was fixed with nails, but
could not Itself be pierced, since the flesh was exposed and offered
room for the wound, but God remained invisible, &c." Vigil.
contr. Eutych. ii. p. 503. (B. P. ed. 1624.) "There were five
together on the Cross, when Christ was nailed to it; the sun light,
which first received the nails and the spear, and remained undivided
from the Cross and unhurt by the nails, next, &c." Anast. Hodeg.
c. 12. p. 220. (ed 1606.) also p. 222. Vid. also the beautiful passage
in Pseudo-Basil: "God in flesh, not working with aught intervening
as in the prophets, but having taken to Him a manhood connatural with
Himself ([symphue], i.e. joined to His nature) and made
one, and through His flesh akin to us drawing up to Him all humanity
… What was the manner of the Godhead in flesh? as fire in iron, not
transitively, but by communication. For the fire does not dart into
the iron, but remains there and communicates to it of its own virtue,
not impaired by the communication, yet filling wholly its recipient,
&c." Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. (t. 2. p. 596. ed. Ben.) also
Ruffin. in Symb. 12. Cyril. Quod unus est Christus. p. 776. Damasc. F.
O. iii. 6 fin. August. Serm. 7. p. 26 init. ed. 1842. Suppl 1. L.
"Two natures," says S. Leo, "met
together in our Redeemer, and, while the proprieties of each remained,
so great a unity was made of either substance, that from the time that
the Word was made flesh in the Blessed Virgin's womb, we may neither
think of Him as God without this which is man, nor as man without this
which is God. Each nature certifies its own reality under distinct
actions, but neither disjoins itself from connexion with the other.
Nothing is wanting from either towards other; there is entire
littleness in majesty, entire majesty in littleness; unity does not
introduce confusion, nor does propriety divide unity. There is one
thing possible, another inviolable, yet his is the contumely whose is
the glory. He is in infirmity who is in power; the Same is both
capable and conqueror of death. God then did take on Him whole man,
and so knit Himself into him and him into Himself in pity and in
power, that either nature was in other, and neither in the other lost
its own propriety." Serm. 54, 2. "Suscepit nos in suam
proprietatem illa natura, quæ nec nostris sua, nec suis nostra
consumeret, &c." Serm. 72. p. 286. vid. also Ep. 165, 6. Serm.
30, 5. Cyril. Cat. iv. 9. Amphiloch. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 66. also
pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 1644. M.
"The birth of the flesh is a manifestation
of human nature, the bearing of the Virgin a token of divine power.
The infancy of a little one is shewn in the lowliness of the cradle,
the greatness of the Highest is proclaimed by the voices of Angels. He
has the rudiments of men whom Herod impiously plots to kill, He is the
Lord of all whom the Magi delight suppliantly to adore, &c.
&c. To hunger, thirst, weary, and sleep are evidently human; but
to satisfy five thousand on five loaves, and to give the Samaritan
living water ... to walk on the sea and the feet not to sink, and to
lay the tossing waves with a rebuke, is unambiguously divine."
Leo's Tome (Ep. 28.) 4. "When He touched the leper, it was the man
that was seen; but something beyond man, when He cleansed him,
&c." Ambros. Epist. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. Trin. x. 23 fin. vid. infr.
56 note, and S. Leo's extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol. Serm. 34 and
35. Paul. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe.) These are instances of what
is theologically called the [theandrike energeia], i.e.
the union of the energies of both Natures in one act. N. [me phantasiai all' alethos].
vid. Incarn. 18, d. ad Epict. 7,c. The passage is quoted by S. Cyril.
Apol. adv. Orient. 194. O. [ouk allou, alla tou kuriou]: and so [ouch
heterou tinos], Incarn. 18; also Orat. i. 45. supr. p. 244. and
Orat. iv. 35. Cyril. Thes. p. 197. and Anathem. 11. who defends the
phrase against the Orientals. P.
"If any happen to be scandalized by the
swathing bands, and His lying in a manger, and the gradual increase
according to the flesh, and the sleeping in a vessel, and the wearying
in journeying, and the hungering in due time, and whatever else happen
to one who has become really man, let them know that, making a mock of
the sufferings, they are denying the nature; and denying the nature,
they do not believe in the economy; and not believing in the economy,
they forfeit the salvation." Procl. ad Armen. p. 516. ed. 1630. Q. [koinon], opposed to [idion].
vid. infr. p. 472, r. 6. Cyril. Epp. p. 23, e. communem, Ambros. de
Fid. i. 94. R. vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, S. Leo,
&c. as mentioned in Corn. à Lap. in loc. who adds that S. Ephrem
considers Moses also sanctified in the womb, and S. Ambrose Jacob; S.
Jerome implies a similar gift in the case of Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep.
24, 2.) And so S. John Baptist, Maldou. in Luc. 1, 16. It is
remarkable that no ancient writer, (unless indeed we except S.
Austin,) refers to the instance of S. Mary;—perhaps from the
circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture. S. [theotokon]. For instances of this word
vid. Origen. ap. Socr. vii. 32. Euseb. V. Const. iii. 43. in Psalm p.
703. Alexandr. Ep. ad Alex. ap. Theodor. Hist. i. 3. p. 745. Athan.
(supra) Cyril. Cat. x. 19. Julian Imper. ap. Cyril. c. Jul. viii. p.
262. Amphiloch. Orat. 4. p. 41. (if Amphil.) ed. 1644. Nyssen. Ep. ad
Eustath. p. 1093. Chrysost. apud Suicer Symb. p. 240. Greg. Naz. Orat.
29, 4. Ep. 181. p. 85. ed. Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril. de
Rectâ Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil.
Hom. t. 2. p. 600. ed. Ben. T. [idiopoioumenou]. vid. also infr. p.
455, r. 6. ad Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.)
Cyril. in Joann. p. 151, a. For [idion], which occurs so
frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. And [oikeiotai],
contr. Apoll. ii. 16, e. Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. p. 782, d. Concil.
Eph. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b. (Hard.) Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. p. 203. ed.
Ven. Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15. U. vid. pp. 245, 247, &c. p. 374, note T.
Vid. also iv. 33. Incarn. c. Arian. 12. contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. 6. "Since God the Word willed to annul the passions, whose end is
death, and His deathless nature was not capable of them, … He is
made flesh of the Virgin, in the way He knoweth, &c." Procl. ad
Armen. p. 616. also Leon. Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Serm. 26. p. 88.
Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2. p. 696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. in Joan. p.
95. Chrysol. Serm. 148. X. [theotokou]. supr. p. 420, note I. p.
440, note E. and just above, note S. For "mater Dei" vid. before
S. Leo, Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Incarn. ii. 5. vii. 25.
Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 21. It is obvious that [theotokos],
though framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective
against Apollinarians and Eutychians, who denied that our Lord had
taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Facundus Def. Trium Cap. i.
4. And so S. Cyril, "Let it be carefully observed, that nearly this
whole contest about the faith has been created against us for our
maintaining that the Holy Virgin is Mother of God; now, if we hold,"
as was the calumny, "that the Holy Body of Christ our common Saviour
was from heaven, and not born of her, how can she be considered as
Mother of God?" Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as the Arians,
maintained the term. vid. supr. p. 292, note N. Y. [logotheises tes
sarkos]. This strong term is here applied to human nature
generally; Damascene speaks of the [logosis] of the
flesh, but he means especially our Lord's flesh. F. O. iv. 18. p.
286. (Ed. Yen.) for the words [theousthai], &c. vid. supr.
p. 380, note H. Z.
"All this belongs to the Economy, not to the
Godhead. On this account He says, 'Now is My soul troubled,' ...
so troubled as to seek for a release, if escape were possible ... As
to hunger is no blame, nor to sleep, so is it none to desire the
present life. Christ had a body pure from sins, but not exempt from
physical necessities, else it had not been a body." Chrysost. in
Joann. Hom. 67. 1 and 2. "He used His own flesh as an instrument for
the works of the flesh and physical infirmities and whatever such is
blameless, &c." Cyril. de Rect. Fid. p. 18. "As a man He
doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is not His Power (virtus) that is
troubled, not His Godhead, but His soul, &c." Ambros. de Fid.
ii. n. 56. vid. a beautiful passage in S. Basil's Hom. iv. 5. in
which he insists on our Lord's having wept to shew us how to weep
neither too much nor too little. A. vid. p. 360, note G.
"As since the flesh has
become the all-quickening Word's, it overbears the might of
corruption and death, so, I think, since the soul became His who knew
not error, it has an unchangeable condition for all good things
established in it, and far more vigorous than the sin that of old time
tyrannized over us. For, first and only of men on the earth, Christ
did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth; and He is laid down as a
root and firstfruit of those who are refashioned unto newness of life
in the Spirit, and unto immortality of body, and He will transmit to
the whole human race the firm security of the Godhead, as by
participation and by grace." Cyril. de Rect. Fid. p. 18. B. vid. infr. 39-41. and p. 479, note B.
"Being
God, and existing as Word, while He remained what He was, He became
flesh, and a child, and a man, no change profaning the mystery. The
Same both works wonders and suffers, by the miracles signifying that
He is what He was, and by the sufferings giving proof that He had
become what He had framed." Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. "Without loss
then to the propriety of either nature and substance," (salvâ
proprietate, and so Tertullian, Salva est utriusque proprietas
substantiæ, &c. in Prax. 27.) "yet with their union in one
Person, Majesty takes on it littleness, Power infirmity, Eternity
mortality, and, to pay the debt of our estate, an inviolable Nature is
made one with a nature that is passible; that, as was befitting for
our cure, One and the Same Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus
Christ, might both be capable of death from the one, and incapable
from the other." Leo's Tome (Ep. 28, 3.) also Hil. Trin. ix. 11
fin. "Vagit infans, sed in cœlo est, &c." ibid. x. 54. Ambros.
de Fid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non
habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id. Epist. i.
46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard. C. Thus heresies are partial views of the
truth, starting from some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning
and protesting against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with
it. vid. supr. p. 219, note B. A. [palin]. vid. p. 203, note D. Thus
iteration is not duplication in respect to God; though how this
is, is the inscrutable Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be
named which the Son is in Himself, as distinct from the Father; we are
but told His relation towards the Father, and thus the sole
meaning we are able to attach to Person is a relation of the Son
towards the Father; and distinct from and beyond that relation, He is
but the One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been
touched upon supr. p. 412, note D. In other words, there is an
indestructible essential relation existing in the One Indivisible
infinitely simple God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each side
of that relation, (what in human language we call) Two, (and in like
manner Three) yet without the notion of number really coming in. When
we speak of "Person," we mean nothing more than the One God in
substance, viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that
Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various
statements are not here intended to explain, but to bring home to the
mind what it is which faith receives. We say "Father, Son, and
Spirit," but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in order
to number Them, our abstraction really does but carry us back to the
One Substance. There will be different ways of expressing this, but
such seems the meaning of such passages as the following. "Those who
taunt us with tritheism, must be told that we confess One God not in
number, but in nature. For what is one in number is not really one,
nor single in nature; for instance, we call the world one in number,
but not one in nature, for we divide it into its elements; and man
again is one in number, but compounded of body and soul. If then we
say that God is in nature one, how do they impute number to us, who
altogether banish it from that blessed and spiritual nature? For
number belongs to quantity, and number is connected with matter,
&c." Basil. Ep. 8, 2. "That which saveth us, is faith, but
number has been devised to indicate quantity ... We pronounce Each of
the Persons once, but when we would number Them up, we do not proceed
by an unlearned numeration to the notion of a polytheism." (vid. the
whole passage,) ibid. de Sp. S. c. 18. "Why passing by the First
Cause, does he [S. John] at once discourse to us of the Second? We
will decline to speak of 'first' and 'second;' for the Godhead
is higher than number and succession of times." Chrysost. in Joan.
Hom. ii. 3 fin. "In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, 'first' and
'second' have no place; for the Godhead is higher
than number and times." Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. "He calls," says
S. Maximus commenting on Pseudo-Dionysius, "fecundity, the
Father's incomprehensible progression to the production of the Son
and the Holy Ghost; and suitably does he say 'as a
Trinity,' since not number, but glory is expressed in 'The Lord
God is One Lord.'" in Dionys. Opp. t. 2. p. 101. "We do not
understand 'one' in the Divine Substance, as in the creatures; in
whom what is properly one is not to be seen; for what is one in
number, as in our case, is not properly one. It is not one in number,
or as the beginning of number, any more than It is as magnitude or as
the beginning of magnitude ... That One is ineffable and
indescribable; since It is the cause of what is one itself, [pases
henados henopoion]." Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. "Three
what? I answer, Father and Son and Holy Ghost. See, he urges, you have
said Three; but explain Three what? Nay, do you number, I have said
all about the Three, when I say, Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Not,
as there are two men, so are They two Gods; for there is here
something ineffable, which cannot be put into words, that there should
both be number in Three, and not number. For see if there does not
seem to be number, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a Trinity. If
Three, Three what? number fails. Then God neither is without number,
nor is under number … They imply number, only relatively to Each
Other, not in Themselves." August. in Joan. 39, 3 and 4. "We say
Three 'Persons,' as many Latins of authority have said in treating
the subject, because they found no more suitable way of declaring an
idea in words which they had without words. Since the Father is not
the Son, and the Son not the Father, and the Holy Ghost neither Father
nor Son, there are certainly Three; but when we ask, Three what? we
feel the great poverty of human language. However, we say Three 'Persons,' not for the sake of saying that, but of not saying
nothing." de Trin. v. 10. "Unity is not number, but is itself the
principle of all things." Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 19. "That is truly
one, in which there is no number, nothing in It beyond That which is
… There is no diversity in It, no plurality from diversity, no
multitude from accidents, and therefore not number ... but Unity only.
For when God is thrice repeated, and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is
named, three Unities do not make plurality of number in Him which They
are … This repetition of Unities is iteration rather than numeration
... As if I say, Sun, Sun, Sun, I hate not made three Suns, but named
one so many times ... A trine numeration then does not make number,
which they rather run into, who make some difference between the
Three." Boeth. Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last remark is found in
Naz. Orat. 31, 18. Many of these passages are taken from Thomassin de
Trin. 17. B. Petavius refers to this passage in proof that
S. Athanasius did not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant,
but went on to admit it in argument after having first given his own
real opinion. vid. p. 464, note F. C. [epeplette]; and so [epetimese],
Chrysost. in loc. Joann. and Theophyl. [hos despotes
epitimai], Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. [entrepei], Anon. ap.
Corder. Cat. in loc. [memphetai], Alter Anon. ibid. [epitimai
ouk atimazon alla diorthoumenos], Euthym. in loc. [ouk
epeplexen], Pseudo-Justin. Quæst. ad Orthod. 136. It is
remarkable that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord's
humanity, (i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a miracle,)
when one reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He wished, in
the words [ti moi kai soi], to reinii,d S. Mary that He was the
Son of God and must be "about His Father's business." "Repellens ejus intempestivam festinationem," Iren. Hær. Iii. 16,
n. 7. who thinks S. Mary desired to drink of his cup; others that
their entertainer was poor, and that she wished to befriend him.
Nothing can be argued from S. Athan.'s particular word here
commented on how he would have taken the passage. That the tone of our
Lord's words is indeed (judging humanly and speaking humanly) cold
and distant, is a simple fact, but it may be explained variously. It
is observable that [epiplettei] and [epitimai]
are the words used (infr. p. 477, note A.) for our Lord's treatment
of His own sacred body. But they are very vague words, and have a
strong meaning or not, as the case may be. Margin Notes1. [patrikes theotetos], p.
400, note D. 2.
[homoios kat' ousian]. 3.
infr. §§. 35-41. 4.
infr. §§. 53-58. 5.
[kakophrones]. 6.
infr. §§. 50-53. 7.
infr. §. 27. 8.
infr. §§. 42-50. 9.
[dianoian], ii. 44, a. 53, c. iv.17, d. &c. 10.
pp. 2. fin. 183. 11.
[oikeion]. 12.
p. 235. 13.
[phronema]. 14.
Hist. Tr. O. T. p. 208, note B. 15.
p. 6. r. 1. c. Sab. Greg. 6. fin. 16.
[haplos]. 17.
[achoristos]. 18.
[dianoian], p. 437, r. 6. 19.
[skopos], vid. 58 fin. 20.
[kanoni]. 21.
vid. p. 221, note E. 22.
[dianoiai], vid. p. 437, r. 23.
supr. p. 120, note P. 24.
[epedemesen]. 25.
[phaneroumenos], p. 443, note G. 26.
ad Epict. 11. 11. ad Max. 2. 27.
infr. iv. 33 init. 28.
[gnesios], supr. p. 236, note C. 29.
[hypourgei]. 30.
[etherapeusen]. 31.
[pathon], vid. p. 446, r. 5. 32.
supr. p. 254. 33.
[palin epoiei]. 34.
[pathe], sufferings. 35.
[katorthoma]. 36.
[epikaleumetha]. 37.
[etheopoiethe]. 38.
p. 254, note K. p. 360, note G. p. 378, note E. p. 447, note U. 39.
[diamenousin], p. 380, r. 1. p. 449, note A. 40.
[gennomenes]. 41.
[genesin], vid. supr. ii. 52, b. p. 261, note C. 42.
p. 366, note C. 43.
[blaptomenos], p. 444, note K. 44.
p. 447, note U. 45.
[apathes]. 46.
[theopoioumetha]. 47.
[organou], p. 443, note G. 48.
[orthos]. 49.
vid. Is. i. 22. Sept. 2 Cor. ii. 17. 50.
p. 17, r. 2. p. 394, r. 5. 51.
[genesin]. 52.
pp. 130, 189. infr. iv. 23. c. Facund. Tr. C. ix. 1 init. 3 fin. 53.
[skopon], supr. p. 440. 54.
p. 442, r. 1. 55.
[aparallaktou]. 56.
note on iv. 13. 57.
[elattoi], p. 244, r. 1. 58.
p. 307, note D. 59.
p. 359, note F. 60.
[pronoian], p. 416, note F. p. 422, note L. 61.
vid. infr. 46. 62.
[orthen], p. 341, note I. 63.
[hei logos esti]. 64.
p. 291, note K. 65.
[theopoiei]. 66.
p. 379. 67.
supr. pp. 254, 388. p. 380, r. 1. 68.
[idiopoieitai], supr. p. 447, note T. 69.
[hei logos esti]. 70.
infr. 51. 71.
[beltiotheis]. 72.
vid. supr. p. 235. 73.
redemption an internal work. vid. supr. p. 357, note E. 74.
[theopoiesei]. 75.
[epitima], p. 485, note C. 76.
p. 245. 77.
[diameinei], p. 380, r. 1. 2 Pet. iii. 22. 78.
[theosugeis], supr. p. 424, r. 2. infr. p. 484, r. 3. de Mort. Ar. 1.
In Illud. Omn. 6, b. 79.
p. 400, note D. 80.
[hei logos]. 81.
[katorthomata]. 82.
[theophoreitai en toi logoi]. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |