Click to View

Early Church Fathers
Click to ViewMaster Index
Click to ViewPower Search

 Click to View

20 Hist. Ar. 35, &c.

1 Orsisius was chosen abbat of Tabenne in Upper Egypt, a.d. 347, in succession to Petronius. Presently, however, he resigned in favour of Theodorus, the favourite disciple ot Pachomius. The two letters which follow are from the life of Pachomius, §§92, 96, Acta SS. for May, vol. iii. (Also in Migne xxvi. 977.) They belong, the first to the year 363 a.d., not long before the death of Julian (D.C.B. i. 199a), the second to the summer of the following year, 364 (infr. note 3). Both letters are characteristic; the second a moving and simple consolation to mourners.

2 Ps. cxxxvii. 6, LXX.

1 On Theodore see Amelineau, S. Pakhdôme, &c., pp. xcv.-xcvii. The death of Theodore is fixed for April 27, 364, on the following grounds. He died (Vit. Pachom. 95) of a short and sudden illness, on Pachon 2 (April 27), and shortly after Easter. Moreover his death took place 18 years after that of Pachomius. But Ammon (as he tells us himself, supr. p. 487) became a Christian and a monk `a year and more' after March 15, 351 (proclamation of Gallus as Caesar), and six years after the death ot Pachomius. (Ep. Amm. 4, 5.) This dates the latter event a little less than five years before March 15, 351. But Pachomius died, according to his Life, on Pachon 14 (May 9), of an epidemic which attacked the community after Easter. This double condition is satisfied by the year 346, in which Easter fell on Pharm. 4, forty days before the day of Pachomius' decease. If then Pachomius died in 346, Theodore died in 364. Against this result we have (1) the fact that in that year April 27 was twenty-three days after Easter; but the Easter gathering of the monks would last over April 11 (Low Sunday), and the death of Theodore would come suddenly enough a fortnight later; (2) the fragment (supr. p. 551) probably belonging to Letter 39, which a coptic life of Theodore makes him state that he received before his last Easter. But this cannot be correct; for all known data forbid us to place the death of Theodore as late as 367. (Tillemont's tentative opinion, vii. 691, 761, is bound up with an obsolete chronology of the exiles of Athan.) On the other hand Theodore cannot have died as early as 363. Athanasius was with him (supr. p. 487) in the summer of that year, and when our present letter was written Ath. had clearly kept Easter at home, which suits 364, but excludes 363.

2 Ps. i. 1.

3 Ps cxii. 1.

4 Ib. cxxxii. 14.

5 Matt. ix 24.

1 Of Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, nothing else is known. This letter reflects the uncertainty, which attended the victory of the Nicene Creed, as to the relation of the Historical Christ to the Eternal Son. The questions raised at Corinth were those which troubled the Eastern Church generally, and which came to a head in the system of Apollinarius, whose distinctive tenet, however, is not mentioned in this letter. Persons anxious to place the Nicene doctrine in intelligible connection with the matter of the Gospel Narrative had debated the question before Epictetus, and with deference to his ruling. Their tentative solutions (§2 infr.) fall into two classes, both of which, in attempting to solve the problem, proceed upon the assumption incidentally combated by Athan., that the Manhood of Christ was a Hypostasis or Person, which if invested with Divine attributes, would introduce a fourth hypostatic entity into the Trinity. To avoid this, one class identified the Logos and the #Anqrwpoj, either by assuming that the Logos was changed into flesh, or that the flesh was itself non-natural and of the Divine Essence. The other class excluded the Man Jesus from the Trinity, explaining His relation to God on the lines of Photinus or the later Nestorians. Both alternatives are already glanced at (supr. p. 485) by the Council of 362. In the present case, both classes of suggestions seem to have been made tentatively and bona fide (§12). The letter must have been written before the two books against Apollinarianism, which (if genuine) fall about 372. Its more exact date depends on the identification of the Councils referred to in §1 (nun genomenwn), and is therefore very doubtful. At any rate Apollinarianism proper is not alluded to, and Apollinarius is said to have expressed to Serapion of Thmuis his high opinion of our Letter (see Letter 54, note 1). It was much quoted in the Christological controversies of the next 80 years, e.g. by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, by Theodoret, Cyril, and Leo the Great (see Migne xxvi. 1050; Bright, Later Treatises, pp. 43 sq., and D.C.B. s.v. Epictetus and Apollinaris the younger).

2 Are these those referred to in the letter to Ruf., and held a.d. 362-3, or are they to be identified with one or other of those held under Damasus (see Introd. to ad Afros.)?

3 Ps. cxv. 4.

4 Hab. ii. 15, LXX.

5 Isa. ii. 3; Mir. iv. 2.

6 Rom. i. 3.

7 This opinion seems to belong to that next to be mentioned, the two, however, are separately dealt with below, cc. 10 and 11.

8 Rom. i. 30.

9 eteron proj eteron shmainete.

10 Letter 61, §3.

11 Heb. ii. 16.

12 Heb. ii. 16.

13 Isa. vii. 14.

14 Luke i. 27.

15 Ib. xi. 27.

16 Ib. ii. 23.

17 Mal. iii. 6.

18 Heb. xiii. 8.

19 1 Pet. iii. 19.

20 Mark xv. 46.

21 John. xvii 23.

22 Isa. l. 6.

23 2 Pet. i. 4, above, p. 65, note 5.

24 1 Cor. xv. 53.

25 Luke xxiv. 39.

26 Joh. i. 14.

27 Gal iii. 13.

28 Joel ii. 28.

29 1 Cor. xv. 3.

30 The argument rests on the principle that the Trinity is a trinity of Persons, not of Essences: the opponents implicitly tax the Nicene doctrine with the consequence that if truly man, Christ is a distinct Personality from the Son.

31 yuxikon.

32 Matt. i. 23.

33 Rom. ix. 5.

34 John xx. 28

35 1 Cor. ii. 8.

36 Heb. ix. 26.

37 Cf. Rom. i. 3 Gal. iv. 4.

38 Matt. iii. 17, and Matt. xvii. 5.

1 Adelphius is named in the `Tome' (above, p. 486), as bishop of Onuphis. Previously he had been exiled by the Arians to the Thebaid (above, pp. 297, &c.). Hence in the title of this letter he is styled `Confessor.' The letter (Migne xxvi, 1072) is directed against the Arian Christology. Although Ath. treats it (§1) as a `new blasphemy,' it had been held by the Arians from the first; Epiph. Anc. 33, traces it back to Lucian; but doubtless it had by this time been brought more to the front in their teaching. We know that it occupied a prominent place in the Eunomian system. (References in Dorner III. i. 3.) After briefly refuting the doctrinal error, Athanasius turns to the Arian charge of creature-worship brought against the Nicene doctrine. Not forgetting to remind them that their own doctrine was really open to this charge, Ath. points out at greater length that the object of Catholic worship is not the human nature of Christ as such, but the Word Incarnate; and that the human Saviour is worshipped because He is the Word Himself. The date proposed by Montfaucon is adopted, though there is nothing to fix it absolutely. Its style closely resembles that of the writings of the `third Exile.' (See also Bright, Later Tr., p. 61.)

2 2 Cor. ii. 11.

3 Rom. i. 30.

4 2 Tim. iii. 8.

5 Ps. lxxxii. 5.

6 John i. 14.

7 Tit. iii. 10, Tit. iii. 11.

8 Isa. xxxii. 6, LXX.

9 1 Pet. v. 8.

10 As some modern devotions at least tend to do.

11 John x. 33.

12 Matt. viii. 2.

13 Matt. ix 20.

14 Ib. viii. 26.

15 John ix. 6.

16 Rom. i. 28

17 Phil. ii. 10, Phil. ii. 11.

Click Your Choice