Click to View

Early Church Fathers
Click to ViewMaster Index
Click to ViewPower Search

 Click to View

258 ton anqrwpon.

259 thn patrikhn eautou qeothta, cf. de Syn. 45, note 1.

260 Ps. xlv. 7, Ps. xlv. 8.

261 p. 156, note 4.

262 It is here said that all things `originate' partake the Son and are `sanctified' by the Spirit. How a gennhsij or adoption through the Son is necessary for every creature in order to its consistence, life, or preservation, has been explained, p. 162, note 3. Sometimes the Son was considered as the special Principle of reason, as by Origen, ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. vid. himself. de Incarn. 11. These offices of the Son and the Spirit are contrasted by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. ton prostattonta kurion, ton dhmiourgounta logon, to stereoun pneuma, &c. c. 16. n. 38.

263 John xvii. 18, John xvii. 19, vid. Cyril, Thesaur. 20.

264 1 Cor. iii. 16.

265 Pusey on Baptism, 2nd Ed. pp. 275-293.

266 Isai. lxi. 1.

267 Acts x. 38.

268 John xvi. 14, John xvi. 7; John xx. 22.

269 1 John ii. 20; Eph. i. 13.

270 Elsewhere Athan. says that our Lord's Godhead was the immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He assumed, in Apollin. ii. 3, Orat. iv. §36. vid. Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and from the same text as Athan. Orat. x. fin. Again, `This [the Godhead] is the anointing of the manhood, not sanctifying by an energy as the other Christs [anointed] but by a presence of Him whole who anointed, alou tou xriontoj; whence it came to pass that what anointed was called man and what was anointed was made God.' Orat. xxx. 20. Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. Dei Filius, sicut pluvia in vellus, toto divinitatis unguento nostram se fudit in carnem. Chrysolog. Serm. 60. it is more common, however, to consider that the anointing was the descent of the Spirit, as Athan. says at the beginning of this section, according to Luke iv. 18; Acts x. 38.

271 Ps. xlv. 8. Our Lord's manhood is spoken of as a garment; more distinctly afterwards, `As Aaron was himself, and did not change on putting round him the high priest's garment, but remaining the same, was but clothed,' &c, Orat. ii. 8. On the Apollinarian abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc.

272 John xix. 39; Luke xxiv. 1.

273 p. 159, note 8.

274 Isai. xl. 8. logoj but rhma. LXX.

275 §39, note 4.

276 Ps. li. 11.

277 John xv. 26.

278 Heb. xiii. 8.

279 The word origin, arxh, implies the doctrine, more fully brought out in other passages of the Fathers, that our Lord has deigned to become an instrumental cause, as it may be called, of the life of each individual Christian For at first sight it may be objected to the whole course of Athan.'s argument thus;-What connection is there between the sanctification of Christ's manhood and ours? how does it prove that human nature is sanctified because a particular specimen of it was sanctified in Him? S. Chrysostom explains, Hom. in Matt. lxxxii. 5. And just before, `It sufficed not for Him to be made man, to be scourged, to be sacrificed; but He assimilates us to Him (anafurei eauton hmin), nor merely by faith, but really, has He made us His body.' Again, `That we are commingled (anakerasqwmen) into that flesh, not merely through love, but really is brought about by means of that food which He has bestowed upon us.' Hom. in Joann. 46. 3. And so S. Cyril writes against Nestorius: `Since we have proved that Christ is the Vine, and we branches as adhering to a communion with Him, not spiritual merely but bodily, why clamours he against us thus bootlessly, saying that, since we adhere to Him, not in a bodily way, but rather by faith and the affection of love according to the Law, therefore He has called, not His own flesh the vine, but rather the Godhead?' in Joann. lib. 10. Cap. 2. pp. 863, 4. And Nyssen, Orat. Catech. 37. Decoctâ quasi per ollam carnis nostrae cruditate, sanctificavit in aeternum nobis cibum carnem suam. Paulin. Ep. 23. Of course in such statements nothing material is implied; Hooker says, `The mixture of His bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of His flesh with ours they speak of, to signify what our very bodies through mystical conjunction receive from that vital efficacy which we know to be in His, and from bodily mixtures they borrow divers similitudes rather to declare the truth than the manner of coherence between His sacred and the sanctified bodies of saints.' Eccl. Pol. v. 56. §10. But without some explanation of this nature, language such as S. Athanasius's in the text seems a mere matter of words. vid. infr. §50 fin.

280 John xvii. 22.

281 Cyril, Thesaur. 20. p. 197.

282 §51, note 1.

283 aggelwn men parabantwn, anqrwpwn de parakousantwn. vid. infr. §51. init. Cf. ad Afr. 7. vid. de Decr. 19, note 3. infr. Orat. ii. iii. Cyril. in Joann. lib. v 2. On the subject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. §16. Petav. Dogm. t. 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist. Aet. i. Diss. 7.

284 De Decr. 10, note 4.

285 Heb. i. 3.

286 The word wherefore is here declared to denote the fitness why the Son of God should become the Son of man. His Throne, as God, is for ever; He has loved righteousness; therefore He is equal to the anointing of the Spirit, as man. And so S Cyril on the same text, as in l. c. in the foregoing note. Cf. Leon Ep. 64. 2. vid. de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. In illud Omn. 2. Cyril. in Gen. i. p. 13.

287 ensarkoj parousia. This phrase which has occurred above, §8. is very frequent with Athan. vid. also Cyril. Catech. iii. 11. xii. 15. xiv. 27, 30, Epiph. Hoer. 77. 17. The Eutychians avail themselves of it at the Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard. Conc. t. 2. pp. 164. 236.

288 Ps. xlv. 6.

289 Ib. Ps. xlv. 7.

290 Matt. xii. 28.

291 Matt. xii. 32; Matt. xiii. 55.

292 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iii. §1 (22).].

293 John xx. 22; John xvi. 13, John xvi. 14.

294 Is. lxi. 1.

295 §48, note 7.

296 John i. 16.

297 Vid. de Incarn. 13. 14. vid. also Gent. 41 fin. and Nic. Def. 17, note 5. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra doctorem misit, quasi vivam legem. Lactant. Instit. iv. 25. `The Only-begotten was made man like us, if lending us His own stedfastness.' Cyril. in Joann. lib. v. 2. p. 473; vid. also Thesaur. 20. p. 198. August. de Corr. et Grat. 10-12. Damasc. F. O. iv. 4. But the words of Athan. embrace too many subjects to illustrate distinctly in a note.

298 2 Cor. ii. 11.

299 §48, note 1.

300 Rom. viii. 3; ib. Rom. viii. 4.

301 Cf. de Incarn. 7, Orat. ii. 68.

302 Rom. viii. 9.

303 aplwj, ouk aplwj wrisqh, all' akribwj echtasqh. Socr. i. 9. p. 31.

304 John xvii. 10, §35, note 2.

305 Eunomius said that our Lord was utterly separate from the Father, `by natural law,' nomw fusewj; S. Basil observes, `as if the God of all had not power over Himself, eautou kurioj, but were in bondage under the decrees of necessity.' contr. Eunom. ii. 30.

306 Ps. xi. 7; Ps. v. 5.

307 Ib. lxxxvii. 2.

308 Mal. i. 2, Mal. i. 3.

309 Is. lxi. 8

310 ennoiwn mallon de paranoiwn, vid. §40, note 1.

311 Instead of professing to examine Scripture or to acquiesce in what they had been taught the Arians were remarkable for insisting on certain abstract positions or inferences on which they make the whole controversy turn. Vid. Socrates' account of Arius's commencement, `If God has a Son, he must have a beginning of existences' &c. &c., and so the word agenhton.

312 Matt. xxii. 29.

313 Ib. Matt. xxii. 21.

314 Prov. viii. 22. vid. Orat. ii. §§19-72.

315 Heb. i. 4; Heb. iii. 1.

316 Vid. Orat. ii. §§2-11.

317 Acts ii. 36. vid. Orat. ii. §§11-18.

318 1 Cor. ii. 8.

319 Zech. ii. 10; vid. 1 Kings viii. 27; Bar. iii. 37.

320 Vid. the same contrast. de Syn. §33; supr, §8; Orat. iv. §23.

321 §8, note 6.

322 De Decr. 14, note 2.

323 Acts viii. 34.

324 Matt. xxiv. 3.

325 Vid. 1 Thess. iv. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 1, &c.

326 2 Tim. ii. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 18; 1 Tim. i. 20.

327 Is. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.

328 Deut. xviii. 15.

329 Is. liii. 7.

330 The more common evasion on the part of the Jews was to interpret the prophecy of their own sufferings in captivity. It was an idea of Grotius that the prophecy received a first fulfilment in Jeremiah. vid. Justin Tryph. 72 et al., Iren. Hoer. iv. 33. Tertull. in Jud. 9, Cyprian. Testim. in Jud. ii. 13, Euseb. Dem. iii. 2, &c. [cf. Driver and Neubauer Jewish commentaries on Is. lii. and Is. liii. and Introduction to English Translation of these pp. xxxvii. sq.]

331 Heb. i. 1, Heb. i. 2.

332 Ib. Heb. i. 3, Heb. i. 4.

333 Ps. lxxxiv. 10.

334 Prov. viii. 10, Prov. viii. 11.

335 Is. lvi. 4, Is. lvi. 5.

336 There is apparently much confusion in the arrangement of the paragraphs that follow; though the appearance may perhaps arise from Athan.'s incorporating some passage from a former work into his text, cf. note on §32. It is easy to suggest alterations, but not anything satisfactory. The same ideas are scattered about. Thus sugkritikwj occurs in (3) and (5). The Son's seat on the right, and Angels in ministry, (3) fin. (10) (11). `Become' interpreted as `is originated and is,' (4) and (11). The explanation of `become,' (4) (9) (11) (14). The Word's epidhmia is introduced in (7) and (8) paroudia being the more common word; epidhmia occurs Orat. ii. §67 init. Serap. i. 9. Vid. however, ¥61, notes. If a change must be suggested, it would be to transfer (4) after (8) and (10) after (3).

337 apolelumenwj. vid. also Orat. ii. 54. 62. iii. 22. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. p. 244. Cyril. Thesaur. 25, p. 236. dialelumenwj. Orat. iv. 1.

338 [The note, referred to above, p. 169, in which Newman defends; the treatment of genhton and gennhton as synonymous, while yet admitting teat they are expressly distinguished by Ath. in the text, is omitted for lack of space.]

339 John i. 3.

340 Ps civ. 24.

Click Your Choice