Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors:
91 Vid. Ps lxxxvi. 8; Ps lxxxix. 6.
93 Cf. Serap. i. 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. §19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21-24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. `One must not say,' he observes, `that these names properly and primarily, kuriwj kai prwtwj belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure kataxrhstikwj (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings says, "Call no one your father upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven."' He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decr. 31, n. 5), much more is He the pathr tou kata fusin uiou. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i, 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kuriwj logoj, not kuriwj uioj. ibid. ii. 10 fin. vid. supr. ii. 19, note 3.
94 kat' ousian omoioj, Or. i. 21, n. 8.
96 And so epgazomenou tou patroj, ergazesqai kai ton uion. In illud Omn. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one kata thn dunamin, they are one also in ousia. in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hoer. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so S. Athan. triaj adiairetoj th fusei, kai mia tauthj h energeia. Serap. i. 28, f. en qelhma patroj kai uiou kai boulhma, epei kai h fusij mia. In illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentiae, de Sp. ii. 12. fin. and of S. Basil, wn mia energeia, toutwn kai ousia mia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius Trin. iv. 15.
99 Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col. 2. And Theodoret on Col. iii. 17. says, `Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.' `All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living. Word and God. ...But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.' Origen contr. Cels. v. 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.
100 Gen. xlviii. 15, Gen. xlviii. 16. vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the doctrine vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Infr. §14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, `what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in him,' i.e. sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Proescar. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.
102 Gen. xxxii. 26, Gen. xxxii. 30.
106 Ps. xviii. 1, Ps. xviii. 2.
107 Vid. 2 Tim. iii. 11; 2 Cor. i. 10.
108 Gen. xxviii. 3, Gen. xxviii. 4, LXX.
113 thj qeotokou Mariaj. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] vid. also infr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (twn palai kai propalai) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord qeotokon, according to `the Apostolical tradition.' Hoer. iv. 12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known, writes to the former. `This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it.' Concil. Eph. part i. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. `Interpreting,' he says, `how qeotokoj is used, he discussed the question at length.' Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently over-looked, in arguing from Ephrem. ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase `Mother of God' originated in S. Leo). [See vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]
116 Serap. i. 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. Hom. 24 init. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. 3. P. 481.
120 And so infr. 25, 36 fin. Serap. i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, d. iii. 1, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. p. 865. Damascen. F. O. i. 7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ibid. 24. Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10, e.
122 Vid. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note 5. The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and worship. vid. de Decr. 6, note 5, Or. i. 30, n. 1. But `every substance,' says S. Austin, `which is not God, is a creature, and which is not a creature, is God.' de Trin. i 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 31.
124 epixeirhma, de Decr. 1, note.
125 Vid. supr. ii. 14, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de Trin. ii. 12. §5. from the Fathers in proof of the worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as idolaters vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8. also Ep. Aeg. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init. Serap. i. 29, d. Theodoret in Rom. i. 25.
127 sugkuliontai, vid. Orat. i. 23. ii. 1 init.; Decr. 9 fin.; Gent. 19, c. cf. 2 Pet. ii. 22.
128 qeostugeij, infr. Letter 54. 1 fin.
129 eidoj: also in Gen. xxxii. 30. Gen. xxxii. 31. Sept. [a substitute for Heb. `face.'] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56, n. 6. for the meaning of the word. It was just now used for `kind.' Athan. says, de Syn. ubi supr. `there is but one form of Godhead;' yet the word is used of the Son as synonymous with `image.' It would seem as if there are a certain class of words, all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more appropriate application either ordinarily or under circumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance. Thus `Being' is more descriptive of the Father as the phgh qeothtoj, and He is said to be `the Being of the Son;' yet the Son is really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words morfh and eidoj [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] are rather descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He is called `the form of the Father,' yet there is but one Form and Face of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons; while `Spirit' is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus again S. Hippolytus says ek [tou patroj] dunamij logoj, yet shortly before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, dunamin de mian, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word `Subsistence,' upostasij, which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed personally. Other words may be used correlatively of either Father or Son; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of the Father; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Others in common, as `the Father's Godhead is the Son's,' h patrikh uiou qeothj, as indeed the word ousia itself. Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or That Person only, as `Word,' `Image,' &c.
132 John xiv. 9, John xiv. 10; John x. 30.
136 oi dolioi. crafty as they are, also infr. 59.
137 Or. i. 21, n. 8, cf. infr. §67.
138 diabolikhn vid. §8, n. 10., cf. Isa. xiv. 14.
142 De Decr. 10; Or. i. 26, n. 1.
144 periergazesqai: vid. Or. ii. 34, n. 5.
145 Orat. ii. 53, n. 4; Orat. iv. 33 init.
146 Ps. xxxii. 9; Ps. xlix. 20.
152 qeoi, §§23 end, 25, and ii. 70, n. 1.
157 kata mimhsin. Clem. Alex. Poedag. i. 3. p. 102. ed. Pott. Naz. Ep. 102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) Leo in various places, supr. ii. 55, n. 1. Iren. Hoer. v. 1. August. Serm. 101, 6. August. Trin. iv. 17. also ix. 21. and Eusebius, kata thn autou mimhsin. Eccl. Theol. iii. 19, a. For inward grace as opposed to teaching, vid. supr. Orat. ii. 56, n. 5, and 79, n. 10.
158 enaretoi so panaretoj Clem. Rom. Ep. i.
161 diaqesei, de Decr. 2, note 5; Ep. ad Mon. (1) init. Hipp. c. Noet. 7.
165 Ps. lx. 12; Ps. xviii. 29.
166 Ps. xliv. 5. Vid. Olear. de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. 1702.) [Winer. xlviii. a.]
167 This remark which comes in abruptly is pursued presently, vid. §23.
171 Vid. de Decr. 11, n. 5, which is explained by the present passage. When Ath. there says, `without all in nature,' he must mean as here, `far from all things in nature.' S. Clement loc. cit. gives the same explanation, as there noticed. It is observable that the contr. Sab. Greg. 10 (which the Benedictines consider not Athan.'s) speaks as de Decr. supr. Eusebius says the same thing, de Incorpor. i. init. ap. Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros. Quomodo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c. de Fid. i. 106. and supr. §1, n. 10.
172 Vid. Glass. Phil. Sacr. iii. 5. can. 27. and Dettmars, de Theol. Orig. ap. Lumper. Hist. Patr. t. 10, p. 212. Vid. also supr. ii. 55, n. 8.
174 omoiothta pwj, and so at the end of 22. kata ti qewroumenon. [A note, discussing certain views of Coplestone, Toplady, and Blanco White, is omitted here.]
176 Cyril in Joan. p. 227, &c.