Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Texts explained; Fourthly, Hebrews iii. 2. Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word 'servant,' nor by 'made' which occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the 'works' which 'God will bring into judgment?') nor by 'faithful;' and is confuted by the immediate context, which is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word 'faithful' as meaning trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole made may safely be understood either of the divine generation or the human creation.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Discourse
II.
————————————
Chapter XIV.—Texts explained; Fourthly, Hebrews iii.
2 Introduction; the
Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not
supported by the word ‘servant,’ nor by ‘made’
which occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the ‘works’
which ‘God will bring into judgment?’) nor by
‘faithful;’ and is confuted by the immediate context, which
is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the
word ‘faithful’ as meaning trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the
whole made may safely be understood either of the divine
generation or the human creation.
1. I did indeed think
that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of
Arius’s madness, whether for their refutation or in the
truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their
evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever
reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow2210
| 2210 κυλιόμενοι, Orat. iii. 16. | in their own vomit and their own mire,
rather invent new expedients for their irreligion. Thus they
misunderstand the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord hath created
me a beginning of His ways for His works2211
,’ and the words of the Apostle,
‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him2212
,’ and straightway argue, that the Son
of God is a work and a creature. But although they might have learned
from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of
apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of
things originate at all, the Truth witnessing2213
| 2213 Vid.
infr. note on 35. | it
(for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a
creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, ‘out of
nothing,’ and ‘it was not before its generation’),
yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are
accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which
have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed
afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the
faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no
knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not
have shut themselves up in the unbelief2214
of
the present Jews2215
| 2215 τῶν νῦν
᾽Ιουδαίων, means literally ‘the Jews of this day,’ as
here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c.
But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians,
being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn
out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i. | , but would have
inquired and learned2216
| 2216 ἐρωτῶντες
ἐμανθάνον; and so μαθὼν
ἐδιδάσκεν, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p.
13, note a. | that, whereas
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God,’ in consequence, it was when at the good
pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as
by John, ‘The Word became flesh2217
;’ so by Peter, ‘He hath made Him
Lord and Christ2218
’;—as by
means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, ‘The Lord
created me a beginning of His ways for His works2219
;’ so by Paul, ‘Become so much
better than the Angels2220
;’ and again,
‘He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant2221
;’ and again, ‘Wherefore, holy
brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and
High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made
Him2222
.’ For all these texts have the same
force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the
Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having
become the Son of man. But, though this distinction is sufficient for
their refutation, still, since from a misconception of the
Apostle’s words (to mention them first), they consider the Word
of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, ‘Who
was faithful to Him that made Him,’ I have thought it needful to
silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand2223
| 2223 By λαυβάνοντες
παρ᾽ αὐτῶν
τὸ λῆμμα,
‘accepting the proposition they offer,’ he means that he is
engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic
view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet
after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general
exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text
in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against
the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12.
init. 32–34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion,
18–43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c.
On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of
interpretation, τούτῳ [τῷ
σκοπῷ, the general
drift of Scripture doctrine] ὥσπερ
κανόνι
χρησάμενοι
προσέχωμεν
τῇ ἀνάγνωσει
τῆς
θεοπνεύστου
γραφὴς, iii. 28.
fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts
have a ‘good,’ ‘pious,’ ‘orthodox’
sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of
appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr.
§43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58. | , as before, their statement.
2. If then He
be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of
works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor
Word, nor Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and
Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be
Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would
have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word,
nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not
Son2224
, neither is He Image2225
| 2225 i.e.
in any true sense of the word ‘image;’ or, so that He may
be accounted the ἀπαράλλακτος
εἴκων of the Father,
vid. de Syn. 23, note 1. The ancient Fathers consider, that the
Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity
that exists, that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again
in a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan.
goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of
creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio
Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1. | .
But if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator?
since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom,
and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in
and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Essence be not
fruitful itself2226
| 2226 For καρπογόνος
ἡ οὐσία, de
Decr. 15. n. 9. γεννητικὸς, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. ἄγονος. i. 14.
fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. ἡ φυσικὴ
γονιμότης, Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 133. ἄκαρπος,
Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Hær. 65 p. 609. b. Vid.
the γέννησις and the κτίσις contrasted together Orat. i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6,
de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed,
infr. Orat. iv. 4 fin. εἰ ἄγονος
καὶ
ἀνενέργητος | , but barren, as
they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they
not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they
deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by
will2227
? But if He frames things that are external
to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their
Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His
proper Essence. For if they attribute to God the willing about things
which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the
will? now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be by
nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which
comes first, which is according to nature, did not exist, as they would
have it in their folly, how could that which is second come to be,
which is according to will? for the Word is first, and then the
creation. On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, those
irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to be, and God, as
being Maker, plainly has also His framing Word, not external, but
proper to Him;—for this must be repeated. If He has the power of
will, and His will is effective, and suffices for the consistence of
the things that come to be, and His Word is effective, and a Framer,
that Word must surely be the living Will2228
of
the Father, and an essential2229
energy, and a real
Word, in whom all things both consist and are excellently governed. No
one can even doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition
and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God’s creating is
second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and
truly from that blessed and everlasting Essence; but what is from His
will, comes into consistence from without, and is framed through His
proper Offspring who is from It.
3. As we have shewn then they are guilty of great
extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and
it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. And if He
be Son, as indeed He is, and a son is confessed to be not external to
his father but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I
said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not
‘to Him that begat Him,’ but ‘to Him that made
Him;’ for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is
used in such instances need raise no question2230
.
For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to
Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to
essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when
the essence is a work or creature, then the words ‘He
made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’
are used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence
is an Offspring and Son, then ‘He made,’ and ‘He
became,’ and ‘He created,’ no longer properly belong
to it, nor designate a work; but ‘He made’ we use without
question for ‘He begat.’ Thus fathers often call the sons
born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of
their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants
children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them
originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as
being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara
called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife; and while to
Philemon the master the Apostle
joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bathsheba, although mother,
called her son servant, saying to his father, ‘Thy servant
Solomon2231
;’—afterwards also Nathan
the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, ‘Solomon thy
servant2232
.’ Nor did they mind calling the
son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the
‘nature,’ and while they spoke it, they forgot not the
‘genuineness,’ praying that he might be made his
father’s heir, to whom they gave the name of servant; for to
David he was son by nature.
4. As then, when we read this, we interpret it
fairly, without accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him so
called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning the
Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to be the Word by
nature, the saints say, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made
Him,’ or if He say of Himself, ‘The Lord created me,’
and, ‘I am Thy servant and the Son of Thine handmaid2233
,’ and the like, let not any on this
account deny that He is proper to the Father and from Him; but, as in
the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right idea of the Father
and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they
acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths2234
| 2234 πολλάκις
ἀπολωλέναι
δίκαιοι,
vid. infr. §28. | , who, instead of preserving the same
explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear
‘Offspring,’ and ‘Word,’ and
‘Wisdom,’ forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation,
natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words
and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the notion of His
being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is
possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to
His humanity? And are they not proved to be ‘an
abomination’ also ‘unto the Lord,’ as having
‘diverse weights2235
’ with them,
and with this estimating those other instances, and with that
blaspheming the Lord? But perhaps they grant that the word
‘servant’ is used under a certain understanding, but lay
stress upon ‘Who made’ as some great support of their
heresy. But this stay of theirs also is but a broken reed; for if they
are aware of the style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence
against2236
themselves. For as Solomon, though a
son, is called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although
parents call the sons springing from themselves ‘made’ and
‘created’ and ‘becoming,’ for all this they do
not deny their nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said
in his prayer, ‘From this day I will make children, who shall
declare Thy righteousness, O God of my salvation2237
.’ He then said, ‘I will
make;’ but the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth of Kings,
thus speaks, ‘And the sons who shall come forth of thee2238
.’ He uses then ‘make’ for
‘beget,’ and he calls them who were to spring from him,
‘made,’ and no one questions whether the term has reference
to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, ‘I have
gotten a man from the Lord2239
;’ thus she
too used ‘gotten’ for ‘brought forth.’ For,
first she saw the child, yet next she said, ‘I have
gotten.’ Nor would any one consider, because of ‘I have
gotten,’ that Cain was purchased from without, instead of being
born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, ‘And now
thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which became thine in Egypt, before
I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine2240
.’ And Scripture says about Job,
‘And there came to him seven sons and three daughters2241
.’ As Moses too has said in the Law,
‘If sons become to any one,’ and ‘If he make a son2242
.’ Here again they speak of those who
are begotten, as ‘become’ and ‘made,’ knowing
that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a
question of ‘they became,’ or ‘I have gotten,’
or ‘I made2243
.’ For nature
and truth draw the meaning to themselves.
5. This being so2244
| 2244 That
is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus
interpreting the word ‘made,’ doctrinal truth
obliges us to do so. He considers the Regula Fidei the principle
of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid.
supr. §1, note 13. | ,
when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper
to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. For
if this is shewn, the surmise about work and creation falls to the
ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be Son and Word;
nor could the Son be a work. And again, this being the state of the
case, the proof is plain to all, that the phrase, ‘To Him who
made Him’ does not serve their heresy, but rather condemns it.
For it has been shewn that the expression ‘He made’ is
applied in divine Scripture even to children genuine and natural;
whence, the Lord being proved to be the Father’s Son naturally
and genuinely, and Word, and Wisdom, though ‘He made’ be
used concerning Him, or ‘He became,’ this is not said of
Him as if a work, but the saints make no question about using the
expression,—for instance in the case of Solomon, and Hezekiah’s children. For though the
fathers had begotten them from themselves, still it is written,
‘I have made,’ and ‘I have gotten,’ and
‘He became.’ Therefore God’s enemies, in spite of
their repeated allegation of such phrases2245
| 2245 λεξείδια, Orat. iii. 59. a Sent. D. 4. c. | ,
ought now, though late in the day, after what has been said, to disown
their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true Son,
Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the
Son be a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made
Himself2246
| 2246 Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. §22, note. | ? for all the works were made through
the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, ‘In wisdom hast Thou
made them all,’ and, ‘All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made2247
.’ But if
it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which all things come to
be, it follows that He is not in the number of works, nor in short of
things originate, but the Offspring of the Father.
6. For consider how grave an error it is, to call
God’s Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes,
that ‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil2248
.’ If then the Word be a work, do you
mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? and what
room is there for judgment, when the Judge is on trial? who will give
to the just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, the
Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the rest? by what law
shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These things are proper to
the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son.
Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon’s words convince you.
For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, but the Son
is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the
Judge of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that
the Son is not a work but the Father’s Word, in whom all the
works both come to be and come into judgment? Further, if the
expression, ‘Who was faithful,’ is a difficulty to them,
from the thought that ‘faithful’ is used of Him as of
others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith,
they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses for saying,
‘God faithful and true2249
,’ and with
St. Paul for writing, ‘God is faithful, who will not suffer you
to be tempted above that ye are able2250
.’ But
when the saints spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a human
way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word
‘faithful’ in Scripture, first ‘believing,’
then ‘trustworthy,’ of which the former belongs to man, the
latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because He believed
God’s word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm,
‘The Lord is faithful in all His words2251
,’ or is trustworthy, and cannot lie.
Again, ‘If any faithful woman have widows2252
,’ she is so called for her right
faith; but, ‘It is a faithful saying2253
,’ because what He hath spoken has a
claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly
the words, ‘Who is faithful to Him that made Him,’ implies
no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became
well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful,
and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining
unalterable and not changed2254
| 2254 ἄτρεπτος καὶ
μὴ
ἀλλοιούμενος; vid. supr. de Decr. 14. it was the tendency of
Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such change actually
was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first maintained in the
abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature
τρεπτὸς, He was in fact ἀλλοιούμενος. This was implied in the doctrine that His superhuman
nature supplied the place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the
semi-Arian Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who said, τὸν
λόγον τροπὴν
ὑπομεμενηκοτα, vid. De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them
with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which
Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing
the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue ῎Ατρεπτος | in His human
Economy and fleshly presence.
7. Thus then we may meet these men who are
shameless, and from the single expression ‘He made,’ may
shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But
further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, shewing the
time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to shew
from it also how the heretics lack reason; viz. by considering, as we
have done above, the occasion when it was used and for what purpose.
Now the Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he
thus speaks, but when ‘the Word became flesh;’ for thus it
is written, ‘Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus,
who was faithful to Him that made Him.’ Now when became He
‘Apostle,’ but when He put on our flesh? and when became He
‘High Priest of our profession,’ but when, after offering
Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself
brings near and offers to the Father those who in faith approach Him,
redeeming all, and for all propitiating God? Not then as wishing to
signify the Essence of the Word nor His natural generation from the
Father, did the Apostle say, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made
Him’—(perish the thought! for the Word is not made, but
makes)—but as signifying His descent to mankind and High-priesthood which
did ‘become’—as one may easily see from the account
given of the Law and of Aaron. I mean, Aaron was not born a
high-priest, but a man; and in process of time, when God willed, he
became a high-priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened by
his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the
breastplate2255
, the robe, which the women wrought at
God’s command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered
the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated between
the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also,
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God;’ but when the Father willed that ransoms should
be paid for all and to all, grace should be given, then truly the Word,
as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the
Mother of His Body as if virgin earth2256
| 2256 ἀνεργάστου
γῆς is an allusion to
Adam’s formation from the ground; and so Irenæus,
Hær. iii. 21. fin. and many later fathers. | ,
that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer
Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood,
and might rise from the dead.
8. For what happened of old was a shadow of this;
and what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out
according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by
putting on the high-priestly dress2257
| 2257 This
is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against
Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the
opposite heresy. Such expressions as περιτιθέμενος
τὴν ἐσθῆτα,
ἐκαλύπτετο,
ἐνδυσάμενος
σῶμα, were familiar with
the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even
more decided. Theodoret objects Hær. v. 11. p. 422. to the
word προκάλυμμα, as applied to our Lord’s manhood, as implying that
He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz.
Ep. 101. p. 90. παραπέτασμα
is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. Such
expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature
man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an
appearance; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has
παραπεπετασμένην
and κάλυμμα, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros. καταπέτασμα, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. x.
20.
and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. παραπέτασμα, Eran. i. p. 22. and προκάλυμμα, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and
στολή, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen,
Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22. p. 70. Serm.
25. p. 84. | , but remaining
the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and
had said, ‘Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,’ he
had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even
before he became high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in
his ministry, on putting on the garments made and prepared for the
high-priesthood; in the same way it is possible in the Lord’s
instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than
Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was
robed in it; and the expressions ‘He became’ and ‘He
was made,’ must not be understood as if the Word, considered as
the Word2258
| 2258 ᾗ λόγος
ἐστι. cf. i. 43.
Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b.
iv. 23. f. | , were made, but that the Word, being
Framer of all, afterwards2259
| 2259 The
Arians considered that our Lord’s Priesthood preceded His
Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence
the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in this
text did but confirm them in their interpretation of the words made,
&c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Hær. 69, 37.
Eusebius too had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei;
qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei. advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. b. vid.
also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. p. 193. v. 3. p. 223.
contr. Marc. pp. 8 and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem
makes a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls
the Word, plenum justitiæ sacerdotalis, de fug. sæc.
3. 14. S. Clement Alex. before them speaks once or twice of the
λόγος
ἀρχιερεὺς, e.g. Strom. ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses
similar language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows),
de Somniis p. 597. vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9.
Nestorius on the other hand maintained that the Man Christ Jesus was
the Priest, relying on the text which has given rise to this note;
Cyril, adv. Nest. p. 64. and Augustine and Fulgentius may be
taken to countenance him, de Consens. and Evang. i. 6.
ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine
Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the
parallel use of πρωτότοκος, infr. 62–64. ‘As He is called Prophet and
even Apostle for His humanity,’ says S. Cyril Alex. ‘so
also Priest.’ Glaph. ii. p. 58. and so Epiph. loc.
cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between a
divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be said to
sustain between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly one for
the sake of sinners. vid. also Huet Origenian. ii. 3. §4,
5. For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the
Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn.
xii. 3. 4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.] | was made High
Priest, by putting on a body which was originate and made, and such as
He can offer for us; wherefore He is said to be made. If then indeed
the Lord did not become man2260
| 2260 [One
of the few passages in which Ath. glances at the Arian Christology. A
long note is omitted here on the subject of Or. i. 8, note
3.] | , that is a point
for the Arians to battle; but if the ‘Word became flesh,’
what ought to have been said concerning Him when become man, but
‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him?’ for as it is
proper to the Word to have it said of Him, ‘In the beginning was
the Word,’ so it is proper to man to ‘become’ and to
be ‘made.’ Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking
about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have
asked, Who made Him man? and who again, on such a question, would not
have answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High
Priest? And this meaning, and time, and character, the Apostle himself,
the writer of the words, ‘Who is faithful to Him that made
Him,’ will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes
before them. For there is one train of thought, and the lection is all
about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the Hebrews
thus; ‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and
blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through
death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the
devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature
of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all
things it behoved Him to be made
like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High
Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins
of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He
is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren,
partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest
of our profession, Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him2261
.’
9. Who can read this whole passage without
condemning the Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle, who has spoken
well? for when was Christ ‘made,’ when became He
‘Apostle,’ except when, like us, He ‘took part in
flesh and blood?’ And when became He ‘a merciful and
faithful High Priest,’ except when ‘in all things He was
made like unto His brethren?’ And then was He ‘made
like,’ when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh.
Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word’s human Economy,
when he said, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ and
not concerning His Essence. Have not therefore any more the madness to
say that the Word of God is a work; whereas He is Son by nature
Only-begotten, and then had ‘brethren,’ when He took on Him
flesh like ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was
named and became ‘merciful and faithful,’—merciful,
because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as
sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we have, but
as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering
a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nought.
For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this
faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further
cleansing; but the Saviour’s sacrifice, taking place once, has
perfected everything, and is become faithful as remaining for ever. And
Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law
exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord
having a high priesthood without transition and without succession, has
become a ‘faithful High Priest,’ as continuing for ever;
and faithful too by promise, that He may hear2262
| 2262 Or,
answer, vid. infr. iii. 27. |
and not mislead those who come to Him. This may be also learned from
the Epistle of the great Peter, who says, ‘Let them that suffer
according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful
Creator2263
.’ For He is faithful as not
changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He has promised.
10. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks,
unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their
promises; for the same are not everywhere, nay, the local deities come
to nought in course of time, and undergo a natural dissolution;
wherefore the Word cries out against them, that ‘faith is not
strong in them,’ but they are ‘waters that fail,’ and
‘there is no faith in them.’ But the God of all, being one
really and indeed and true, is faithful, who is ever the same, and
says, ‘See now, that I, even I am He,’ and I ‘change
not2264
;’ and therefore His Son is
‘faithful,’ being ever the same and unchanging, deceiving
neither in His essence nor in His promise;—as again says the
Apostle writing to the Thessalonians, ‘Faithful is He who calleth
you, who also will do it2265
;’ for in
doing what He promises, ‘He is faithful to His words.’ And
he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word’s meaning
‘unchangeable;’ ‘If we believe not, yet He abideth
faithful; He cannot deny Himself2266
.’
Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily
presence of the Word, says, an ‘Apostle and faithful to Him that
made Him,’ shewing us that, even when made man, ‘Jesus
Christ’ is ‘the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever2267
’ is unchangeable. And as the Apostle
makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His
High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but
rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard on every
side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may
forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the
Father’s. For instance, he says, ‘Moses as a servant, but
Christ as a Son2268
;’ and the
former ‘faithful in his house,’ and the latter ‘over
the house,’ as having Himself built it, and being its Lord and
Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became
faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word; but2269
| 2269 Here
is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doctrine, but such
anticipations of various heresies are too frequent, as we proceed, to
require or bear notice. | the Word was not as one of things originate
in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh2270
| 2270 θεὸς ἐν
σαρκὶ, vid.
λόγος
ἐν σ. iii. 54. a. θ. ἐν
σωματι, ii. 12.
c. 15. a. λ. ἐν
σώμ. Sent. D. 8
fin. | , and Framer of all and Builder in that which
was built by Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to
subsist; but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the
flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant; for the
whole creature is the Word’s
servant, which by Him came to be, and was made.
11. Hence it holds that the Apostle’s
expression, ‘He made,’ does not prove that the Word is
made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is
called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shewn,
that, even though the word ‘made’ be referred to the Very
Word, it is used for ‘begat,’ what further perverse
expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present
discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn
that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father’s
offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure2271
| 2271 κατ᾽
εὐδοκίαν Orat.iii. 64. init. | of the Father, He was on our behalf made,
and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle,
‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him;’ and in the
Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing
that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed
before, whether ‘He became,’ or ‘He has been
made,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘formed,’ or
‘servant,’ or ‘son of an handmaid,’ or
‘son of man,’ or ‘was constituted,’ or
‘took His journey,’ or ‘bridegroom,’ or
‘brother’s son,’ or ‘brother.’ All these
terms happen to be proper to man’s constitution; and such as
these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become
man.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
