Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to I Pet. iv. 1.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXVI.—Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the
Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained.
Arians compared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our
Lord did not come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and
affections of the flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the
flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to I Pet. iv. 1.
26. For behold, as if not wearied in their words
of irreligion, but hardened with Pharaoh, while they hear and see the
Saviour’s human attributes in the Gospels2982
| 2982 This
Oration alone, and this entirely, treats of texts from the Gospels;
hitherto from the Gospel according to St. John, and now chiefly from
the first three. Hence they lead Athan. to treat more distinctly of the
doctrine of the Incarnation, and to anticipate a refutation of both
Nestorius and Eutyches. | ,
they have utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son’s
paternal Godhead2983
, and with arrogant
and audacious tongue they say, ‘How can the Son be from the
Father by nature, and be like Him in essence,’ who says,
‘All power is given unto Me;’ and ‘The Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son;’ and
‘The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His
hand; he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life;’ and
again, ‘All things were delivered unto Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him;’ and again,
‘All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come to Me2984
.’ 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.’ “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, saying, I have both
glorified it, and will glorify it again2985
.’ And He said the same another time;
‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;’ 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 Me2986
.’” Then
these perverse men argue; ‘If He were Power, He had not feared,
but rather He had supplied power to others.’ Further they say;
‘If He were by nature the true and own Wisdom of the
Father,’ how is it written, ‘And Jesus increased in wisdom
and stature, and in favour with God and man2987
?’ In like manner, when He had come
into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom
men said that He was; and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus
lay; and He said besides to His disciples, ‘How many loaves have
ye2988
? How then,’ say they, ‘is He
Wisdom, who increased in wisdom and was ignorant of what He asked of
others?’ This too they urge; “How can He be the own 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?’ 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.’ 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.’ And,
‘Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels,
neither the Son2989
.’” Upon
this again say the miserable men, “If the Son were, according to
your interpretation2990
| 2990 διάνοιαν, ii. 44, a. 53, c.; iv. 17, d. &c. | , eternally existent
with God, He had not been ignorant of the Day, but had known as Word;
nor had been forsaken as being coexistent; 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 originate, 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. This then is what the irreligious men allege
in their discourses; and if they thus argue, they might consistently
speak yet more daringly; ‘Why did the Word become flesh at
all?’ 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 God2991
| 2991 De
Decr. 1; Or. i. 4. | ?’ 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 Essence, 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 own 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 own 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 heaven2992
?’ the Arians on the other hand make
response2993
| 2993 ἐπακούουσιν. Montfaucon (Onomasticon in t. 2 fin.) so interprets this
word. vid. Apol. contr. Ar. 88. note 7. | 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. Such error then 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 to
their heresy; or if they fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised2994
, 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. 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 Christians2995
| 2995 Apol. Fug. 27, n. 10. | ,
put off Arius’s madness, and cleanse2996
| 2996 De
Decr. 2, n. 9, c. Sab. Greg. 6 fin. |
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 Eternals2997
| 2997 Cf.
de Decr. 25, n. 4. 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. 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, so that 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. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.] | , but ye will yourselves acknowledge
that the Lord is God’s true Son by nature, and not as merely
eternal2998
| 2998 οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀ&
188·διος, i.e.
ἀΐδιος 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
ἀΐδια
then, as the Arians say, there are many ἀΐδια; 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. 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. Or. ii. 1, n. 13, 44, n. 1. His mode of
proof is still more brought out by what he proceeds to say about
the σκοπός, or
general bearing or drift of the Christian faith, and its availableness
as a κανὼν or rule of
interpretation. | , 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 gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates2999
;’ and it is plain that through Him
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 from the Father, and never was
there when He was not, but He was always; and being the Father’s
Image and Radiance, He has the Father’s eternity. Now what has
been briefly said above may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of
the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from
the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation3000
, we may easily see, if we now consider the
scope3001
| 3001 σκοπὸς,
vid. 58. fin. | of that faith which we Christians hold, and
using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the
reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being
ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have
stumbled3002
on a stone of stumbling, thinking
otherwise than they should think.
29. Now the scope 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 Wisdom3003
;
and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of
God3004
| 3004 θεοτόκου. vid. supr. 14, n. 3. Vid. S. Cyril’s
quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c.; and Cyril
himself, Adv. Nest. i. p. 18. Procl. Hom. i. p. 60.
Theodor. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.) Cassian.
Incarn. iv. 2. Hil. Trin. ii. 25. Ambros. Virgin.
i. n. 47. Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Incarn. vii. 30. Jerom. in
Ezek. 44 init. Capreolus of Carthage, ap. Sirm. Opp. t. i. p.
216. August. Serm. 291, 6. Hippolytus, ap. Theod. Eran.
i. p. 55, &c. Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. 7. | , and was 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 Me3005
.’ 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 thing3006
;’ next,
‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld
His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father3007
;’ and next Paul writing, ‘Who
being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the
likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled
Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross3008
.’ Any one, beginning with these
passages and going through the whole of the Scripture upon the
interpretation3009
which they suggest,
will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, ‘Let
there be light,’ and ‘Let there be a firmament,’ and
‘Let us make man3010
| 3010 Gen. i. 3, 6,
26;
de Syn. 28 (14). | ;’ 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, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall
bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being
interpreted, is God with us3011
.’
30. The reader then of divine Scripture may
acquaint himself with these passages from the ancient 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 us3012
.’ 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 in a man,
hallowing him also, and manifesting3013
| 3013 τούτῳ
χρώμενος
ὀργάνῳ infr.42. and ὄργανον πρὸς
τὴν
ἐνέργειαν
καὶ τὴν
ἔκλαμψιν τῆς
θεότητος. 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. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. σχῆμα
ὀργανικὸν 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, 41, 43, 44. This use
of ὄργανον must not be confused with its heretical application to our
Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of
which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that φανέρωσις
is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; 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. Or. i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4. | 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 this or that of the Prophets3014
| 3014 Ad
Epict. 11, ad Max. 2. | . 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 wisdom3015
;’ for ‘the Word,’ as John
says, ‘became flesh’ (it being the custom3016
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;’ and as Daniel said to Astyages,
‘I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who
hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all
flesh3017
;’ 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 rightly3018
received Him; but neither, when they were begotten was it said that He
had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that He Himself
suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of the
ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was pleasing to the Father, to
send His own Son ‘made of a woman, made under the Law’),
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 flesh3019
,’ 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 will3020
| 3020 κατὰ τὸ
βούλημα.
vid. Orat. i. 63. infr. §63, notes. Cf. supr.
ii. 31, n. 7, 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 κατὰ τὸ
βούλημα,
but is the βουλὴ of the
Father. ibid. note 8. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is
highest, vid Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted ii. 64, n. 5. In
that passage the Father’s νεύματα are spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75,
a. de Laud. Const. p. 528, 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. | , afterwards
for our sakes He became man, and ‘bodily3021
,’ 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 instrument3022
| 3022 τούτῳ
χρώμενος
ὀργάνῳ infr.42. and ὄργανον πρὸς
τὴν
ἐνέργειαν
καὶ τὴν
ἔκλαμψιν τῆς
θεότητος. 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. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. σχῆμα
ὀργανικὸν 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, 41, 43, 44. This use
of ὄργανον must not be confused with its heretical application to our
Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of
which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that φανέρωσις
is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; 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. Or. i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4. | ,
He became man for our sakes.’ 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 body3023
| 3023 Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. p. 1275. ed. Ben.
This interchange [of language] is called theologically the ἀντίδοσις or communicatio ἰδιωμάτων. 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, they are of
the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian
controversies. | . And the Word bore the infirmities of the
flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to
the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body
was God’s3024
| 3024 θεοῦ ἦν
σῶμα. also ad
Adelph. 3. ad Max. 2. and so τὴν
πτωχεύσασαν
φύσιν θεοῦ
ὅλην
γενομένην. c. Apoll. ii. 11. τὸ πάθος
τοῦ λόγου. ibid. 16, c. σὰρξ τοῦ
λόγου. infr.
34. σῶμα
σοφίας infr.53. also Or. ii. 10, n.
7. πάθος
Χριστοῦ τοῦ
θεοῦ μου.
Ignat. Rom. 6. ὁ
θεὸς
πέπονθεν. 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. Or. i. 45, n. 3. Yet Athan.
objects to the phrase, ‘God suffered in the flesh,’ i.e. as
used by the Apollinarians. vid. contr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin.
[Cf. Harnack, Dogmg. ed. 1. vol. i. pp. 131, 628.
notes.] | . And well has the Prophet said ‘carried3025
;’ and has not said, ‘He remedied
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 has become man for us, and that the body
which in Him bore them, was His own body; and, while He received no
hurt3026
| 3026 οὐδὲν
ἐβλάπτετο. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) Cf. de Incarn.
17, 54, 34; Euseb. de Laud. Const. p. 536. and 538. also Dem.
Evang. vii. p. 348. Vigil. contr. Eutych. ii. p. 503. (B.
P. ed. 1624.) Anast. Hodeg. c. 12. p. 220 (ed. 1606.) also p.
222. Vid also the beautiful passage in Pseudo-Basil: Hom. in Sanct.
Christ. Gen. (t. 2. p. 596. ed. Ben.) also Rufin. 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. | Himself by ‘bearing our sins in His
body on the tree,’ as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our
own affections3027
| 3027 παθῶν, vid.
§33, n. 2. | , and were filled
with the righteousness3028
of the Word.
32. Whence it 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 the Lord do them.
Hence, when made man, He said3029
| 3029 John x. 37,
38.
vid. Incarn. 18. Cf. Leo, 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.
1614. | , ‘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.’ 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
dead3030
| 3030 Cf.
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 θεανδρικὴ
ἐνέργεια [a condemned formula], i.e. the union of the energies of both
Natures in one act. | . These things were so done, were so
manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth3031
| 3031 μὴ φαντασί&
139· ἀλλ᾽
ἀληθῶς. vid.
Incarn. 18, d. ad Epict. 7, c. The passage is quoted by
S. Cyril. Apol. adv. Orient p. 194. | ; and it became the Lord, in putting on human
flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we
say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections
of the body were proper to Him alone, 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 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 and the grace.
For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are
ascribed not to another3032
| 3032 οὐκ ἄλλου,
ἀλλὰ τοῦ
κυρίου· and
so οὐκ
ἑτέρου
τινός, 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. | , but to the Lord;
that the grace also may be from Him3033
| 3033 Cf.
Procl. ad Armen. p. 615, ed. 1630. | , and that we
may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God,
because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary3034
| 3034 κοινόν opposed to ἴδιον.
vid. infr. §51, Cyril Epp. p. 23, e. communem,
Ambros. de Fid. i. 94. | man, but the natural and true Son from God,
who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.
33. 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 deified; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been
ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered from them3035
| 3035 Or. i. 5 n. 5, ii. 56 n. 5, 68, n. 1, infr. note
6. | ; 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, Jeremiah was hallowed3036
| 3036 Vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, S. Leo, &c., as mentioned in Corn. a
Lap. in loc. S. Jerome implies a similar gift in the case of
Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep. xxiv. 2.) And so S. John
Baptist, Maldon. in Luc. i. 16. It is remarkable that no ancient
writer (unless indeed we except S. Austin), [Patrol. Lat. xlvii. 1144?]
refers to the instance of S. Mary;—perhaps from the circumstance
of its not being mentioned in Scripture. | even from the
womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of
Mary Bearer of God3037
| 3037 θεοτόκου. For instances of this word vid. Alexandr. Ep. ad
Alex. ap. Theodor. H. E. i. 4. p. 745. (al. 20). 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 Recta
Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil.
Hom. t. 2. p. 600 ed. Ben. | ; nevertheless
‘death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression3038
;’ 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 appropriated3039
| 3039 ἰδιοποιουμένου. vid. also [Incar. 8.] infr. §38. ad
Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril. in
Joann. p. 151, a. For ἴδιον, which occurs so
frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. And οἰκείωται. 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. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav. de
Incarn. iv. 15. | what pertains to the flesh, no longer do these
things touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they
are destroyed3040
| 3040 Vid.
Or. i. §§45, 46, ii. 65, note. 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 Leo. 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. | 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 abide3041
ever immortal and
incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of
God3042
| 3042 θεοτόκου. supr. 14, n. 3. 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 θεοτόκος, 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. Cf. Cyril. Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these
sects, as the Arians, maintained the term. vid. supr. Or. ii. 8,
n. 5. | , He Himself is said to have been born, who
furnishes to others an origin of being; in order that He may transfer
our origin 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
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 our former origin in Adam do
we die; but henceforward our origin 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 us3043
,
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 Word3044
| 3044 λογωθείσης
τῆς σαρκὄς. This strong term is here applied to human nature
generally; Damascene speaks of the λόγωσις of the flesh, but he means especially our Lord’s flesh.
F. O. iv. 18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven.) for the words θεοῦσθαι, &c. vid. supr. ii. 70, n. 1. | ,
by reason of God’s Word who for our sake ‘became
flesh.’
34. 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 flesh3045
.’ 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 flesh3046
| 3046 Cf.
Chrysost. in Joann. Hom. 67. 1 and 2. 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. | , 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 Me3047
,” 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, ‘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.
Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man,
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 harmed3048
| 3048 βλαπτόμενος, §31, n. 15. | by
these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men,
their passions as if changed and abolished3049
in
the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free3050
| 3050 Vid.
Or. ii. 56, n. 5. Cf. Cyril. de Rect. Fid. p.
18. | from them for ever, as John taught, saying,
‘And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in
Him is no sin3051
.’ 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 have become the Word’s
flesh,’ and He ‘carried’ my affections, though He is
without them; 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 you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by
nature, see that you object not to God’s Word having taken my
form of servitude; for as the Lord,
putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as
being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life
‘everlasting.’
35. These points we have found it necessary first
to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught divinely
through the instrument3052
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 One3053
| 3053 Vid.
infr. 39–41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p.
615. 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. | , we are right 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 vintner3054
| 3054 Vid. Is. i. 22, LXX.; Or. ii. 80; de Decr. 10. | , mixing water with
the wine, 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 deny3055
| 3055 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. Or. i.
26, n. 2. | the
origination of His body, and henceforth to rank themselves with
Manichees3056
| 3056 De
Syn. 33; Or. i. 8. | . But for them, learn they, however
tardily, that ‘the Word became flesh;’ and let us,
retaining the general scope3057
of the faith,
acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation3058
.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
