Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27; John iii. 35, &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by 'so' in John v. 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again they are used with reference to our Lord's human nature; for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the power, &c., before He received it. He was God and man, and His actions are often at once divine and human.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
XXVII.—Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27; John
iii. 35, &c. These texts intended to preclude the
Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine
concerning the Son; they are explained by ‘so’ in John v. 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.)
Again they are used with reference to our Lord’s human nature;
for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him.
And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had
the power, &c., before He received it. He was God and man, and His
actions are often at once divine and human.
35 (continued). For, ‘The Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand;’ and,
‘All things were given unto Me of My Father;’ and, ‘I
can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge3059
;’ and the like passages do not shew
that the Son once had not these prerogatives—(for had not He
eternally what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the
Father in essence, who also says, ‘All that the Father hath are
Mine3060
,’ and what are Mine, are the
Father’s? for if the things of the Father are the Son’s and
the Father hath them ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being
the Father’s, were ever in the Son),—not then because once
He had them not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son hath
eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father.
36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has
all that the Father hath, from the exact likeness and identity of that
He hath, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius, considering
Him to be the Father, therefore He has said ‘Was given unto
Me,’ and ‘I received,’ and ‘Were delivered to
Me3061
,’ only to shew that He is not the
Father, but the Father’s Word, and the Eternal Son, who because
of His likeness to the Father, has eternally what He has from Him, and
because He is the Son, has from the Father what He has eternally.
Moreover that ‘Was given’ and ‘Were delivered,’
and the like, do not impair3062
| 3062 Or. i. 45; ad Adelph. 4. | the Godhead of the
Son, but rather shew Him to be truly3063
Son, we may
learn from the passages themselves. For if all things are delivered
unto Him, first, He is other than that all which He has received; next,
being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to
the Essence of the Father. For if He were one of all, then He were not
‘heir of all3064
,’ but every
one had received according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as
receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to
the Father. Moreover that ‘Was given’ and ‘Were
delivered’ do not shew that once He had them not, we may conclude
from a similar passage, and in like manner concerning them all; for the
Saviour Himself says, ‘As the Father hath life in Himself, so
hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself3065
.’ Now from the words ‘Hath
given,’ He signifies that He is not the Father; but in saying
‘so,’ He shews the Son’s natural likeness and
propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly
the Son once had not; for as the
Father, ‘so’ also the Son has. But if this is irreligious
to say, and religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever,
is it not unseemly in them when the Son says that, ‘as’ the
Father has, ‘so’ also the Son has, to say that He has not
‘so3066
,’ but otherwise? Rather then is
the Word faithful, and all things which He says that He has received,
He has always, yet has from the Father; and the Father indeed not from
any, but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the
radiance, if the radiance itself should say, ‘All places the
light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from myself,
but as the light wills,’ yet, in saying this, it does not imply
that it once had not, but it means, ‘I am proper to the light,
and all things of the light are mine;’ so, and much more, must we
understand in the instance of the Son. For the Father, having given all
things to the Son, in the Son still3067
| 3067 πάλιν. vid.
Or. i. 15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication in respect to
God; though how this is, is the inscrutable Mystery of the
Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son is in Himself, as
distinct from the Father; we are but told His relation towards
the Father, and thus the sole meaning we are able to attach to Person
is a relation of the Son towards the Father; and distinct from and
beyond that relation, He is but the One God, who is also the Father.
This sacred subject has been touched upon supr. Or. iii. 9, n.
8. In other words, there is an indestructible essential relation
existing in the One Indivisible infinitely simple God, such as to
constitute Him, viewed on each side of that relation (what in human
language we call) Two (and in like manner Three), yet without the
notion of number really coming in. When we speak of
‘Person,’ we mean nothing more than the One God in
substance, viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that
Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various
statements are not here intended to explain, but to bring home to the
mind what it is which faith receives. We say ‘Father, Son,
and Spirit,’ but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in
order to number Them, our abstraction really does hardly more than
carry us back to the One Substance. Such seems the meaning of such
passages as Basil. Ep. 8, 2; de Sp. S. c. 18; Chrysost.
in Joan. Hom. ii. 3 fin. ‘In respect of the Adorable and
most Royal Trinity, ‘first’ and ‘second’ have
no place; for the Godhead is higher than number and times.’ Isid.
Pel. Ep. 3, 18. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. August.
in Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. v. 10. ‘Unity is not
number, but is itself the principle of all things.’ Ambros. de
Fid. i. n. 19. ‘A trine numeration then does not make number,
which they rather run into, who make some difference between the
Three.’ Boeth. Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last remark is
found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. Many of these references are taken
from Thomassin de Trin. 17. | hath all
things; and the Son having, still the Father hath them; for the
Son’s Godhead is the Father’s Godhead, and thus the Father
in the Son exercises His Providence3068
| 3068 §§11, n. 4, 15, n. 11. | over all
things.
37. And while such is the sense of expressions
like these, those which speak humanly concerning the Saviour admit of a
religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined them
beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid3069
, or when He asks on coming into the parts of
Cæsarea, ‘Whom do men say that I am?’ or, ‘How
many loaves have ye?’ and, ‘What will ye that I shall do
unto you3070
?’ we may know, from what has
been already said, the right3071
sense of the
passages, and may not stumble as Christ’s enemies the Arians.
First then we must put this question to the irreligious, why they
consider Him ignorant? for one who asks, does not for certain ask from
ignorance; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask
concerning what He knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking,
‘How many loaves have ye?’ was not ignorant, for he says,
‘And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would
do3072
.’ But if He knew what He was doing,
therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From this
instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the Lord asks, He
does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do
say that He is; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what
He was about to do. And thus with ease is their clever point exploded;
but if they still persist3073
| 3073 Petavius refers to this passage in proof that S. Athanasius did
not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant, but went on to
admit it in argument after having first given his own real opinion.
vid. §45, n. 2. | on account of His
asking, then they must be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is
not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that
this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired where Lazarus lay,
Himself said, when He was not on the spot but a great way off,
‘Lazarus is dead3074
,’ and where
he was dead; and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, is
He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, and was aware
of what was in the heart of each, and of ‘what was in man,’
and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, ‘I in the
Father and the Father in Me.3075
’
38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that
the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the
Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not,
when He became man, cease to be God3076
; nor, whereas
He is God does He shrink from what is man’s; perish the thought;
but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the
flesh deifies the flesh. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it
did He raise the dead; and He shewed to all that He who quickens the
dead and recalls the soul, much more discerns the secret of all. And He
knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God,
who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our
ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and
true Father, and of Himself, sent because of us for the salvation of
all, than which no grace could be greater. When then the Saviour uses the words which they
allege in their defence, ‘Power is given to Me,’ and,
‘Glorify Thy Son,’ and Peter says, ‘Power is given
unto Him,’ we understand all these passages in the same sense,
that humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no
need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received
humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and
the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere
man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shewn in the case of
Adam, for he received and he lost3077
), but that the
grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure3078
by
men, therefore He Himself appropriates3079
| 3079 ἰδιοποιεῖται, cf. 33, n. 5. |
the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever
had as God, and He says, ‘Glorify Me,’ who glorifies
others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things.
Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in
Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself
to have received.
39. If then (as has many times been said) the
Word has not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as you would have
it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be ignorant; but if He has
become man (and He has become), and it is man’s to receive, and
to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver as
receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and
divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we strip
human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, considered as Word, has
received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to
His Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is
there for men? for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and
dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did
the Word come among us, and become flesh? if that He might receive
these things, which He says that He has received, He was without them
before that, and of necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the
body3080
, because, when He came into it, then He
receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His
descent into the flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be
Himself promoted because of the body3081
, than the body
promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He
might redeem mankind3082
| 3082 Redemption an internal work. vid. supr. ii. 55, n.
1. | , the Word did come
among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became
flesh (and for this He did become), who does not see that it follows,
that what He says that He received, when He became flesh, that He
mentions, not for His own sake, but for the flesh? for to it, in which
He was speaking, pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father.
But let us see what He asked, and what the things altogether were which
He said that He had received, that in this way also they may be brought
to feeling. He asked then glory, yet He had said, ‘All things
were delivered unto Me3083
.’ And after
the resurrection, He says that He has received all power; but even
before that He had said, ‘All things were delivered unto
Me,’ He was Lord of all, for ‘all things were made by
Him;’ and ‘there is One Lord by whom are all things3084
.’ And when He asked glory, He was as
He is, the Lord of glory; as Paul says, ‘If they had known it,
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory3085
;’ for He had that glory which He asked
when He said, ‘the glory which I had with Thee before the world
was3086
.’
40. Also the power which He said He received
after the resurrection, that He had before He received it, and before
the resurrection. For He of Himself rebuked Satan, saying, ‘Get
thee behind Me, Satan3087
;’ and to the
disciples He gave the power against him, when on their return He said,
‘I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven3088
.’ And again, that what He said that He
had received, that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His
driving away the demons, and from His unbinding what Satan had bound,
as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham; and from His
remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the woman who washed
His feet, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee3089
;’ and from His both raising the dead,
and repairing the first nature of the blind, granting to him to see.
And all this He did, not waiting till He should receive, but being
‘possessed of power3090
.’ From all
this it is plain that what He had as Word, that when He had become man
and was risen again, He says that He received humanly3091
; that for His sake men might henceforward
upon earth have power against demons, as having become partakers of a
divine nature; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might
reign everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that
nothing which He says that He received, did He receive as not
possessing before; for the Word, as being God, had them always; but in
these passages He is said humanly to have received, that, whereas the
flesh received in Him, henceforth from it the gift might abide3092
| 3092 διαμείνῃ, Or. ii. 69, 3. |
surely for us. For what is said by Peter, ‘receiving from God
honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him3093
,’ has this meaning. As He inquired
humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so ‘He received’ is
spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels marks the
Word’s Godhead.
41. Cease then, O abhorred of God3094
| 3094 θεοστυγεῖς, supr. §16, n. 7. infr. §58, de
Mort. Ar. 1. In illud Omn. 6. | , and degrade not the Word; nor detract from
His Godhead, which is the Father’s3095
,
as though He needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting your own
arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once stoned Him. For
these belong not to the Word, as the Word; but are proper to men and,
as when He spat, and stretched forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we
did not say that the triumphs were human, though they were done through
the body, but were God’s, so, on the other hand, though human
things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, considering
the nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute
them to the Word’s Godhead, but to His manhood. For though
‘the Word became flesh,’ yet to the flesh are the
affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed by God in the
Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the
Father’s works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were
the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired
and He raised Lazarus, He chid3096
| 3096 John ii. 4. ἐπέπληττε; and so ἐπετίμησε, Chrysost. in loc. Joan. and Theophyl. ὡς δεσπότης
ἐπιτιμᾷ,
Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. ἐντρέπει, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. μέμφεται, Alter Anon. ibid. ἐπιτιμᾶ οὐκ
ἀτιμάζων
ἀλλὰ
διορθούμενος, Euthym. in loc. οὐκ
ἐπέπληξεν, Pseudo-Justin. Quæst. ad Orthod. 136. It is
remarkable that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our
Lord’s humanity (i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a
miracle), when one reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He
wished, in the words τί
μοι καί σοι, to remind S. Mary that He was the Son of God and must be
‘about His Father’s business.’ ‘Repeliens ejus
intempestivam festinationem,’ Iren. Hær. iii. 16, n.
7. It is observable that ἐπιπλήττει
and ἐπιτιμᾷ are
the words used by Cyril, &c. (infr. §54, note 4), for
our Lord’s treatment of His own sacred body. But they are very
vague words, and have a strong meaning or not, as the case may
be. | His Mother, saying,
‘My hour is not yet come,’ and then at once He made the
water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in
the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of
God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He shewed
that He bore a true body, and that it was His own.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
