Back
Private
Judgment on Scripture
(Vid. art. Rule of Faith.)
{247}
THE
two phrases by which Athan. denotes private judgment on religious
matters, and his estimate of it, are [ta idia] and [ha ethelon],
e.g. "Laying
down their private ([ten idian]) impiety as some sort of
rule ([hos kanona tina], i.e. as a Rule of Faith), they
wrest all the divine oracles into accordance with it." Orat. i. § 52.
And so [idion kakonoion], Orat. ii. § 18. [tais
idiais muthoplastiais]. Orat. iii. § 10, and, "they make the
language of Scripture their pretence; but, instead of the true sense,
sowing upon it (Matt. xiii. 25, vid. art. [epispeiras]) the
private ([ton idion]) poison of their heresy." Orat. i. § 53.
And so, [kata ton idion noun]. Orat. i. § 37. [ten
idian asebeian]. iii. § 55. And, "He who speaketh of his own, [ek
ton idion], speaketh a lie." contr. Apoll. i. fin.
And
so other writers: "They used to call the Church a virgin," says
Hegesippus, "for it was not yet defiled by profane doctrines ... the
Simonists, Dositheans, &c. ... each privately ([idios])
and separately has brought in a private opinion." ap. Euseb. Hist. iv.
22. Ruffinus says of S. Basil and S. Gregory, "Putting aside all Greek
literature, they are said to have passed thirteen years together in
studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out {248} their sense,
not from their private opinion, but by the writings and
authority of the Fathers," &c. Hist. ii. 9. Sophronius at Seleucia
cried out, "If to publish day after day our own private ([idian])
will, be a profession of faith, accuracy of truth will fail us." Socr.
ii. 40.
"We
must not make an appeal to the Scriptures, nor take up a position for
the fight, in which victory cannot be, or is doubtful, or next to
doubtful. For though this conflict of Scripture with Scripture did not
end in a drawn battle, yet the true order of the subject required that
that should be laid down first, which now becomes but a point of
debate, viz. who have a claim to the faith itself, whose
are the Scriptures." Tertull. de Præscr. 19. "Seeing the Canon of
Scripture is perfect, &c., why need we join unto it the authority
of the Church's understanding and interpretation? because the
Scripture being of itself so deep and profound, all men do not
understand it in one and the same sense, but so many men, so many
opinions almost may be gathered out of it; for Novatian expounds
it one way, Photinus another, Sabellius," &c., Vincent. Comm. 2.
Hippolytus has a passage very much to the same purpose, contr. Noet. 9
fin.
As
to the phrase [hos houtoi thelousi], vid. [legontes me
houtos ... hos he ekklesia kerussei,
all' hos
autoi thelousi].
Orat. iii. § 10, words which follow [idiais muthoplastiais],
quoted just above. Vid. also iii. § 8 and 17. This is a common phrase
with Athan. [hos ethelesen, haper ethelesan,
hotan thelosi, hous ethelesan], &c., &c.,
the proceedings of the heretics being self-willed from first to {249}
last. Vid. Sent. Dion. 4 and 16. Mort. Ar. fin. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in
contrast with the [euaggelikos horos]. Also Decr. § 3. Syn. §
13. Ep. Æg. § 5, 19, 22. Apol. Arian. § 2, 14, 35, 36, 73, 74, 77.
Apol. Const. § 1. de Fug. § 2, 3, 7. Hist. Arian. § 2, 7, 47, 52,
54, 59, 60.
In
like manner [ha boulontai], &c. Ep. Enc. 7. Ap. Arian. §
82, 83. Ep. Æg. § 6. Apol. Const. § 32. de Fug. § 1. Hist. Ar. 15,
18. {250}
The
Rule of Faith
THE
recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of
arguing against Arianism. Vid. art. Private Judgment. It is not
his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he
appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to
determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a
tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to
supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters—a
tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of
catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does
not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of
Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is
plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent
with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is
apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in
church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the
ecclesiastical [phronema], the writings of saints; these
are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere
disputant; he has received, and he transmits. Such is his position,
though the expressions and turn of sentences which indicate it are so
delicate and indirect, and so scattered about his {251} pages, that it
is difficult to collect them and to analyse what they imply. Perhaps
the most obvious proof that what I have stated is substantially true,
is that on any other supposition he seems to argue illogically. Thus
he says: "The Arians, looking at what is human in the Saviour, have
judged Him to be a creature ... But let them learn, however tardily,
that the Word became flesh;" and then he goes on to show that
he does not rely simply on the inherent, unequivocal force of St. John's
words, satisfactory as that is, for he adds, "Let us, as possessing [ton
skopon tes pisteos], acknowledge that this is the
right ([orthen], orthodox) understanding of what they
understand wrongly." Orat. iii. § 35.
Again:
"What they now allege from the Gospels they explain in an unsound
sense, as we may easily see if we will but avail ourselves of [ton
skopon tes kath'
hemas pisteos],
and using this [hosper kanoni], apply ourselves, as the
Apostle says, to the reading of inspired Scripture." Orat. iii. 28.
And
again: "Since they pervert divine Scripture in accordance with their
own private ([idion]) opinion, we must so far ([tosouton])
answer them as ([hoson]) to justify its word, and to show that
its sense is orthodox, [orthen]." Orat. i. 37.
For
other instances, vid. art. [orthos]; also vid. supr. vol. i.
pp. 36, 237 note, 392, fin. 409; also Serap. iv. § 15, Gent. § 6, 7,
and 33.
In
Orat. ii. § 5, after showing that "made" is used in Scripture for "begotten,"
in other instances besides that of our Lord, he says, "Nature and
truth {252} draw the meaning to themselves" of the sacred text—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.
It
is his way to start with some general exposition of the Catholic
doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in dispute opposes, and
thus to create a præjudicium or proof against the latter; vid.
Orat. i. 10, 38, 40 init. 53, ii. § 12 init. 32-34, 35, 44 init.,
which refers to the whole discussion, (18-43,) 73, 77, iii. 18 init.
36 init. 42, 51 init. &c. On the other hand he makes the
ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, [toutoi]
([toi skopoi], the general drift of Scripture
doctrine) [hosper kanoni chresamenoi], as quoted
just above. 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.
It
is with a reference to this great principle that he begins and ends
his series of Scripture passages, which he defends from the
misinterpretation of the Arians. When he begins, he refers to the
necessity of interpreting them according to that sense which is not
the result of private judgment, but is orthodox. "This," he says, "I
conceive is the meaning of this passage, and that a meaning especially
ecclesiastical." Orat. i. § 44. And he ends with: "Had they dwelt
on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an {253}
anchor for the faith, they would not of the faith have made shipwreck."
Orat. iii. § 58.
It
is hardly a paradox to say that in patristical works of controversy
the conclusion in a certain sense proves the premisses. As then he
here speaks of the ecclesiastical scope "as an anchor for the faith;"
so when the discussion of texts began, Orat. i. § 37, he introduces
it as already quoted by saying, "Since they allege the divine oracles
and force on them a misinterpretation according to their private
sense, it becomes necessary to meet them so far as to do
justice to these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox
sense, and that our opponents are in error." Again, Orat. iii. 7, he
says, "What is the difficulty, that one must need take
such a view of such passages?" He speaks of the [skopos] as a [kanon]
or rule of interpretation, supr. iii. § 28. vid. also § 29 init. 35
Serap. ii. 7. Hence too he speaks of the "ecclesiastical sense," e.g.
Orat. i. 44, Serap. iv. 15, and of the [phronema], Orat.
ii. 31 init. Decr. 17 fin. In ii. § 32, 3, he makes the general or
Church view of Scripture supersede inquiry into the force of
particular illustrations. {254}
Sabellius
EUSEBIUS,
Eccles. Theol. i. 20, p. 91, as well as the Macrostich Confession,
supr. vol. i. p. 106, says that Sabellius held the Patripassian
doctrine. Epiph. however, Hær. p. 398, denies it, and imputes the
doctrine to Noetus. Whatever Sabellius taught, it should be noticed,
that, in the reason which the Arian Macrostich alleges against his
doctrine, it is almost implied that the divine nature of the Son
suffered on the Cross. The Arians would naturally fall into this
notion directly they gave up their belief in our Lord's absolute
divinity. It would as naturally follow to hold that our Lord had no
human soul, but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place of
it:—also that His Priesthood was not dependent on His Incarnation.
It
is difficult to decide what Sabellius's doctrine really was; nor is
this wonderful, considering the perplexity and vacillation which is
the ordinary consequence of abandoning Catholic truth. Also we must
distinguish between him and his disciples. He is considered by
Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. i. p. 91, Patripassian, i.e. as holding that
the Father was the Son; also by Athan. Orat. iii. 36 init. de Sent.
Dion. 5 and 9. By the Eusebians of the Macrostich Creed ap. Athan. de
Syn. 26 vol. i. supr. By Basil. Ep. 210, 5. By Ruffin in {255} Symb.
5. By Augustine de Hær. 41. By Theodor. Hær. ii. 9. And apparently
by Origen. ad Tit. t. 4, p. 695. And by Cyprian. Ep. 73. On the other
hand, Epiphanius seems to deny it, ap. August. l. c. and Alexander, by
comparing Sabellianism to the emanation doctrine of Valentinus, ap.
Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 743.
Sabellians,
as Arians, denied that the Word was a substance, and as the
Samosatenes, who, according to Epiphanius, considered our Lord the
internal, [endiathetos], Word and Thought, Hær. 65.
All
Sabellians, except Patripassians, mainly differed from Arians only at
this point, viz. when it was that our Lord came into being.
Both parties considered Him a creature, and the true Word and Wisdom
but attributes or energies of the Almighty. This Lucifer well observes
to Constantius, with the substitution of Paulus and Photinus for
Sabellius, "Quid interesse arbitraris inter te et Paulum Samosatenum,
vel eum tum ejus discipulum tuum conscotinum, nisi quia tu 'ante omnia'
dicas, ille vero 'post omnia'"? p. 203, 4. A subordinate difference
was that the Samosatenes, Photinians, &c., considered our Lord to
be really gifted with the true Word, whereas Arians did scarcely more
than admit Him to be formed after its pattern.
The
Sabellians agreed with the Arians, as far as words went, in
considering the Logos as a creative attribute, vid. Sent D. 25. Ep. Ægypt.
14 fin. Epiph. Hær. 72, p. 835; but such of them as held that the
Logos actually took flesh, escaped the mystery of God subsisting in
Two Persons, only by {256} falling into the heterodox notion that His
nature was compounded of substance and attribute or quality, [suntheton
ton theon ek poiotetos kai ousias]. They virtually denied,
with many Trinitarians outside the Church in this day, that the Son
and again the Spirit is [holos theos]; but, if Each is not [holos
theos], God is [sunthetos]. {257}
Sanctification
ATHANASIUS
insists earnestly on the merciful dispensation of God, who has not
barely given us through Christ justification, but has made our
sanctification to be included in the gift, and santification through
the personal presence in us of the Son. After saying, Incarn. § 7,
that to accept mere repentance from sinners would not have been
fitting, [eulogon], he continues, "Nor does repentance recover
us from our state of nature, it does but arrest the course of sin. Had
there been but a fault committed, and not a subsequent corruption,
repentance had been well, but if," &c. vid. Incarnation and
Freedom.
"While
it is mere man who receives the gift, he is liable to lose it again
(as was shown in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost), but
that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure by men,
therefore it is the Son who Himself appropriates the gift." Orat. iii.
§ 38.
He
received gifts in order "that for His sake ([di'
auton]) men might henceforward upon earth have power against
devils, as 'having become partakers of a divine nature,' and in heaven
might, as 'being delivered from corruption,' reign everlastingly; ...
and, whereas the flesh received the gift in Him, henceforth by It for
us also that gift might abide secure." Orat. iii. § 40. {258}
"The
Word of God, who loves man, put on Himself created flesh, at the
Father's will, that, whereas the first man had made the flesh dead
through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the Blood of
His own body." Orat. ii. § 65. Vid. also Orat. i. § 48, 51, ii. §
56.
"How
could we be partakers of the adoption of sons, unless through the Son
we had received from Him that communion with Him,—unless His Word
had been made flesh, and had communicated that Flesh to us?" Iren. Hær.
iii. 19. "He took part of flesh and blood, that is, He became man,
whereas He was Life by nature, ... that, uniting Himself to the
corruptible flesh according to the measure of its own nature,
ineffably and inexpressibly, and as He alone knows, He might bring it
to His own life, and render it partaker through Himself of God and the
Father ... For He bore our nature, re-fashioning it into His own life
... He is in us through the Spirit, turning our natural corruption
into incorruption, and changing death to its contrary." Cyril. in
Joan. ix. cir. fin.
"The
Word having appropriated the affections of the flesh, no longer do
those affections touch the body, because of the Word who has come in
it, but they are destroyed by Him, and henceforth men ... abide ever
immortal and incorruptible." Orat. iii. § 33. vid. also Incarn. c.
Ar. § 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. {259} Also
Leon. 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.
"His
body is none other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace; for
He received grace as far as man's nature was exalted, which exaltation
was its being deified." Orat. i. § 45. vid. arts. Indwelling
and Deification. {260}
Scripture
Canon
ATHAN.
will not allow that the Pastor is canonical, Decr. § 18. "In
the Shepherd it is written, since they [the Arians] allege this
book also, though it is not in the Canon;" yet he uses the formula, "It
is written."
And
so in Ep. Fest. fin. he enumerates it with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Esther, Judith, Tobit, and others, "not canonised, but appointed by
the Fathers to be read by recent converts and persons under teaching."
He calls it elsewhere a most profitable book. Incarn. 3.
As
to the phrase, "it is written," or "he says," [tade legei], the
Douay renders such phrases by "he," [dio legei], "wherefore he
saith," Eph. v. 14; [eireke peri tes hebdomes
houto], "he spoke," Heb. iv. 4; and 7, "he
limiteth." And we may take in explanation, "As the Holy Ghost saith,
Today," &c. Heb. iii. 7. Or understand with Athan. [dielenxei
legon ho Paulos]. Orat. i. § 57. [hos heipen ho
Ioannes]. Orat. iii. § 30. vid. also iv. § 31. On
the other hand, "doth not the Scripture say," John vii. 42; "what
saith the Scripture?" Rom. iv. 3; "do you think that the
Scripture saith in vain?" &c. James iv. 5. And so Athan. [hoiden
he theia graphe legousa]. Orat. i. § 56. [ethos
tei theiei graphei ... phesi]. Orat.
iv. § 27. [legei he graphe], Decr. § 22. [phesin
he graphe], Syn. § 52. {261}
Authority
of Scripture
ATHANASIUS
considers Scripture sufficient for the proof of such fundamental
doctrines as came into controversy during the Arian troubles; but,
while in consequence he ever appeals to Scripture, (and indeed has
scarcely any other authoritative document to quote,) he ever speaks
against interpreting it by a private rule instead of adhering to
ecclesiastical tradition. Tradition is with him of supreme authority,
including therein catechetical instruction, the teaching of the schola,
ecumenical belief, the [phronema] of Catholics, the
ecclesiastical scope, the analogy of faith, &c.
"The
holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the
preaching of the truth; yet there are also many treatises of our
blessed teachers composed for this purpose." contr. Gent. init. "For
studying and mastering the Scriptures, there is need of a good life
and a pure soul, and virtue according to Christ," Incarn. 57. "Since
divine Scripture is sufficient more than anything else, I recommend
persons who wish to know fully concerning these things," (the doctrine
of the Blessed Trinity,) "to read the divine oracles," ad Ep. Æg. 4. "The
Scriptures are sufficient for teaching; but it is good for us to
exhort each other in the faith, and to refresh each other with
discourses." Vit. S. Ant. 16. "We must seek before {262} all things
whether He is Son, and on this point specially search the Scriptures,
for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter
answered," &c. Orat. ii. § 73. And passim in Athan. Vid. Serap. i.
32 init. iv. fin. contr. Apoll. i. 6, 8, 9, 11, 22. ii. 8, 9, 13, 14,
17-19.
"The
doctrine of the Church should be proved, not announced, [apodeiktikos
ouk apophantikos];) therefore show that Scripture thus
teaches." Theod. Eran. p. 199. "We have learned the rule of doctrine
([kanona]) out of divine Scripture." ibid. p. 213. "Do not
believe me, let Scripture be recited. I do not say of myself, 'In the
beginning was the Word,' but I hear it; I do not invent, but I read;
what we all read, but not all understand." Ambros. de Incarn. 14. "Non
recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers." Tertull. Carn. Christ.
7. vid. also 6. "You departed from inspired Scripture, and therefore
did fall from grace." Max. de Trin. Dial. v. 29. "The Children of the
Church have received from their holy Fathers, that is, the holy
Apostles, to guard the faith; and withal to deliver and preach it to
their own children ... Cease not, faithful and orthodox men, thus to
speak, and to teach the like from the divine Scriptures, and to walk,
and to catechise, to the confirmation of yourselves and those who hear
you; namely, that holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the holy and
only Virgin of God received its custody from the holy Apostles of the
Lord; and thus, in the case of each of those who are under catechising,
who are to approach the Holy Bath, ye ought not only to preach {263}
faith
to your children in the Lord, but also to teach them expressly, as
your common mother teaches, to say: 'We believe in One God,'" &c.
Epiph. Ancor. 119, fin. who thereupon proceeds to give at length the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. And so Athan. speaks of the orthodox
faith, as "issuing from Apostolical teaching and the Fathers'
tradition, and confirmed by New and Old Testament." ad Adelph. 6,
init. Cyril Hier. too, as "declared by the Church and established from
all Scripture." Cat. v. 12. "Let us guard with vigilance what we have received
... What then have we received from the Scriptures but
altogether this? that God made the world by the Word," &c. &c.
Procl. ad Armen. Ep. 2, p. 612. "That God the Word, after the union,
remained such as He was, &c., so clearly hath divine Scripture,
and moreover the doctors of the Churches, and the lights of the world
taught us." Theodor. Eran. p. 175, init. "That it is the tradition of
the Fathers is not the whole of our case; for they too followed the
meaning of Scripture, starting from the testimonies, which just now we
laid before you from Scripture." Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. vid. also a
remarkable passage in Athan. Synod. § 6, fin.
S.
Gregory says in a well-known passage, "Why art thou such a slave to
the letter, and takest up with Jewish wisdom, and pursuest syllables
to the loss of things? For if thou wert to say, 'twice five,' or
'twice seven,' and I concluded 'ten' or 'fourteen' from your words, or
from 'a reasonable mortal animal' I concluded 'man,' should I seem to
you absurd? how so, if I did but give your {264} meaning? for
words belong as much to him who demands them as to him who utters."
Orat. 31. 24. vid. also Hil. contr. Constant. 16. August. Ep. 238, n.
4-6. Cyril. Dial. i. p. 391. Petavius refers to other passages, de
Trin. iv. 5, § 6.
In interpreting Scripture, Athan. always assumes
that the Catholic teaching is true, and the Scripture must be
explained by it, vid. art. Rule of Faith. Thus he says, Orat.
ii. 3, "If He be Son, as indeed He is, let them not question about the
terms which the sacred writers use of Him ... For terms do not
disparage His Nature, but rather that Nature draws to itself those
terms and changes them." And presently, "Nature and truth draw the
meaning to themselves; this being so, why ask, is He a work? it is
proper to ask of them first, is He a Son?" ii. 5.
The great and essential difference between
Catholics and non-Catholics was that Catholics interpreted Scripture
by Tradition, and non-Catholics by their own private judgment.
That not only Arians, but heretics generally,
professed to be guided by Scripture, we know from many witnesses.
Heretics in particular professed to be guided by
Scripture. Tertull. Præscr. 8. For Gnostics, vid. Tertullian's grave
sarcasm, "Utantur hæretici omnes scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam
mundo." Carn. Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. Arian tenets.
And so Marcellus, "We consider it unsafe to lay down doctrine
concerning things which we have not learned with exactness from the
divine Scriptures." (leg. {265} [peri hon ... para ton].)
Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177. And Macedonians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv.
init. And Monophysites, "I have not learned this from Scripture; and I
have a great fear of saying what it is silent about." Theod. Eran. p.
215. S. Hilary brings a number of these instances together with their
respective texts, Marcellus, Photinus, Sabellius, Montanus, Manes;
then he continues, "Omnes Scripturas sine Scripturæ sensu loquuntur,
et fidem sine fide prætendunt. Scripturæ enim non in legendo sunt,
sed in intelligendo, neque in prævaricatione sunt sed in caritate."
ad Const. ii. 9. vid. also Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 13.
{266}
Scripture
Passages
1. GEN.
i. 26.—"Let us make man," &c.
The Catholic Fathers, as is well known, interpret
such texts as this in the general sense which we find taken above
(vol. i. de Syn. § 27, p. 112) by the first Sirmian Council convened
against Photinus, Marcellus, &c. It is scarcely necessary to refer
to instances; Petavius, however, cites the following: First, those in
which the Eternal Father is considered in Gen. i. 26 to speak to the
Son. Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 18. Novatian, de Trin. 26. Tertullian,
Prax. 12. Synod. Antioch. contr. Paul. Samos. ap. Routh, Reliqu. t. 2,
p. 468. Basil. Hexaem. fin. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. x. 6. Cyril. Alex. Dial.
iv. p. 516. Athan. contr. Gentes, 46. Orat. iii. § 29 fin. Chrysost.
in Genes. Hom. viii. 3. Hilar. Trin. iv. 17, v. 8. Ambros. Hexaëm.
vi. 7. Augustin. c. Maxim. ii. 26, n. 2. Next those in which Son and
Spirit are considered as addressed. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 18. Basil.
contr. Eunom. v. 4, p. 315. Pseudo-Chrysost. de Trin. t. i. p. 832.
Cyril. Thesaur. p. 12. Theodor. in Genes. 19. Hær. v. 3, and 9. But
even here, where the Arians agree with Catholics, they differ in this
remarkable respect, that in the Canons they pass in their Councils,
they place certain interpretations of Scripture under the sanction of
an anathema, showing how far {267} less free the system of
heretics is than that of the Church.
2. Gen. xviii. 1.—"The Lord appeared to
Abraham," &c.
The same Sirmian Council anathematises those who
say that Abraham saw "not the Son, but the Ingenerate God."
This again, in spite of the wording, which is
directed against the Catholic doctrine, and is of an heretical
implication, is a Catholic interpretation. vid. (besides Philo de
Somniis, i. 12, p. 1139,) Justin. Tryph. 56, and 126. Iren. Hær. iv.
10, n. 1. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 6. adv. Marc. iii. 9. adv. Prax.
16. Novat. de Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iv. 5. Cyprian. adv. Jud.
ii. 5. Antioch. Syn. contr. Paul. apud Routh, Rell. t. 2, p. 469.
Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor. 29 and 39. Hær. 71, 5. Chrysost.
in Gen. Hom. 41, 6 and 7. These references are principally from
Petavius; also from Dorscheus, who has written an elaborate commentary
on this Council. The implication alluded to above is, that the Son is
of a visible substance, and thus is naturally the manifestation of the
Invisible God. Bull (Def. F. N. iv. 3) denies what Petavius maintains,
that this doctrine is found in Justin, Origen, &c. The Catholic
doctrine is that the Son manifests Himself (and thereby His Father) by
means of material representations. Augustine seems to have been the
first who changed the mode of viewing the texts in question, and
considered the divine appearance, not God the Son, but a created
Angel. vid. de Trin. {268} ii. passim. Jansenius considers that he did
so from a suggestion of S. Ambrose, that the hitherto received view
had been the "origo hæresis Arianæ," vid. his Augustinus, lib. proœm.
c. 12, t. 2, p. 12.
3. Exodus xxxiii. 23.—"Thou shalt see My back,
but My face," &c [ta opiso mou] and not [to prosopon].
Gregory Naz. interprets [to opiso ([opisthia])]
to mean God's works in contrast with His [eidos].
4. Deut. xxviii. 66.—"Why Life shall be hanging
before thee."
Athanasius says, "His crucifixion is denoted by
'Ye shall see your Life hanging.'" Orat. ii. 16, supr. vol. i. p.
270.
Vid. Iren. Hær. iv. 10, 2. Tertull. in Jud. 11.
Cyprian. Testim. ii. 20. Lactant. Instit. iv. 18. Cyril. Catech. xiii.
19. August. contr. Faust. xvi. 22, which are referred to in loc. Cypr.
(Oxf. Tr.) To which add Leon. Serm. 59, 6. Isidor. Hisp. contr. Jud. i.
35, ii. 6. Origen. in Cels. ii. 75. Epiph. Hær. 24, p. 75. Damasc. F.
O. iv. 11. fin. This interpretation I am told by a great authority is
recommended even by the letter, which has [Hebrew-1],
[apenanti ton ophthalmon sou], in Sept. "Pendebit
tibi a regione," vid. Gesenius, who also says, "Since things which are
à regione of a place, are necessarily a little removed from
it, it follows that [Hebrew-2]
signifies at the same time to be at a small distance," referring to
the case of Hagar, who was but a bow-shot from her child. Also, though
the word here is [Hebrew-3],
yet [Hebrew-4]
which is the same root, {269} is used for hanging on a stake, or
crucifixion, e.g. Gen. xl. 19. Deut. xxi. 22. Esth. v. 14; vii. 10.
5. Psalm xliv. 9.—"Therefore God, Thy God, hath
anointed Thee," &c.
"Wherefore," says Athan. "does not imply
reward of virtue or conduct in the Word, but the reason why He came
down to us, and of the Spirit's anointing which took place in Him for
our sakes. For he says not, 'Wherefore He anointed Thee in order to
Thy being God or King or Son or Word;' for so He was before and is for
ever, as has been shown; but rather, 'Since Thou art God and King,
therefore Thou wast anointed, since none but Thou couldest unite man
to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image of the Father, in which we were made
in the beginning; for Thine also is the Spirit.' ... That as through
Him we have come to be, so also in Him all men might be redeemed from
their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled." Orat. i. § 49,
supr. vol. i. p. 230.
The word "wherefore" denotes the fitness why the
Son of God should become the Son of man. His Throne, as God, is for
ever; He has loved righteousness; therefore He is equal
to the anointing of the Spirit, as man. And so S. Cyril in Joan. lib.
v. 2. "In this ineffable unity," says St. Leo, "of the Trinity, whose
words and judgments are common in all, the Person of the Son has fitly
undertaken to repair the race of man, that since He it is by whom all
things were made, and without whom nothing is made, and who breathed
the truth of rational life into {270} men fashioned of the dust of the
earth, so He too should restore to its lost dignity our nature thus
fallen from the citadel of eternity, and should be the reformer of
that of which He had been the maker." Leon. Serm. 64, 2. vid. Athan.
de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. In illud Omn. 2. Cyril. in Gen. i. p. 13.
6. Prov. viii. 22.—"The Lord created Me in the
beginning of His ways, for His works."
The long and beautiful discourse left us by
Athanasius on the First-born and His condescension, may be said to
have grown out of what must be considered a wrong reading of this
verse, created for possessed, [ektise] for [ektesato]
being the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew [Hebrew],
as also in Gen. xiv. 19, 22. Such too is the sense of the word given
in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and the greater number of
primitive writers. In consequence we find that it was one of the
passages relied upon by the forerunners of the Arians in the 3rd
century, vid. supr. vol. i. pp. 45-47. On the rise of Arianism,
Eusebius of Nicomedia appealed to it against Alexander; also the other
Eusebius in Demonstr. Evan v. p. 212, &c. It was still insisted on
in A.D. 350.
On the other hand, Aquila translates [ektesato],
and so read Basil c. Eunom. ii. 20, Nyssen c. Eunom i. p. 34, Jerome
in Is. xxvi. 13; and the Vulgate translates possedit, vid. also
Gen. iv. 1, and Deut. xxxii. 8. The Hebrew sense is also recognised by
Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. iii. 2, p. 153, and Epiph. Hær. 69, 24. {271}
Athanasius, assuming the word created to
be correct, interprets it of our Lord's human nature, as do Epiph. Hær.
69, 20-25. Basil. Ep. viii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30. 2. Nyss. contr. Eunom.
ut. supr. et al. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 155. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 36-49.
Ambros. de Fid. i. 15. August. de Fid. et Symb. 6.
Our Lord is [arche hodon],
says Athan. Orat. ii. 47, fin. in contrast with His proper Sonship;
and so Justin understands the phrase, according to the Benedictine Ed.
vid. supr. art. Indwelling.
7. Isa. liii. 7.—"He shall be led as a sheep to
the slaughter."
Athan. says, Orat. i. § 54, supr. vol. i. p.
234, as elsewhere, that the error of heretics in their interpretation
of Scripture arises from their missing the person, time,
circumstances, &c., which Scripture has in view, and which (as I
understand him to imply) Tradition (that is, the continuous teaching
of the Church,) supplies; just as the Jews, as regards Isa. liii.
instead of learning from Philip, as he says, the meaning of the
chapter, conjecture its words to be spoken of Jeremias or some other
of the Prophets.
The more common evasion on the part of the Jews
was to interpret the prophecy of their own sufferings in captivity. It
was an idea of Grotius that the prophecy received a first fulfilment
in Jeremiah. vid. Justin. Tryph. 72 et al. Iren. Hær. iv. 33. Tertull.
in Jud. 9. Cyprian Testim. in Jud. ii. 13. Euseb. Dem. iii. 2, &c.
{272}
8. Jerem. xxxi. 22.—"The Lord hath created a
new salvation," &c.
This is the Septuagint version, as Athan. notices
Expos. F. § 3, Aquila's being "The Lord hath created a new thing in
the woman." The Vulgate ("a new thing upon the earth, a woman shall
compass a man,") is with the Hebrew. Athan. has preserved Aquila's
version in three other places, Ps. xxx. 12, lix. 5, and lxv. 18.
9. Matt. i. 25.—"And he knew her not, until,"
&c., that is, until then when it became impossible, and need not
be denied.
Supposing it was said, "He knew her not till her
death," would not that mean, "He never knew her"? and in like manner,
if she was "the Mother of God," it was an impossible idea, and the
Evangelist would feel it to be so. They only can entertain the idea
who in truth do not believe our Lord's divinity, who do not believe
literally that the Son of Mary is God. Vid. art. Mary.
10. Matt. iii. 17.—"This is My well-beloved
Son," [agapetos], &c. "Only-begotten and
Well-beloved are the same," says Athan. ... "hence the Word, with a
view of conveying to Abraham the idea 'Only begotten,' says, 'Offer
thy Son, thy Well-beloved.'" Orat. iv. § 24. He adds, ibid. iv. §
29, "The word 'Well-beloved' even the Greeks, who are skilful in
grammar, know to be equivalent with 'Only-begotten.' For Homer speaks
thus of Telemachus, {273} who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the
second book of the Odyssey:—
O'er the wide earth, dear youth,
why seek to run,
An only child, a well-beloved son? ([mounos eon agapetos].)
He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell,
Far from his country, where the strangers dwell.
Therefore he who is the only son of his father is
called well-beloved."
[Agapetos] is explained by [monogenes]
by Hesychius, Suidas, and Pollux; it is the version in the Sept.
equally with [monogenes] of the Hebrew [Hebrew].
Homer calls Astyanax [Hektoriden agapeton];
Plutarch notices the instance of Telemachus, [Homeros agapeton
onomazei mounon telugeton, toutesti me echousi heteron
goneusi mete hexousi gegennemenon], as quoted by
Wetstein in Matt. iii. 17. Vid. also Suicer in voc.
11. Matt. xii. 32.—"Whosoever shall speak a
word," &c.
This passage, which is commented on at Orat. i.
§ 50, Athan. explains at some length in Serap. iv. 8, &c., supr.
vol. i. p. 231. Origen, he says, and Theognostus understand the sin
against the Holy Ghost to be apostasy from the grace of Baptism,
referring to Heb. vi. 4. So far the two agree; but Origen went on to
say, that the proper power or virtue of the Son extends over rational
natures alone, e.g. heathens, but that of the Spirit only over
Christians; those then who sin against the Son or their reason, have a
remedy in Christianity and its baptism, but nothing remains for {274}
those who sin against the Spirit. But Theognostus, referring to the
text, "I have many things to say, but ye cannot bear them now;
howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth," &c., argued that to sin
against the Son was to sin against inferior light, but against the
Spirit was to reject the full truth of the Gospel.
12. Matt. xiii. 25.—"His enemy came and
over-sowed cockle," &c. [epispeiras], Decr. § 2. Orat. i.
§ 1, &c., &c. supr. vol. i. pp. 14, 155.
An allusion to this parable is very frequent in
Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism. He draws it out at
length, Orat. ii. § 34. "What is sown in every soul from the
beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that
is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is
always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that he is the
eternal offspring of His substance; and there is no idea involved in
these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men
slept, made a second sowing, of 'He is a creature,' and 'There was
once when He was not,' and 'How can it be?' thenceforth the wicked
heresy of Christ's enemies rose." Elsewhere, he uses the parable for
the evil influences introduced into the soul upon Adam's fall, contr.
Apoll. i. § 15, as does S. Irenæus Hær. iv. 40, n. 3, using it of
such as lead to backsliding in Christians, ibid. v. 10, n. 1. Gregory
Nyssen, of the natural passions and of false reason misleading them,
de An. et Resurr. t. ii. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156, c. 2. {275}
Tertullian uses the image in a similar but higher
sense, when he applies it to Eve's temptation, and goes on to contrast
it with Christ's birth from a Virgin: "In virginem adhuc Evam
irrepserat verbum ædificatorium mortis; in Virginem æque
introducendum erat Dei Verbum exstructorium vitæ ... Ut in doloribus
pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit; contra Maria," &c. de
Carn. Christ. 17. S. Leo, as Athan., makes "seed" in the parable apply
peculiarly to faith in contrast with obedience, Serm.
69, 5, init.
13. John i. 1.—"In the beginning," &c. vid.
Orat. i. § 11, supr. vol. i. p. 167.
If "beginning" in this verse be taken, not to
imply time, but origination, then the first verse of St. John's Gospel
may be interpreted "In the Beginning," or Origin, i.e. in the Father, "was
the Word." Thus Athan. himself understands the text. Orat. ii. 57.
Orat. iv. § 1. vid. also Orat. iii. § 9. Origen. in Joan. tom. 1,
17. Method. ap. Phot. cod. 235, p. 940. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p.
106. Cyril. Thesaur. 32, p. 312. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 11 and 14,
pp. 118, 123, and Jerome in Calmet on Ps. 109.
14. John i. 3.—"Without Him was nothing made
that was made." Vid. Orat. i. § 19. supr. p. 179.
The words "that was made" which end this verse
were omitted by the ancient citers of it, as Irenæus, Clement, Origen,
Eusebius, Tertullian, nay, Augustine; but because it was abused by the
Eunomians, Macedonians, {276} &c., as if derogatory to the
divinity of the Holy Spirit, it was quoted in full, as by Epiphanius,
Ancor. 75, who goes so far as to speak severely of the ancient mode of
citation. vid. Fabric. and Routh, ad Hippol. contr. Noet. 12.
Also vid. Simon. Hist. Crit. Comment. pp. 7, 32,
52. Lampe in loc. Joann. Fabric. in Apocryph. N. T. t. 1, p. 384.
Petav. de Trin. ii. 6, § 6. Ed. Ben. in Ambros. de Fid. iii. 6.
Wetstein in loc. Wolf. Cur. Phil. in loc. The verse was not ended as
we at present read it, especially in the East, till the time of S.
Chrysostom, according to Simon, (vid. Ben. Præf. in Joann. § iv.)
though, as has been said above, S. Epiphanius had spoken strongly
against the ancient reading. S. Ambrose loc. cit. refers it to the
Arians, Lampe refers it to the Valentinians on the strength of Iren. Hær.
i. 8, n. 5. Theophilus in loc. (if the Commentary on the Gospels is
his) understands by [ouden] "an idol," referring to 1 Cor.
viii. 4. Augustine, even at so late a date, adopts the old reading,
vid. de Gen. ad lit. v. 29-31. It was the reading of the Vulgate, even
at the time it was ruled by the Council of Trent to be authentic, and
of the Roman Missal. The verse is made to end after "in Him," (thus, [oud'
hen ho gegonen en autoi]) by Epiph. Ancor. 75. Hil.
in Psalm. 148, 4. Ambros. de Fid. iii. 6. Nyssen in Eunom. i. p. 84,
app., which favours the Arians. The counterpart of the ancient
reading, which is very awkward, ("What was made in Him was life,") is
found in August. loc. cit. and Ambrose in Psalm xxxvi. 35, but he also
notices "What was made, was in Him," de Fid. loc. cit. It is
remarkable that {277} St. Ambrose attributes the present punctuation
to the Alexandrians (in loc. Psalm.) in spite of Athan.'s and
Alexander's (Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 733), nay, Cyril's (in loc. Joann.)
adoption of the ancient.
15. John ii. 4.—"Woman," &c. "He chid His
Mother," says Athan.
[Epeplette]; and so [epetimese],
Chrysost. in loc. Joann. Hom. 21, 3, and Theophyl. [hos
despotes epitimai], Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. [entrepei],
Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. [memphetai], Alter Anon. ibid. [epitima
ouk atimazon alla diorthoumenos], Euthym. in loc. [ouk
epeplexen], 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 [ti moi kai soi], to remind our Lady that He was the
Son of God and must be "in His Father's house." "Repellens ejus
intempestivam festinationem," Iren. Hær. iii. 16, n. 7, who thinks
she desired to drink of His cup; others that their entertainer was
poor, and that she wished to befriend him. Nothing can be argued from
S. Athan.'s particular word here commented on, how he would have taken
the passage. That the tone of our Lord's words is indeed (judging
humanly and speaking humanly) cold and distant, is a simple fact, but
it may be explained variously. It is observable that [epiplettei]
and [epitimai] are the words used by Theophylact (in Joan. xi.
34, vid. infra, art. Specialties,) for our Lord's treatment of
His own sacred body. {278} But they are very vague words, and have a
strong meaning or not, as the case may be.
16. John x. 30.—"I and My Father are one."
"They contend," says Athan., Orat. iii. § 10,
supr. vol. i. p. 369, "that the Son and the Father are not in such
wise one as the Church preaches ... but that, since what the Father
wills, the Son wills also, and ... is in all respects concordant ([symphonos])
with Him ... therefore it is that He and the Father are one. And some
of them have dared to write as well as to say this," viz. Asterius;
vid. Orat. iii. § 2, supr. vol. i. p. 360.
We find the same doctrine in the Creed ascribed
to Lucian, as translated above, Syn. § 23, supr. vol. i. p. 97, where
vid. note 2; vid. also infra. art. [homoion]. Besides Origen,
Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) Hilary, (as mentioned in
the note at vol. i. p. 97,) "one" is explained as oneness of will by
S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains John x. 30, by xvii.
22, like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius, Eccl.
Theol. iii. 19, p. 193, and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. pp.
28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are
collected by Maldonat. in loc.
17. John x. 30, 38. xiv. 9.—"I and the Father
are One." "The Father is in Me, and," &c. "He that seeth Me,"
&c.
These three texts are found together frequently
in Athan., particularly in Orat. iii., where he considers the
doctrines of the "Image" and the [perichoresis];
vid, {279} de Decr. § 21, § 31. de Syn. § 45. Orat. iii. 3, 5, 6,
10, 16 fin. 17. Ep. Æg. 13. Sent D. 26. ad Afr. 7, 8, 9. vid. also
Epiph. Hær. 64, 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin. Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111.
Potam. Ep. ap. Dacher. t. 3, p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 41. Vid. also
Animadv. in Eustath. Ep. ad Apoll. Rom. 1796, p. 58.
In Orat. iii. § 5, these three texts, which so
often occur together, are recognised as "three;" so are they by
Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. iii. 19, and he says that Marcellus and "those
who Sabellianise with him," among whom he included Catholics, were in
the practice of adducing them, [thrullountes]; which bears
incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the [perichoresis]
was the great criterion between orthodox and Arian. To the many
instances of the joint use of the three which are given supr. may be
added Orat. ii. 54 init. 67 fin. iv. 17, Serap. ii. 9, Serm. Maj. de
fid. 29. Cyril. de Trin. p. 554, in Joann. p. 168. Origen, Periarch.
p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. Ambros. Hexaem. vi. 7. August. de Cons. Ev. i.
7.
18. John xiv. 28.—"The Father is greater than
I."
Athan. explains these words by comparing them
with "Made so much better than the Angels," Hebr. i. 1. "He
says not 'the Father is better than I,' lest we should conceive
Him to be foreign to His Nature," as Angels are foreign in nature to
the Son; "but greater, not indeed in greatness nor in time, but
because of His generation from the Father Himself," Orat. i. § 58,
that is, on account of the principatus of the Father, as the
and [arche] and [pege theotetos],
and of His own filietas. {280}
19. Acts x. 36.—"God sent the word to the
children of Israel ... You know the word," &c.
So the Vulgate, but the received Greek runs with
Athan. Orat. iv. § 30. [ton logon, hon apesteile ... houtos esti
... humeis oidate to genomenon rhema]. The followers of
Paul of Samosata, with a view to their heresy, interpreted these
words, as Hippolytus before them, as if [ton logon] were either
governed by [kata] or attracted by [hon, houtos]
agreeing with [ho logos] understood. Dr. Routh in loc. Hipp. (vid.
Noët 13) who at one time so construed it, refers to 1 Pet. ii. 7,
John iii. 34, as parallel, also Matt. xxi. 42. And so 'Urbem quam
statuo,' &c. vid. Raphel. in Luc. xxi. 6. vid. also [ten
archen hoti kai lalo humin], John viii. 25, with J.
C. Wolf's remarks, who would understand by [archen] omnino,
which Lennep however in Phalar. Ep. says it can only mean with a
negative. The Vulgate is harsh in understanding [logos] and [rhema]
as synonymous, and the latter as used merely to connect the clauses.
Moreover, if [logos] be taken for [rhema, ton logon
apesteile] is a harsh phrase; however, it occurs Acts xiii. 26. If
[lolos] on the other hand has a theological sense, a primâ
facie countenance is given to the distinction between "the Word"
and "Jesus Christ," which the Samosatenes wished to deduce from the
passage.
20. Rom. i. 20.—"His Eternal Power and
Divinity."
Athanasius understands this of our Lord. Orat. i.
§ 11. Syn. § 49. vid. Justinian's Comment. in Paul. {281} Epp. for
its various interpretations. It was either a received interpretation,
or had been adduced at Nicæa, for Asterius had some years before
these Discourses replied to it, vid. Syn. § 18, supr. vol. i. p. 88,
and Orat. ii. § 37, p. 297.
[Contributed by Dan Meardon, Cary, NC, USA]
Continue
Top | Contents | Works | Home
Newman Reader Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|